srikkanth thinks only chennai players are capable

[rkt.india]

Oh please!Rohit Sharma has been given more chances than all these players combined but nobody talks about his connections in BCCI:winky:

Rohit Sharma has not played a single test yet.

[Ultimate_Game]

Has been the bane of Indian cricket and something which is not likely to change in the future. GRV packed the side with Karnataka players in late 90s, Vengsarkar pushed the case of Mumbai players and Cheeka has done it for TN players. Don;t have any hopes of it changing when the new selection committee takes over.

The only way to improve the selection is to revamp the selection process. Instead of 5 selectors representing 5 zones we need to have a 3 man national selection panel with 3 selectors prominent and well respected cricketers (either Ranji or intl level). Folks like Kumble, Dravid, Akaash Chopra etc. In the current scenario when a selector represents a particular zone by default the onus is on the selector to push for his zone and his success/failure is represented by how many players he was able to push from his zone/region. Thus selection becomes a game of politics and give & take, and not solely based on merit which it should be. When the selection panel becomes a 3 man panel who don't represent a particular zone then you will see selectors picking players on merit without any consideration to his zonal affiliations.

[The Outsider]

My god!you can't accept that you were wrong, can you? For my views on selecting srikanth jnr, the search function would help you to find if i had commented on that on the thread discussing that. Since the OP was clearly talking about international selection of certain players,not one of whom is named srikanth, why would you think that that particular selection, which i had not talked about here, is something i was defending?

Just because the OP omitted to name Srikkanth does not take away from the fact that the OP was intended as a general criticism of a biased selector rather than questioning of some specific selection. You can choose to believe otherwise.

[The Outsider]

The only way to improve the selection is to revamp the selection process. Instead of 5 selectors representing 5 zones we need to have a 3 man national selection panel with 3 selectors prominent and well respected cricketers (either Ranji or intl level). Folks like Kumble, Dravid, Akaash Chopra etc.

How can 3 selectors realistically watch all domestic and A tour cricket, which is what selectors should ideally be doing.

[GautiMaan]

How was the last Ranji season for Badri?He's coming into the team from nowhere:facepalm:Cheeka should've atleast tried to appear unbiased

[SLICKR392]

Akash Chopra tweets.. Goodbye Srikkanth ....Theatre of the absurd, or a comedy of errors over 4 years! :hysterical: http://knittins.blogspot.in/2012/08/goodbye-srikkanth.html

[Ultimate_Game]

How can 3 selectors realistically watch all domestic and A tour cricket' date=' which is what selectors should ideally be doing.[/quote'] They can have additional folks or "scouts", if you will, to watch the games, something similar to what happens in professional sports all over the world. For example a head coach and GM have to decide on the draft in NFL but they don't see ever single player. They rely on their hand picked men/scouts to provide the feedback and then they watch particular players/matches to see what they are interested in. Same process can work in cricket. Let's say the 3 selectors use their network to get feedback on players, and word does go wound as it did when Tendulkar emerged or how Kohli emerged or how folks are talking about Chand, and they can decide to wtach the matches in which potential players are playing. I don't think reducing the no. of selectors from 5 to 3 will hamper the selection panel's ability to follow domestic cricket all that much. But the advantage we get while getting away from zonal/regional selections will far outweigh any negative that might be there with the 3 selector system.

[The Outsider]

They can have additional folks or "scouts", if you will, to watch the games, something similar to what happens in professional sports all over the world. For example a head coach and GM have to decide on the draft in NFL but they don't see ever single player. They rely on their hand picked men/scouts to provide the feedback and then they watch particular players/matches to see what they are interested in. Same process can work in cricket.

That will do nothing but add another layer of bias.

[Ultimate_Game]

That will do nothing but add another layer of bias.

It wouldn't as the accountability lies with the 3 selectors. Even now selectors rely on the folks they trust to provide them the feedback on potential stars. That will never change and happens everywhere. They will always rely on a former colleague/coach/player etc. say "You gotta see XYZ as he has great potential" but it will be up to the selectors to separate wheat from the chaff. As I said earlier the biggest plus of the 3 man system would be to get away from regional bias that happens right now. Currently it's almost like horse trading where I can very well imagine folks go "I backed you last time to have Vinay Kumar from South zone so this time Dinda should be in from East zone, and next time we will have an extra player from Central". There used to be a great prospect long time back (maybe 80s or 90s) called Zaidi (Ashish Winston Zaidi IIRC) but he never got a chance coz he didn't belong to either Delhi or Mumbai and nobody was to lobby for him. Not saying he would have been a world beater but with this system at least such players belonging to weaker regions/lobbies wouldn't fall through the cracks.

[The Outsider]

It wouldn't as the accountability lies with the 3 selectors. Even now selectors rely on the folks they trust to provide them the feedback on potential stars. That will never change and happens everywhere. They will always rely on a former colleague/coach/player etc. say "You gotta see XYZ as he has great potential" but it will be up to the selectors to separate wheat from the chaff.

