Srinivasan hints he saved MS Dhoni from being axed

[kumar713]

BCCI president N Srinivasan hinted that the board's constitution gives him the power to approve any decision of the national selectors, including that on the captain. When a news channel asked Srinivasan whether there was substance in the media reports that selectors were under pressure to sack MS Dhoni after India lost four Tests in England and another four in Australia but you had backed him, all that Srinivasan said was "it is not proper to discuss selection matters. The constitution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does say that the president has to approve the national team." When the anchor rephrased the question and asked, "So, you have the last word as president? Srinivasan replied, "That's what the constitution of the BCCI says." Asked whether Dhoni should choose to quit the shorter format of the game as suggested by some experts, including former captain Rahul Dravid, Srinivasan said it is for the selectors to take the call. "The selectors are there to take a call. We have an experienced group of selectors. It is for them to decide. But personally I feel that Dhoni is discharging the duties [captaining in all three formats] well," he said. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/srinivasan-hints-he-saved-ms-dhoni-from-being-axed/381153-78.html

[diga]

wasn't it an open secret? :--D

[GautiMaan]

well of course.

[yoda]

So he acted per rules and yet people here were jumping up and down.

[GautiMaan]

So he acted per rules and yet people here were jumping up and down.

Also cant help recalling the amount of stick Srikkanth got here for his selections yet Mr Patil is not mentioned in the same tone for picking Harbhajan,Ishant and Raina all over again.

[NareshK]

Also cant help recalling the amount of stick Srikkanth got here for his selections yet Mr Patil is not mentioned in the same tone for picking Harbhajan' date='Ishant and Raina all over again.[/quote'] Patil also did a good job by selecting B Kumar, Shami Ahmed(for ODIs), Dhawan, Vijay(despite some negative backlash) and sacking Sehwag. If Srikkanth had been the chairman, he would have stuck around with Sehwag and even made him captain as he is a Viru fanboy.

[The Outsider]

So he acted per rules and yet people here were jumping up and down.

There are some rules which are in place to safeguard against large scale misuse of power like the President of India can within the law and rules send back anything passed by the parliament back unilaterally. However, such things are largely ceremonial and are rarely if ever used. Sacking of a captain by the selection committee after 0-8 would certainly not fall under the umbrella of exceptional circumstances.

[GautiMaan]

Patil also did a good job by selecting B Kumar, Shami Ahmed(for ODIs), Dhawan, Vijay(despite some negative backlash) and sacking Sehwag. If Srikkanth had been the chairman, he would have stuck around with Sehwag and even made him captain as he is a Viru fanboy.

Can never be sure,Srikkanth dropped Bhajji didnt he? Anyway can u explain the logic of bringing in Raina ahead of guys like Rayudu.

[King Tendulkar]

There are some rules which are in place to safeguard against large scale misuse of power like the President of India can within the law and rules send back anything passed by the parliament back unilaterally. However' date=' such things are largely ceremonial and are rarely if ever used. Sacking of a captain by the selection committee after 0-8 would certainly not fall under the umbrella of exceptional circumstances.[/quote'] Exactly. But hey we all know yodas pro southie agenda, even when it comes to fat cement makers and oliy rats!:giggle:

[yoda]

There are some rules which are in place to safeguard against large scale misuse of power like the President of India can within the law and rules send back anything passed by the parliament back unilaterally. However' date=' such things are largely ceremonial and are rarely if ever used. Sacking of a captain by the selection committee after 0-8 would certainly not fall under the umbrella of exceptional circumstances.[/quote'] It is up to the BCCI President to decide what adverse impact the decision will have on Indian cricket. Given that the replacements the selectors were looking at were either too young (Kohli) or didn't deserve a place themselves in the team (Sehwag, Gauti), it was the right call then.

[The Outsider]

It is up to the BCCI President to decide what adverse impact the decision will have on Indian cricket. Given that the replacements the selectors were looking at were either too young (Kohli) or didn't deserve a place themselves in the team (Sehwag' date= Gauti), it was the right call then.

No, the rule is in place to prevent impropriety, corruption, or some violation of the BCCI constitution. Cricketing decisions are supposed to be made by the selectors and the President is expected to rubber stamp them, like it happens in the situation of the parliament and President. It is the job of the selectors to decide what is the right cricketing call. If the President wants to make cricketing decisions he should either join the selection committee or get rid of it and make the selections himself.

[vvvslaxman]

late news :cantstop:

[yoda]

No, the rule is in place to prevent impropriety, corruption, or some violation of the BCCI constitution. Cricketing decisions are supposed to be made by the selectors and the President is expected to rubber stamp them, like it happens in the situation of the parliament and President. It is the job of the selectors to decide what is the right cricketing call. If the President wants to make cricketing decisions he should either join the selection committee or get rid of it and make the selections himself.

So you are saying tomorrow if the selection committee wants to name Harby as the National captain, BCCI bosses have to be ok with it without questioning the rationale behind it?

