'You have to take some strong decisions' - More

A PTI news report from last night has Kiran More saying that he has been grossly misquoted on the Sourav Ganguly issue. There is no real denial in the story - it comes across as a spot of light-hearted banter, to be honest - but one can assume that More was responding to the point that, according to the PTI report, "Ganguly would not be picked to play Tests for India ever again". In which case, More is right: he never said those words, at least not to Cricinfo, and Cricinfo never suggested that he had said them, let alone quoted him as saying them.

What More did, however, was clarify his statement about Ganguly at the Baroda press-conference two weeks ago, and it was an important clarification. He had then used strong words to the effect that as far as the current committee was concerned there would be no looking back on the issue. The statement was reported in different ways in the media.

Some saw it as a reference to the entire England series; many others saw it as a decision for the entire duration of the committee's tenure. Cricinfo asked More which one of these interpretations was correct. He confirmed that is was the second. Following this, More was also asked if the message was clear that they are looking beyond Ganguly even if he were to perform in domestic cricket - which was akin to asking whether this was a matter of form or a part of a long-term plan. Even though More's answers were significant, neither was altogether surprising, as they were somewhat implicit in his original statement at Baroda.

Maybe it needs mentioning here that, as it stands, the selection committee in India is up for renewal every year at election time, usually between September and November. Any or all of the five members may or may not make it through again, and the maximum tenure of any member is four years. More is currently in his final year, though it is believed that the present system might be (rightly) overhauled soon. With so many unknowns, any further interpretation is futile, but you get the picture for the next few months.

It may also be worth recalling the amount of confusion and backtracking and media speculation on the Ganguly issue over the past few months. Several voices had called for the selectors to put closure to the issue by making their stance clear, and perhaps the team management wanted it that way too. That is precisely what More has done; yet, you can't be a winner in a system like this. The absurd technicality is that, since their tenure is not fixed, the selectors are to refrain from, forget about speaking about the long term, even thinking about it. It is proof of a muddled system - not so much checks and balances as dilution of responsibility.

The merits of Ganguly's exclusion can be a matter of opinion, but where the board is to be faulted is that they have not spoken to him (or not that we know of) about these issues. Whether it ought to be the duty of the chairman of selectors or that of the board secretary (Niranjan Shah), who acts as the convenor of selectors, is a small matter. In the interview below, More himself talks of the need of communicating with players. Perhaps, too, the original statement at Baroda should have been a carefully-worded written one, so that follow-ups would not be needed. Rahul Dravid had diffused the Inzamam-ul-Haq obstructing-the-field controversy with one such. As ever in India, the players are ahead of the administration.

This is the full transcript of the More interview. As you can probably tell, there is only very minor editing: deletion of some inconsequential or repeated sentences, and the ironing out of some sentences so that the spoken words are slightly better understood in print. He speaks passionately about a variety of issues on selection systems in India - and maybe if some of his recommendations are implemented there will be less confusion in times to come.

How are you enjoying this job? It seems to be getting more and more high-pressure with every passing year for an Indian chief selector.
It's very interesting. It's a different ball game. It teaches you quite a lot. As a player you always think differently and you look differently at the selectors. Now I've become a selector for the last four years. In my first year I wanted to do a lot of things, but you have to think twice before taking decisions. I must have taken a few wrong decisions also earlier, must have said a lot of things also on some issues. But it's always interesting and you realise the end of the day what should be done, experience really helps. You get a lot of stick from a lot of people. Players also criticise you. They don't want to talk to you, they don't want to look at you also. But it's a part of the game. How you take it is very important as a selector. As a human being also, you should know their psychology. I've also gone through the same thing, I was dropped from the team also, I never wanted to speak to the selectors also. After dropping someone you feel bad. If he's not done well he's been dropped. Sometimes there is a healthy competition also and one person is selected. You feel bad for someone but they look at it from a different angle. As a selector you have take it in a very positive way. You have to go talk to the person, or take it easy whatever he says, don't take it in a negative manner. Because of the emotion he will definitely criticise someone and something about selectors also he will say. `That fellow didn't support me' or `Kiran didn't help us, he went against us.' All the things go out in the media also. Everybody comes to know what has happened in the selection committee. That is why you have to take it in a positive way and try to be more real also.

