Wanted: Men of substance, not substantial men

So should it be five selectors or three? Totally irrelevant! Should we light a gas stove with a match or a lighter? Should we put the shirt on first or the trouser? It doesn’t matter because it is the quality at the table that is more important than the number of chairs. If that means anything, since they are the flavour of the week, Australia have four!

Actually we need to go further back; to the hand that picks the selector. That hand needs to be clean and currently it isn’t. As long as a selector represents a region rather than a nation, we will have inefficiencies; as long as he is voted by state associations who depend on him pushing local cricketers through, Indian cricket will never be completely focused. You need to heal a wound, not merely to clean it.

Three selectors would never be able to watch enough cricketers to pick the best 15. Neither, for that matter, would five because we have simply too much cricket. And hence the need for scouts reporting to selectors. Those scouts already exist and they must bring the number of cricketers under contention down to no more than 30 or 35.

The national selectors cannot view more than that number; 20 in contention for a national place and 15 in the ‘A’ squad. If a cricketer is outside this list, either he isn’t good enough anyway or there is a conspiracy greater than the diversion of charity money to politicians keeping him out.

Once you have a short list of 35, I believe you need four or five selectors to watch them in action and pick a national side in association with the captain and the coach. There is no need for the secretary to be in that meeting or indeed for the team to be ratified by anybody in the BCCI. If you have picked the right men you should not have to sit in judgement over them. That is wasteful, impure and a sign of insecurity.

All the more critical, therefore, that the four or five men be appropriate. Should they have played cricket at international level? It certainly helps but it cannot be the most important factor.

Commitment and integrity should come first and that is not always a necessary follow-up of being a cricketer. Playing 75 Tests does not make you a good selector just as producing 10 children doesn’t necessarily make you a good father. The skills required for one are different from the skills required for another!

Indeed, the assumption that being a former cricketer automatically bestows all virtue on a person is both amusing and sad. Like much of folklore it has little relation to fact and hence the need to state it endlessly. Truths don’t need constant repetition; if you hear something too often it is possibly to conceal something.

Not all great singers have been fine composers, the best performers need not be the best judges of talent. The best football managers have never been great players, the finest literary agents are rarely outstanding novelists. The most valuable advice I have received on presenting a television show has come from producers or cameramen who have hardly, if ever, presented a live programme. To be a selector requires a willing eye, a commitment to quality and a degree of freedom.

When experince and commitment do meet though, it makes for a potent combination.

Allan Border and David Boon formed a fine pair of selectors probably as much for their wide experience as for their commitment to Australian cricket. India’s top four or five selectors should have played cricket but should have the desire and the humility to travel and watch emerging players; they should get turned on by their talent and attitude. Such men are rare, finding them is an exercise in itself.

Indeed that is what it is all about, finding the right people. The rest is mere detail!