Kiran More has come out against the voting system which is a part of the selection process to choose the Indian cricket team. The zonal system is often criticised and an overhaul has been long overdue. For, how can the selectors act with conviction if they are bonded by pressures from their respective zones? The selection committee should be an independant body for a period of three to four years. The selectors should have had some experience in picking sides at some level to some degree. Also, they should have a reputation and not be some one whose motives can be easily questioned when taking tough decisions.
In addition to More’s remarks, VB Chandrasekhar, the South Zone selector, said this:
The chairman should be a strong person who sets the vision for the committee. Interaction with the captain and coach is important. Then there is no question of voting.
I don’t see why voting should not be there. Without voting rights, a person has little power and his word doesn’t really matter. A system of a chairman and two other selectors plus a vote for the captain and coach would mean four votes in total. So, a 2-2 tie would mean the final word would go to the chairman. That way, the chairman has the final say on close calls but over all, decisions are taken with general consensus.
Two of the three selectors More mentioned have retorted as expected. What is important to note is this – More finishes his tenure in three weeks. So why make the comments now and not earlier when he was not happy with the way things were going? What is More looking at in the near future once this tenure is over?
The Indian selection committee will be changed in the near future. It is likely that the current system will finally see an end. That is essentially a good thing. That the new process which will be put in place is a huge improvement is equally important.
Update: More has apparently done a U-turn now. Heh.
Update 2: My more detailed take on the Indian selection process and the way ahead can be read in Haftamag here.
The last I heard from BCCI on the selection committee changes was that they are looking for longer term for the committee…but the zonal system would be retained.
Basically zonal system, or its replacement are not right or wrong in itself. They need to be supported by a proper structure which feeds the right information higher up in the chain. Then, either of these systems are ok.
Otherwise, without the propoer structure in place (school, college, district, club, ranji level of selection structure with channel to feed up the info on eligible candidates) even the non-zonal structure of 3 selectors wont help.
And yes, making them paid professionals is a good idea..even at zonal level.
A zonal system or a system where scouts feed the selectors regarding specific zones are both fine – serving the same purpose of tracking more cricketers.
However, the current zonal system’s problem is that the zone itself chooses the selector and the selector can be removed if he doesn’t get satisfactory amount of players through from that specific zone. It has to be an autonomous body and only then can it function effectively.
The apprehension that the board has had in removing the zonal system is the question, what if the selectors have a bias towards their zones even in a non-zonal setting? In that case, players from a particular zone might miss out. For example, if 2 of the 3 selectors are from Mumbai, then you might see a Romesh Powar or Wasim Jaffer always get in ahead of a Murali Kartik or Aakash Chopra.
While something like this is a possibility, the solution lies in removing the nomination system for selectors and picking credible people in the role. However, a voting system does make sense, with a vote going to the coach/captain
Pratyush: right, zonal system may lead to continued zonal biases. Make the selectors paid professionals, even if from the zone, and make them as well as zonal bodies accountable. Then, people can’t be hired and fired at will, just like in any accountable organisation in the world.
But I do see its a tricky issue, and the problem is we’re only trying to scratch the surface.
Nirav: I see your point and it is an oft repeated point raised against scrapping zonal system. However, in Australia, it is not questioned which selector is from which state. It is because the selectors are credible – reinstates why the people chosen must have the right credentials for the job.
Manish: Yeah we reach a consensus…
More must feature right at the top on any list of Bloggers’ Nightmares – Over the past 1 year or so he has taken more U-turns than the average car.
He isn’t really a blogger’s nightmare. If some one does a lot of U-turns, it doesn’t effect the bloggers in any way. If any thing, the reputation of the person doing many U-turns can be tarnished a bit.
He has maintained his version of what happened in the selection committee meeting btw.