These "talent scouts" will be on the market to put in a good word for certain players they can influence the selectors to watch. I don't know why you need to reduce the number of selectors to remove bias. Why can't you have 5 selectors without picking them on a zonal basis?

[saneindian]

How can 3 selectors realistically watch all domestic and A tour cricket' date=' which is what selectors should ideally be doing.[/quote'] 3 selectors with a TRDO type set up which Dalmiya and Bindra had started in early 2000s is the way to go. For reasons best known to the current gang ruling the BCCI, that TRDO program was shutdown. The likes of Dhoni, RP , Sree, Munaf, Raina were all initially spotted through that highly successful program.

[Ultimate_Game]

These "talent scouts" will be on the market to put in a good word for certain players they can influence the selectors to watch. I don't know why you need to reduce the number of selectors to remove bias. Why can't you have 5 selectors without picking them on a zonal basis?

No system will ever be fool proof or without problems and eventually it will depend on the people who are running it. But just like democracy, I feel the 3 man system is the best option we have. At least it will take us away from regional/zonal selections.

[The Outsider]

No system will ever be fool proof or without problems and eventually it will depend on the people who are running it. But just like democracy' date=' I feel the 3 man system is the best option we have. At least it will take us away from regional/zonal selections.[/quote'] Again, why do the number of selectors have to be reduced to get away from zonal pickings?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

every selection committee has been accused of regional bias at some point, some selectors will always go with players they 'know', but CSK cheeka took it to a whole new level, and that's entirely his fault. the guy should have been fired right after he picked his retarded son for an 'A' tour. forget chennai players, the guy made rohit sharma a permanent selection for years even tho rohit did practically nothing.

[Ultimate_Game]

3 selectors with a TRDO type set up which Dalmiya and Bindra had started in early 2000s is the way to go. For reasons best known to the current gang ruling the BCCI' date=' that TRDO program was shutdown. The likes of Dhoni, RP , Sree, Munaf, Raina were all initially spotted through that highly successful program.[/quote'] That selection panel/system in early 2000s was pretty good. We unearthed a lot of talent in the form of Kaif, Yuvi, Dhoni, RP, Sreesanth, irfan, Balaji, Gambhir etc. It also helped that Ganguly didn't try to get players from a certain region and backed the talented youngsters. But the problem is such a system is not good for politics and hanger-ons. You can't appease all the hanfers on by getting them into selection committee.

[Ultimate_Game]

Again' date=' why do the number of selectors have to be reduced to get away from zonal pickings?[/quote'] As I mentioned earlier when selectors themselves are nominated in the selection panel representing a certain region (Nort, West, South, East and Central) there's more pressure/onus on the selectors to pull for their respective regions. When the selection panel won't have selectors representing regions in the selection panel, the regional bias in selection will reduce by itself.

[The Outsider]

As I mentioned earlier when selectors themselves are nominated in the selection panel representing a certain region (Nort' date=' West, South, East and Central) there's more pressure/onus on the selectors to pull for their respective regions. When the selection panel won't have selectors representing regions in the selection panel, the regional bias in selection will reduce by itself.[/quote'] Yeah, but why do you need to reduce the number of selectors for that? You can still have 5 selectors and not pick them on a zonal basis. India's domestic structure is much more vast and complicated than Australia's where they have 3 selectors.

[Ultimate_Game]

Yeah' date=' but why do you need to reduce the number of selectors for that? You can still have 5 selectors and not pick them on a zonal basis. India's domestic structure is much more vast and complicated than Australia's where they have 3 selectors.[/quote'] In India 5 will only lead to more politics and if you have the same no. of selectors as the zones, chances are they will revert back to zonal affiliations after a while. 3 is the optimal number IMO and let's face it I would rather copy a system which has produced the best results over the years rather than continue with a system which hasn't been all that successful.

[The Outsider]

In India 5 will only lead to more politics and if you have the same no. of selectors as the zones' date=' chances are they will revert back to zonal affiliations after a while. 3 is the optimal number IMO and let's face it I would rather copy a system which has produced the best results over the years rather than continue with a system which hasn't been all that successful.[/quote'] Just because 5 is the number of zones does not mean the 5 selectors have to be selected on a zonal basis. In Australia there are 6 teams and at any time there are 3 FC matches going on. In India around 10 domestic matches happen concurrently.

[Ultimate_Game]

Just because 5 is the number of zones does not mean the 5 selectors have to be selected on a zonal basis. In Australia there are 6 teams and at any time there are 3 FC matches going on. In India around 10 domestic matches happen concurrently.

Two reasons I want a smaller selection panel... 1. Sooner than later 5 selection panel will revert back to zonal selection. At first it may work but give it a few years it will be back to the same old system. 2. From experience I have seen the more the no. of people involved, more difficult it is to get something done. I am sure we must have experienced first hand that larger the no. of participants in a meeting the higher the chances of nothing productive happening, other than the agenda for the next meeting. 4 would be better but even no. of selectors will lead to impasse in selection meeting so 3 is the optimal no. Plus folks from SC are more inclined politically and 5 people will simply lead to more of it.