Guest Column Guest ColumnRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives

Why the BCCI needs to be more open about selection decisions

The case of Stuart Binny's selection for the England tour shows the importance of the need for transparency

Gaurav Kalra

June 6, 2014

Comments: 24 | Text size: A | A

Stuart Binny attempts a reverse sweep, Chennai Super Kings v Rajasthan Royals, IPL 2014, Ranchi, May 13, 2014
Stuart Binny has been made a scapegoat for no fault of his father's © BCCI
Enlarge
Related Links
News : Zaheer out, Gambhir in for England Tests
Players/Officials: Stuart Binny | Roger Binny
Series/Tournaments: India tour of England
Teams: India

An email from the BCCI at the conclusion of a selection committee meeting on May 28 confirmed Karnataka allrounder Stuart Binny's inclusion for the ODI series in Bangladesh and for the Test tour of England. While his ODI selection was less contentious, eyebrows were raised when he made the cut for the Tests in England. The outrage on social media was instant and entirely predictable. Stuart's father, the former India allrounder Roger Binny, is a national selector and the deduction was as vicious as it was simplistic: dad had done son a favour. Binny senior was accused of nepotism, favouritism and worse.

The truth, though, was the stark opposite. At the selection committee meeting, Roger Binny had, in fact, recused himself when Stuart's name came up for discussion - as is mandatory for national selectors to do in such circumstances. Roger excused himself from the meeting to let his four colleagues deliberate on Stuart's claims. It wasn't the first time he had done so: on the two previous occasions that Stuart had been picked for India, his father had not been a party to the decision.

This vital nugget of information, though, was kept away from India's highly opinionated and easily outraged cricket followers, bringing into question yet again the BCCI's policy of doggedly refusing to communicate details about vital decisions. What possibly prevents a media release from including a couple of lines clarifying the situation?

A simple disclosure saying that Binny senior was not part of the team that picked his son would douse the fire before it spreads. Stuart Binny won his spot because he was found meritorious by a majority of the national selection panel, excluding his father. Yet the son is now scoffed at as the beneficiary of his father's largesse. To make matters worse, the BCCI's policy on media interactions mandates that these men cannot clear the air in public; they simply have to sit back and bear the charges hurled in their direction.

In essence, this episode is yet another glaring instance of how the BCCI's Soviet-style lack of communication is proving counter-productive. Several questions emerged after the squad for the series in England was named. For instance, has the door been shut firmly now on Zaheer Khan's career? What explains Umesh Yadav's exclusion, although as many as six frontline quick bowlers have been picked for the series? Does he have fitness problems the world at large is unaware of? Is the bowler once touted as the next big hope in Indian cricket in some sort of worrying decline? Why was room found for only one spare batsman? Were other openers considered before deciding to return to Gautam Gambhir?

Selecting cricket teams isn't an exact science. These choices are, in fact, best described as considered punts. Selectors are mostly former players, who make a judgement call on players, especially those on the fringe, based on several factors - form, fitness, instinct, ability, gumption, track record, and at times a certain X-factor. Some insight into the reasons for those choices would perhaps make for a more informed discourse. It may still spark debates of equal ferocity, but at least those are likely to be based on some degree of insight.

The unprecedented step of taking 18 players on the tour of England, for instance, needed some explanation. Was it as insurance - to have fresh and fit players to call upon, because five Tests are to be played in the space of six weeks? Is it to ensure there is no repeat of the shambles of India's last tour of England, which was derailed by a spate of injuries? If so, why the reluctance to share those perfectly acceptable reasons with the cricket public?

The BCCI's disinclination to make the national selection panel address press conferences is quite understandable. Over the last few years, India's cricket media hasn't merely exploded, it has mutated to the point where hunting for sensational headlines and pursuing manufactured controversies is unfortunately now the default brief for reporters across the spectrum.

