Team selections and the legality of the finals - letter

Frankly, I am neither a sports writer nor a journalist, yet my love for the game has prompted me to pen this words offering my comments to the other cricket loving public and the authorities concerned. Rightly or wrongly the chairman and the selection comittee of Sri Lanka cricket chose a squad of 15 members considered to be the best available at current times based on their particular skills. This squad was approved by the Minister of Sports. Any casualty could be replaced by any one of the 15 as per the skills required and therefore we had to presume that all members of the squad so chosen were equally important and talented.

Many knowledgeable cricketers would undoubtedly agree that Marvan Attapatu was the most accomplished and technically correct batsman of the squad, closely followed by Kumar Sangakkara one of the best wicket keeper-batsmen in the world if not the best and captain Mahela Jayawardene. The three of them could emulate such great batsmen such as Anura Tennakoon, Roy Dias, Sidath Wettamuny and Ranjan Madugalle. Needless to say that Sanath Jayasuriya is a class by himself, one of the finest all-rounders in world cricket and the biggest hitter of the ball, while Muthiaha Muralidaran is the most feared and the best spinner currently in world cricket. There were four other all-rounders namely Chaminda Vaas, Maharoof, Tilakaratne Dilshan and Russel Arnold. There were two other youngsters of much promise in Upul Tharanga and Chamara Silva as quality batsmen. Lasith Malinga, Dilhara Fernando and Kulasekera were the fast and medium pace fast bowlers while Malinga Bandara was chosen as the leg spinner who could also bat courageously.

In my evaluation Upul Tharanga who played as the opening partner of Sanath in all the games was not consistent although he got about 4 half centuries in about ten matches. Russel Arnold too who played in all matches got only one half a century and run a ball in the rest of the matches, also did not contribute anything substantial. He a times with his ‘run a ball’ play was not adequate to the targeted score in the respective matches, where as Maharoof could have filled that role as a ‘pinch’ hitter and a good accurate medium/pacer.

Out of the 15 selected, 2 played one match each while the most accomplished batsman played none at all in the total tournament, but yet doing the duties of a ‘waterman’. What a sportsman Mavan was, having been the Sri Lanka captain before, he did his job ungrudgingly. I salute Asantha de Mel and his co-selectors for their forth righteousness in following a set pattern despite whatever criticism they faced.

The final world cup match itself was an utter failure and a joke to many a serious cricket followers. Firstly having organised the world tournament for almost 50 days the organisers failed to play a fifty over each side final. Secondly by reducing the number of overs to 38 and then 36, gave and undue advantage to a stronger batting side who could ruthlessly go for the runs getting the opponents to chase a score under severe pressure. The Duckworth/Lewis system appears to be very theoretical and can be useful only in an unavoidable situation. Thirdly the organisers failed to consider the playing time available in the background of cloudy conditions that prevailed throughout the day. After midday the organisers could have called off the match and played it on the second day. Fourthly despite Sri Lanka agreeing to complete the overs in extremely bad light the authorities should have applied the rules that were meant to be followed. Neither the umpire nor the referee stood by the rules.

Finally since Adam Gilchrist, opening batsman for Australia admitted using a squash ball inside his left hand glove, one can question the legality of his conduct and further question whether a squash ball or any other hidden foreign matter inside the cricketing gear is permissible. Added to it, is it fair by the rest of the cricketers to take advantage of using something to enhance his batting ability. In fairness to the game and in fairness to the cricketers will the ICC conduct an impartial full scale inquiry in order to take appropriate measures to correct a wrong situation.

If found guilty it would be justice to offer one of the three following measures:

1. To make both teams joint champions
2. Replay the match in a neutral surrounding with fifty overs for each side.
3. To withhold the awarding of the trophy/ No award

True on that day Sri Lanka would have performed below that of Australia, but with ‘Gilchrist factor’ Sri Lanka was not provided with a fair opportunity to play the game.

I trust that our Sri Lanka cricket board would act in the best possible manner based on a principle so that all cricket playing countries would benefit by such action, better late than never.

Yours faithfully
Gerry Hidelaratchi

PS: The writer is a past cricket captain of St. Sylvester’s College who played for the University of Ceylon and Nationalised Services apart from been vice president and Acting president of NSCA. He has also served in the disciplinary committee of the Sri Lanka Cricket Board.