[The Outsider]

So you are saying tomorrow if the selection committee wants to name Harby as the National captain' date=' BCCI bosses have to be ok with it without questioning the rationale behind it?[/quote'] Obviously, unless they suspect that the decision was taken for non cricketing reasons in which case the selection committee should be fired. Look, there are hazaar selections which take place on which people don't agree. The BCCI president cannot be making his personal choice to dictate the selection committee. If he feels they are not doing a good job from a cricketing perspective, even then the committee can be changed. The selection committee is ostenibly chosen on the basis that they are the best judge of who should play on cricketing merit. When some selection backfires it's not the BCCI president who faces the flak, but the selection committee. It's absurd for the president to have rights without responsibilities.

[yoda]

Obviously, unless they suspect that the decision was taken for non cricketing reasons in which case the selection committee should be fired. Look, there are hazaar selections which take place on which people don't agree. The BCCI president cannot be making his personal choice to dictate the selection committee. If he feels they are not doing a good job from a cricketing perspective, even then the committee can be changed. The selection committee is ostenibly chosen on the basis that they are the best judge of who should play on cricketing merit. When some selection backfires it's not the BCCI president who faces the flak, but the selection committee. It's absurd for the president to have rights without responsibilities.

It is not that the BCCI president overrules selection matters on a daily basis. We are talking exceptional circumstances here. Replacing the national captain by someone who has played less than 10 tests or by someone whose place in the team is questionable. It was a wise overrule given the circumstance. Virat Kohli who was M. Amarnath's choice, having hardly cemented his place in the side, was totally overrule worthy. Regarding changing selection committe which is exactly what happened to M. Amarnath, but you can't wait for him to make a bone headed captaincy change to Kohli before getting rid of him.

[The Outsider]

It is not that the BCCI president overrules selection matters on a daily basis. We are talking exceptional circumstances here. Replacing the national captain by someone who has played less than 10 tests or by someone whose place in the team is questionable. It was a wise overrule given the circumstance. It was a wise overrule given the circumstance. Virat Kohli who was M. Amarnath's choice, having hardly cemented his place in the side, was totally overrule worthy. Regarding changing selection committe which is exactly what happened to M. Amarnath, but you can't wait for him to make a bone headed captaincy change to Kohli before getting rid of him.

That it was wise or not is just your personal opinion. It's the job of the selection committee to decide what's wise or not. Interfering in the selection committee's decision on cricketing grounds is not acceptable. They have been chosen to decide what's wise and what's not. If he does not like their wisdom, go ahead and replace them. If tomorrow you feel some selection was not wise and ask Srinivasan why he did not overrule it, he would say it's not his job but the selection committee's. Classic example of excercising rights without taking responsibility. As for wise or not, it's completely subjective. When the decision was made Dhoni's batting and keeping form was in the same boat as Gambhir and Sehwag. Moreover, it's not like inexperienced cricketers have not been made captains before.

[yoda]

That it was wise or not is just your personal opinion. It's the job of the selection committee to decide what's wise or not. Interfering in the selection committee's decision on cricketing grounds is not acceptable. They have been chosen to decide what's wise and what's not. If he does not like their wisdom, go ahead and replace them. If tomorrow you feel some selection was not wise and ask Srinivasan why he did not overrule it, he would say it's not his job but the selection committee's. Classic example of excercising rights without taking responsibility. As for wise or not, it's completely subjective. When the decision was made Dhoni's batting and keeping form was in the same boat as Gambhir and Sehwag. Moreover, it's not like inexperienced cricketers have not been made captains before.

It is up to the person in charge to make that call. There are no rules that state that overrules can only be made in certain circumstance. You think Aussie selectors will replace Clarke without taking CA boss into confidence? Do you think a company's search committee can name it's next CEO without the Chairman of the board approving it? It is no different here.

[DomainK]

Very nice of him to give the hint after the whitewash, when the decision has been vindicated.

[The Outsider]

It is up to the person in charge to make that call. There are no rules that state that overrules can only be made in certain circumstance. You think Aussie selectors will replace Clarke without taking CA boss into confidence? Do you think a company's search committee can name it's next CEO without the Chairman of the board approving it? It is no different here.

There is no point hiding behind the letter of the rules. I've already explained what the spirit of the rules intend. And yeah, I've never heard of the CA boss interfering in selections. Can you give an example? Do you think it's wise to keep picking Tendulkar? Or Harbhajan? Or Ishant? Why does not the president step in and correct the wisdom of the selectors there? He does it in one instance where he himself has a major stake involved being the owner of the club of whom the said player is the captain. And you find that proper? Amazing.

[The Outsider]

Very nice of him to give the hint after the whitewash' date=' when the decision has been vindicated.[/quote'] Won't be surprising to see him backtrack after we lose the series in South Africa - he will then say it's the job of the selectors and he does not interfere in selections.