To subject selectors to repeated questions of the nature of "why so and so, why not so and so" is an exercise in futility. However, there is an option available to make the media release more meaningful than merely naming the men who will board the plane. Perhaps the Cricket Australia model isn't a bad one to adopt, where the media release sheds some light on the choices made.

By remaining as insular as it does, the BCCI is allowing intrigues and conspiracy theories to fester. The players and selectors in question are left to face the brunt. Stuart Binny's progress in the game, for instance, must not be scuttled because his father is a national selector. Stuart was a significant contributor in Karnataka's run to the Ranji Trophy title last season, and it can hardly be argued his claim to national elevation is without merit. Perhaps he has been chosen as a batting allrounder for the tour? If India are inclined to play five bowlers in one of the Tests, perhaps the thinking is that Binny may offer the right ingredients - bat in the top seven and bowl ten to 15 overs in the day.

Roger Binny has spent a lifetime in cricket as a player, coach and scout, and he ticks all the boxes for an upright selector. He too is tarred with that wretched phrase "conflict of interest", even when he steers well clear of such conflict. The conspiracy theorists could well argue that if he is allowed to be seen to uphold the principles of propriety, it will reflect poorly on those who haven't done so. Indian cricket's problem lies not just in that it is populated by men of doubtful integrity but that it cruelly allows the upright among them to be tarred with the same brush.

Gaurav Kalra is a senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Gaurav Kalra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 13:56 GMT)

I wonder why Umesh Yadav has been left out of the English tour. Recently, he has shown great improvement in line, length, and direction, and has not compromised on speed. What else do you want in a good fast bowler? Is there a logic in the decision by the Selection Committee to leave him out? I think not. Aaron has not impressed me at all; nor has Mohit Sharma. Both are misfits in the National side. Of the pace bowlers, I would retain only Shami, Bhuvaneshwar, and Umesh, and have another good back up to them. Binny's selection is a disgrace. So are those of Ashwin and Jadeja. Both have been overrated and were at the receiving end of the stick in the recently concluded South African and Australian tours. Dhoni's captaincy in test matches too is overrated. May be the English tour will be the last nail in the cricketing coffins of Dhoni, Aaron, Binny, Ashwin, Raina, and Jadeja. If Gambhir can be included in the team to tour England, why not Harbhajan. My two cents worth.

Posted by android_user on (June 7, 2014, 4:10 GMT)

People are just talking about binny's inclusion but what about Ashwin? We all are aware of his dismal performance away...sometimes I wonder, are Ashwin n Jadeja the best 2 spinners in this country? Ojha's last test was Sachin's 200th where he got mom...just hoping that it wasn't thr last of his career

Posted by android_user on (June 7, 2014, 2:56 GMT)

umesh yadav, sanju samson and kl rahul should have been there instead of binny, panjaj singh, gautam gambhir and murali vijay

Posted by   on (June 7, 2014, 0:11 GMT)

And why has Umesh Yadav been overlooked?

Posted by pa99 on (June 6, 2014, 23:33 GMT)

cricket selectors and God both move in mysterious ways!

in 1949, Australia dropped the then world's best all-rounder Keith Miller from the tour of South Africa. and this was after his wonderful tour of England with Bradman's Invincibles in 1948! Miller was then a late inclusion for South Africa as a replacement.

Posted by DarthKetan on (June 6, 2014, 21:49 GMT)

Just because Roger Binny was not part of deliberations does not mean he couldn't have influenced the decision....he MAY just as easily have lobbied for it ahead of the discussions (not saying he did). Fact of the matter is that on merit alone, Stuart Binny is not the best fast bowling all-rounder in the country....Rishi Dhawan has significantly better first-class batting and bowling averages than Stuart.