What are kind of things do you assess cricketers on, especially the young ones? How long do you need to watch them? What do you look for first?
Not really statistics. When you look at a cricketer you look for that `class' in him. What shots he plays, in what situations he plays those shots, how he builds his innings, what sort of wicket was there, what sort of bowlers were there...so those areas you look at. I don't look at people who on flat wickets get 250 runs because on a flat wicket a lot of people are going to score runs. If you see the overall statistics of that match, somebody has scored 250, there must be four or five hundreds in that match. You don't get a true picture of that. So the real test comes on a nicely seaming track or a bouncy wicket or a turning track. And the match situations ...

So you have to really have follow a young player through the entire season to understand him?
Definitely. You have to follow them, and basically I believe that you should know them from the age of 15-16. Like in Baroda I'm sitting when the outside team comes and you know who are the youngsters playing. I've seen Piyush Chawla at the age of 15. He came with the under-17 team and he ran through the side and I offered him to come and play for Baroda. So that's how you follow the cricketers, you know them.

For knowing cricketers well from so young an age, the junior selection systems need to be strong. Is that the case in India? Some say there are not enough selectors at the lower levels.
The juniors also have five selectors, it's the same pattern as the seniors. I think five is good enough. Only thing is that there needs to be more interaction between the junior selectors and the senior selectors. Even the seniors should go and watch some important matches of the juniors. I think one person from the junior committee should come and give us a briefing. For most of the India A tours, he should be part of the committee. He can come and suggest the names. That's what we did last year when we picked the under-22, we called the junior selection committee chairman.

Who goes and watches junior talent in the games in the districts? Can you explain the system to our readers?
The system is quite good basically. Suppose we play in West Zone, the TRDOs (Talent Resource Development Officers) do a lot of work. The junior selectors of each association, they go as a part of the team. Suppose Maharashtra is hosting Baroda. One selector of Maharastra will go to Baroda. And the Baroda selector will also be there. When it comes to the West Zone selection, all five meet together and they decide the West Zone team. Plus even the state association, they have their five selectors. They go and watch all the district matches. And they pick the state team. And they together (the state association selectors) pick the West Zone team. Same thing happens in the other zones. I think it's very interesting. What setup we have is quite good actually. People don't have this idea, people don't know what is happening at those levels. I think it's quite good. But we need to upgrade it. We need to do a lot more work on that level. I believe the state association has to be very strong. A lot of people blame the BCCI. But in the BCCI what setup we have is excellent. I don't think anywhere in the world it's like that.

In what sense?
The cricket played at junior levels. Under-15 to 17 to 19 to 22. It's been excellent, all the tournaments which have been played. Now it has become Elite Group, Elite A, Elite B, Plate Group for juniors also. Plus under-19 one-day matches are also there. It's very interesting the formats we have at the junior levels. There are loads of matches. There are the zonal matches also. The opportunities are quite good for the junior boys. Like my time, I remember I only played under-19 games. Now a boy starts at the age of 13. He can play 15, he can play 17, he can play 19, he can play under-22. Only thing is that they should concentrate more on the university cricket also. It has become very difficult for the universities. But the setup we have is outstanding. We need to upgrade those setups.

You were mentioning about the state associations.
They have to be strong. They have to make strong decisions. The state associations have to create the facilities up to the national level. What we have at the NCA (National Cricket Academy), every state association should have those sorts of facilities. They have to upgrade their coaches. We have the coaches, but they are not upgraded. Their knowledge - not all of them - but at some state associations they need to work to get to the top level. More facilities and more matches at that level will produce more cricketers.

