I do not know what makes you think "politics is rife in Indian cricket". It would be much better to say which player you think should have played in place of which player (who was kept in the side due to "Politics") and I will give a detailed reply.
Yes the selection system is not perfect thanks to a sort of 'proportional representation" in the selection of selectors. But invariably that effects (on the few occasions that it does which is not as often as is claimed) the fringe players in a touring squad. Of course, everyone is not satisfied with the final selection but thats no surprise. I haven't ever seen a billion people agreeing on fifteen names. So if the player YOU or I think should be in the squad blame it on politics if he doesn't.
Of course, different selectors think differently. Sometimes a player is chosen with three selectors for and two against. Clearly if two of five selectors think he should not be selected, there will be millions amongst the fans who will think so too. Does that imply politics? Is there no room for 'normal' unbiased dissent amongst selectors and fans? Must we always assume the worst?
The panel under Vengsarkar did not think Ganguly deserved a place in the Rest of India squad and the one under Srikanth felt he should be in the squad for the first two Tests. Does this necessarily mean one or the other selection panel was indulging in politics? Is it not possible that these five people (or the majority amongst them) think differently than the majority in the earlier panel?
By the way, how come no one screams for politics in the dropping of Jaffer (a Mumbai man with two Test double hundreds). I am not saying he should be in the side. Just pointing out that fans are fickle and they have their favourites and the moment they (the favourites) are not selected the red light is turned on.
How many chances Badrinath got this year in all? Wanr me to tell you what he scored?
When you get a chance you have to encash it? Its a tough professional world.
Kaif was unlucky to be dropped after the West Indies tour in 2006. But why was he in the side in the first place? because Sachin was injured. When Sachin came back, he had to play. Is this politics? Doesn't it happen in Australia. Want to count the number of times MacGill has filled in for Warne with great distinction and yet been dropped when Warne returned. It has also happened to batsmen. Was that politics?
Yes. I too think Kaif has been very unlucky in this respect and i do believe that some players are more equal than the others in India due to their glamour but that includes Yuvraj, probably at the top of the list. He is the media's darling, fans love him and he has very powerful backers (even if we dont get into the argument about how talented he is) and yet he has played only 23 Test matches. Surely an average of 32.8 PLUS all these other factors I mentioned in the preceding sentence PLUS a hint of politics should have seen him play more. Was it politics that kept him out or that made him play even the 23 Tests that he did?
SJS, I played divisional cricket in Tamil Nadu - I have some idea of how the system works in India. I also play Shires cricket here in Sydney so I can relate a lot of what I see in Australia back to how things are done in India.
I stand firm in my belief that selection is not based purely on merit in India.....Kaif averages 63 in his last 5 test matches (including a match saving effort against England) ...now why was he dropped for Ganguly in 2006.
Ganguly is not an all time great test batsman or anything ....he was a ok test batsman - but a guy who would more often than not fail against stronger bowling attacks and/or in demanding conditions.
So why was he recalled in place of a younger batsman who had shown promise and who had his whole future ahead of him - not to mention a vastly superior fielder also ? Why was he recalled for this test against Australia when the previous selection committee decided to overlook him for the Irani trophy ?
Why ignore Kaif, a guy who had just made 94 against some of the best performers in Pura Cup two weeks ago for India A for a guy who has never really done well against AUstralia ?
I can guarantee you that in a professional system like Australia, Ganguly would never have made it back into the team.
I can give you a couple of other names off the top of my head that have been harshly done by:
Pankaj Dharmani - wicketkeeper who averaged over 50 in domestic including runs against touring international teams. Never even got a single test for India and a bunch of guys with decidely inferior records did.
Aakash Chopra - Guy showed real promise as a test opener in 2003 but hey we jerked him out of the team just to accommodate Yuvraj.
You talk about fickle fans....and yes that is true, a lot of Indian fans are fickle. However a lot of Indian fans exhibit another quality - they can't accept the flaws in their cricketing heroes and the fact there may actually be better options albeit less glamorous options than them.
Sachin Tendulkar is the classic example - good player but massively overrated; He almost invariably flops in situations where India need him to play well.
But very few India fans are willing to accept that.
Greg Chappell alluded to this when he was India's coach - if a guy is a superstar, he is virtually untouchable irrespective of performance - India seems to have this attitude that a younger player could not possibly be better than some of the senior guys.
You have to ask yourself why a country with an unmatched passion for the game and a strong talent base does not consistently churn out good performances.
That's because the system sucks - Big Time. Lack of professionalism in administration, training and development, favouritism in team selection etc....the list goes on.