Posted by Nampally on (June 6, 2014, 21:36 GMT)

(Contd): Roger Binny stepping out of the Meeting Room does not justify the selection of his Son- who does not have a record which outshines other contenders for the position. Raina is the best all rounder in India today. If they want a seamer all rounder, Dhawan & Shukla walk in on their record. The Selectors should think carefully what the Team needs in England & provide the players who can rise up to the needs. Just 3 Opening batsmen which includes a "failed Gambhir" is a poor choice when good opening stand is the main reason why the Team failed in their last tour. Get the guys who performed well this year & have confidence to do it - Uthappa & Nair. Sandeep Sharma with his excellent swing bowling along with Kumar are the 2 best wkt. taking bowlers. Yadev & Aaron are the 2 fastest & Shami is combo of Pace & swing. These 5 should be the seamers. When some of these guys are missing, the Selectors did not select the team on Teams' Needs. I doubt this team will do batter than last one!

Posted by Nampally on (June 6, 2014, 21:24 GMT)

" Binny Senior was accused of Nepotism, Favouritism & worse"! I am not surprised at this at all. If the Selection of squad was based on Form, Fitness & current performance record, very few Fans dare challenge or accuse the Selectors of anything at all. There are always a few omissions of individual Fan favourites. But bringing in a guy who has neither performance record nor ability to perform at high level often brings severe criticism. The first thing the Selectors needed considering is why did India fail on their last tour so badly. The reasons are simple: 1. Failure of opening batsmen- Sehwag & Gambhir 2. Players chosen on past record than current Form 3. Players selected despite being half fit- e.g.: Tendulkar, Sehwag, Zaheer, Singh + many other injured during play. The Selectors did not address the opening batsmen problem by recalling a failed guy- Gambhir. Why not Uthappa & Nair? Yadev dropped. Raina & Yuvraj make room for Binny. Dhoni retained as Capt. despite his dismal record!

Posted by   on (June 6, 2014, 17:58 GMT)

Gaurav, I agree with your demand for more BCCI transparency. Although your article was not about the merit in selection of Binny Jr., yet you brought it up to serve as an example of your key point. Because you did that, as a reader I was expecting a bit of fair evaluation of Binny Jr.'s cricketing achievements. Binny Sr. may have excused himself of the boardroom meeting, but, the conspiracy theorists can well argue that Binny Sr. could have advocated his son's case with his remaining four selector colleagues anywhere else or by any other means (like a phone call etc.). The question still remains why did the remaining four selectors find Binny Jr. good enough? X number of runs and Y number of wickets etc. Had you highlighted something like that in your piece, you could have made your point ("truth, though, was the stark opposite") more acceptable.

Posted by android_user on (June 6, 2014, 17:11 GMT)

where is rishi dawan the top wicket taker of ranji cricket with handful runs.what's wrong with him.why he didn't selected? pls someone explain me

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Gaurav KalraClose

    'We did not drop a single catch in 1971'

Couch Talk: Former India captain Ajit Wadekar recalls the dream tours of West Indies and England, and coaching India

Sachin to bat for life, Lara for the joy of batting

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss the impact of Lara's batting

    Power to Smithy, trouble for Dhoni

Ricky Ponting: Australia's new captain admirably turned things around for his side in Brisbane

    Why punish the WI players when the administration is to blame?

Michael Holding: As ever, the WICB has refused to recognise its own incompetence

What cricket can take from darts

Jon Hotten: It's simple, it's TV-friendly and it has a promoter who can tailor the product for its audience

News | Features Last 7 days

Watson's merry-go-round decade

In January 2005, Shane Watson made his Test debut. What does he have to show for a decade in the game?

Why punish the West Indies players when the administration is to blame?

As ever, the West Indies board has taken the short-term view and removed supposedly troublesome players instead of recognising its own incompetence

India's attack: rare intensity before regular inanity

For the first hour on day three, despite the heat and the largely unhelpful pitch, India's fast bowlers showed a level of intensity and penetration rarely seen from them; in the second hour, things mostly reverted to type

Bowlers in waiting

Bowlers who have been around for plenty of time but haven't played in cricket's biggest show

Gilchrist's conscientious moment

In the semi-final against Sri Lanka in 2003, Adam Gilchrist walked back to the pavilion despite being given not out by the on-field umpire

News | Features Last 7 days