Philosophy of team selection: flexibility has to be the key

Common-sense approach is to understand the skill sets of the players and then make the choices that provide the best balance

December 12, 2017 04:37 pm | Updated 04:37 pm IST

A couple of generations ago, the chairman of selectors in South Zone, while choosing the side for the Duleep Trophy was keen to appear fair. Thus he listed the No. 3 batsmen from each of the States and discussed their respective claims. However, Karnataka’s No. 3 was Gundappa Vishwanath, then India’s best batsman, and the attempt to find a false equivalence was an exercise in mock rationality. And literally, a waste of time.

Something of that mock rationality continues to haunt team selection today, even at the national level.

“We have identified him as a top-order batsman and that’s the only reason he has to sit out,” said India’s ODI captain Rohit Sharma justifying the non-selection of Ajinkya Rahane in the Dharamshala one-dayer against Sri Lanka. “He is an opening batsman and we don’t want to keep changing his batting slot.”

It is an interesting theory, suggesting that India would rather lose a match than upset a top player by including him in the team in a different position. As batsmen struggled against the Sri Lankan medium pacers, displaying poor technique against the seaming ball, “sitting out” was the man whose last ten innings had yielded six fifties and a century.

This is not about an individual, but an inflexible philosophy. Does this mean that when Virat Kohli returns to the side, Shreyas Iyer (who made his debut at No. 3) won’t get a game but will have to follow the original No. 3 around like an understudy for just that role?

In cricket, specialists play an important role. No one expects a fast bowler to turn spinner (Garry Sobers is a glorious exception, of course), or vice versa. Although a wicket-keeper has been known to open India’s bowling, his job description is unambiguous.

Yet, even Test players, whose roles one might expect to be written in stone, know that rigidity is anathema in sport. The great opening batsman Sunil Gavaskar made his highest Test score batting at No. 4. Team selection in one-day cricket, which by definition is more flexible and calls for quick changes in plans, cannot be so uncompromising.

If your top batsman or bowler is forced to sit out for neither balance reasons nor owing to playing conditions, then something cries out for change. Logic is usually a good guide in these matters.

It was logical, for instance, when the previous management decided that a player returning from injury would get his slot back in the team if he confirmed his form in a domestic tournament. Australia go by this rule, and it serves them well.

Team balance is an intriguing concept in cricket. Sometimes player form dictates selection, but playing conditions trump form. On a track helpful to seamers, for example, it makes no sense to play the extra spinner. That seems obvious, but teams often get that wrong.

The ideal XI, according to Don Bradman would comprise “two recognized opening batsmen of whom one shall be a left-hander; three other batsmen of whom one at least should be a left-hander; one all rounder; one wicket-keeper who is also a good bat; one fast bowler who opens with the wind; one fast or medium-pace bowler to open into the wind; one right arm off spinner; one left arm orthodox spinner.”

Even that can only be a general guide, and to try to squeeze a team into a theory is an exercise fraught with danger. The common-sense approach is to understand the skill sets of the players and then make the selectorial choices that provide the best balance.

In Bradman’s ideal team, for example, if the all rounder also bowls left arm spin, then you might not need a specialist. Balance is often the by-product of good selection — but the reverse is equally true.

India’s most venerated captain, Tiger Pataudi, believed that the best team ought to take the field, especially the best bowling team. If it meant three top-class spinners (four, on one occasion), then so be it. It meant that for a whole generation, India produced no fast bowlers. Even the medium pacers quickly discovered they were not welcome. Yet there is something to be said for playing to the team’s strengths.

Just as pace bowlers struggled to break into Indian teams of the 60s (Ramakant Desai was an exception), spinners were usually excess to requirement in the fast-bowling heavy Windies teams of the 80s. Four fast bowlers bowling in rotation doesn’t make for balance, but it sure wins matches!

If in Test cricket, it is usually the balance in bowling that calls for extra thought, in one-day internationals, it is the batting. The reason is simple. In the longer format, teams have to take 20 wickets to win; in the shorter, they only have to score more than the opposition, regardless of how many wickets they take. This shift in focus drives selection.

There are few things more frustrating in sport than watching your top player on the bench while the chosen ones make a hash of the job.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.