IF you think there will come a time in Pakistan when a selected team will satisfy everyone, you might as well believe that your plumber will do a good job on a painless extraction of your tooth without anaesthesia!
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, a position as important as that of a selector, has been given little importance over the years. Since forever it seems, selectors in Pakistan have been at odds with the cricket captain on more occasions than one. In fact, very few chief selectors like Imtiaz Ahmed, Salahuddin and Col. Naushad, have over the years carried an amicable approach to the job. Most of the years we have seen selectors carrying themselves as if with a vengeance and a latent anger that says: “I’m gonna set this captain right, just you wait and see.”
Probably it is because frustration builds up very quickly in the chief selector. He very seldom has all the right answers and finds himself defending a player’s choice or omission on weak ground. And this frustration is often borne out of either lack of knowledge about options or inadequate time allotted to seeing the bloke in the notorious two-day camp. Not long after we see a scolding attitude at the media, especially, and before we know it, asking about why someone has not been chosen is akin to Oliver Twist asking for more bread.
May be the reason why this happens lies at the very top. Usually, PCB chairmen pick men who will either make them feel safe in the eyes of the general-public or make their life easier, or worse, fight their quarrels for them. Therefore, on a lot of occasions PCB bosses have gone for ‘brand names’. Either well-known and successful cricketers, or ones with a long first-class cricket experience have been selected for the job. Traits like objectivity, ability to plan on a three-year strategy, empathy for the young cricketers seldom are taken onto account.
But just about the biggest injustice that has over the years, been done by a selection panel, has been picking players from their workstations, as most of time our chief selectors are either full-time employees of an organization or running their own business. This gives them little time to sit through sessions on a first-class match and locate talent at an early stage. Scorecards are taken as a yardstick and no allowance kept for lack of time given to a batsman or bowler in the middle. Were a selector at the ground, that little opportunity would be enough for the trained eye to spot the potential, no matter what the figures say.
The season Waqar broke through into the Pakistan side he had taken some three wickets for close to 100 runs in the few matches he had played. It took Imran one look at Waqar Younis during a televised game to decide he was a future Pakistan bowler after Haroon Rashid had been pushing his name at the selectors from the Under-19 level but to little avail.
But cricket heads over recent years have to carry the blame for such inadequacies of the selectors. I can understand asking people to do the job on an honorary basis right up to the early 1980s, when there was hardly any money in the Board coffers and everyone from the Chairman down, was drawing his bread and butter from other sources.
This obviously disallows even the most sincere of selectors to take leave from office regularly to go and discover new talent. If they are at a senior level that is even more problematic because of the level of responsibility and the multitude of meetings. To be fair to them, they can’t put a money earning career for national causes. It doesn’t pay the kids fees or bring home the food. It is the talented player, getting limited time in the middle, who therefore suffers the most.
But over the past two decades the money has been there to have full-time paid selectors that are in the employment of PCB and given allowances for travelling to games across the country.
Personally, I advocate a system that should certainly make selectors either perform better or be more accountable. The analogy is drawn from the sales management system in every organization and therefore is time tested.
Let us assume that the Chief Selector is a National Sales Manager and fellow selectors from each province as territory managers. They are then given a target for the quarter which is incentive based. It also has to be based on the approved long term strategy. For instance, a forthcoming series requires a genuine left-arm spinner, a middle-order batsman to replace Inzamam by 2007 and a wicket-keeper who can bat like Gilchrist.
Each selector is therefore asked to submit potential names by end of the season. But rather than on a subjective basis, he is asked to submit a tour plan for the month whereby he guarantees observations of each team’s batting and bowling at least two times per season. He will also be required to file a daily report on his findings for the day, which will include the name of a player that caught his eye, his strengths and weaknesses and earmark him for future observations by another selector when that boy is playing in his territory.
That lad is then earmarked for special observation. Thereafter, his selection into the team is based not on a selectors recommendation but due to the national captain’s insistence. Subsequently, the selector will be held accountable.
Fully paid selectors will then be doing what their job is, without any pressure from their employers. There are many astute observers of the game who are not into high profile jobs. If given a reasonable salary with allowances, they are likely to work sincerely because they may not get such benefits anywhere else and also they will travel with more freedom. Sound character and performance accountability (they can be sacked for recommending the wrong boys too many times) will keep them from falling prey to outside incentives. Even nepotism can be countered because it’s the man’s job at stake.
Once people are asked to give their opinion in writing they are more careful. That, their observations of each and every cricketer is going on record at the PCB’s database will make them think twice of running some boy down to promote their own favourite or that of their boss.
The PCB is making a grave mistake in not professionalising this job. The management must realize that you can’t sell a product just by packaging it well; it also has to have the best ingredients possible. Having a professional, fully paid, career oriented selection panel that is promoted and given financial incentives whenever selections are found to be spot on, is as vital as having an R&D department for a pharmaceutical or engineering firm.
The PCB Chairman must realize that picking a selection panel that devotes “most of its time to watching cricketers at the first-class level” will not be enough. Who determines what ‘most of the time’ comes to? Secondly, once the panel is announced, it is very difficult to put demands on them, especially when they are well entrenched with their connections and status, both in cricket and in their professions. The job will be best performed by the man whose livelihood depends on it.
If any administration can bring in this fair and accountable system it is this one. Shaharyar Khan is clearly working on developing an administration that is fair and transparent. His initiative in arranging for a seminar on cricket development, a thorough evaluation of all past systems and practices and a steely resolve to do justice is quite visible. Indeed it was not one of those seminars which threatened to pass into oblivion. The PCB Chairman sat through every speaker, took notes and commented on every ‘intervention’ as he called it.
His accessibility and excitement at constructive ideas and criticism led to some very poignant thoughts. Sadiq Mohammad, a highly underrated analyst, came up with the idea that there should be one camera at every domestic match fixed on the wicket. It would ensure better decisions by the umpires and for the selectors to be able to view cricketers’ performance where they cannot be.
Someone raised a valid point that when organizations were inducted into the domestic setup in mid 1970s, it was to ensure employment from all over the country. But recently a lot of the organizational teams are becoming regional, even city oriented, in their selection and even look after just one city, like KESC. Shaiza Khan asked that women be allotted a separate ground as it is very difficult to get time to practice as it is always prioritized for boys and expressed the hope that they will get a fairer treatment from the PCB. The need for a coaches academy was highlighted by the PCB Chairman himself and the expected confrontation between city and provincial associations was surprisingly very gentlemanly handled by both.
It now remains to be seen as to how deftly Shaharyar Khan and Rameez handle this glasnost of their own. Let us hope this sincere pair carried us through to the 2007 World Cup. It will need something of a revolution in thinking and approach that we have so far been not used to in PCB affairs.