Can you explain how the TRDOs have been useful to you? For many readers TRDO is just a term.
Each zone has about three TRDOs. They cover quite a number of matches. They make their recommendations to the NCA and the TRDO chairman. When these boys are being called for the camps - West Zone camp, North Zone camp, South Zone camp, from those camps the boys are picked for the NCA camps, plus from the performances in matches. The TRDOs are basically former cricketers - they know which are the outstanding talents. It's not only records and statistics. If there is some class in the cricketer, they will recommend the cricketer. It's not necessary that the boy has scored 400 or 500 runs. If he has scored 100 runs, but he looks different, looks like he has some talent in him, that boy should be recommended. I'll give the example of Sreesanth. He had picked up only 12 wickets, but we picked him. We see the talent so we create the opportunity for him. I know he plays for Kerala, which is not a very strong state. But here is a talent and we have to create the opportunity for him. Today he is there, bowling well, doing well. We have to create cricketers like that.

There must be a lot of areas in the country still be to be explored.
Definitely. There is tremendous talent. Only thing is that I believe that our coaching for the state associations are not very strong. If we create some good coaches and upgrade them every year ... I'm not talking about just concentrating on Level 3 or Level 2 or anything like that. Don't try to copy the Australian way also. Mix it up. What India needs, and the Australian way - the Australian standards are quite good. You mix both for what suits [your needs] best.

Coming to the senior panel, John Wright said before leaving that the one thing that must be changed is the tenure of the selection committee. There is no continuity and so there can be no planning.
I think that is really a very big concern area. If I'm given a job, or anybody in normal life is given a job, you work for two years-three years, and if you don't give the results, you go home straightaway. Every year the selector is not sure about whether he is going to be a selector or not the next year. The uncertainty is quite big. You can't plan anything, you can't think long-term, the next three years or four years. I believe that if a selector is good - example, if Sanjay Jagdale is good, he should be there for 10 years, there is nothing wrong with that. If so-and-so is good, let them be there for five years or ten years. Why only two years or three years?

We've heard this for so many years now. Is the board moving on this?
I hope so. (Laughs) But there will definitely be a change in future. They are thinking on these lines. But it has to be implemented. It's not fair to anybody. I will not criticise any selectors. The experience I've had in the last four years is that so many selectors are changing every year. I don't blame them - how will they have a vision for a four-year or a five-year plan? By the time the season starts, your tenure is going to get finished, in two months or three months time. So you don't know where you're going to go from there.

The other thing is that we still have a zonal system.
I don't think that the zonal system works badly. If somebody is good, you can't hide them. Especially with the electronic media and the press, it's become very strong. In earlier days you could hear only on commentary. Nowadays you can't hide anyone.

But there is always pressure on the selector as he is responsible to the zone.
Correct, but it comes down to the individual, how strong you are. If you take my example, I don't believe in the zonal system. I will be the first person to take the name of the guy from the other place. I believe that we are picking the Indian team. We should select the guy any part of the country he comes from.

You must have experienced, though, the pressures of a zonal system.
Definitely there is a lot of pressure. A lot of state associations call. They worry about it - why this boy is not there or something. If they call for a healthy discussion it is fair enough. As a selector you should always give them an explanation because you are nominated from the zone. If someone calls me, I give them the explanation, why he is not picked, what are the reasons, that he's not done well enough or he should work on these areas.

So you are happy with a five-man zonal committee.
Definitely. Suppose you have two selectors from West or two selectors from North, people will make an issue out of it also. So this is a fair way of having five selectors from five zones. If you have issues already with one from each zone, there will be much bigger issues if there are three from West or two from South!

Also one of Wright's suggestions was to have a selector tour with the team. That's been implemented now. How is it going? Does the selector play a part in the final XI?
It's quite good actually. One thing I believe is that you are a selector, you are a part of the team. It has become very professional. Definitely the selector plays a part in the final XI also. Basically the selectors' job is to try and help the captain and the coach. You are not there to create problems. It should be about what the captain needs for the situation. He should be happy. The previous day of the match you are going to select the team, if you create problems a lot of pressure is going to play on the captain's mind. Definitely you suggest that `this player is good or this is the situation, we should go with three spinners or two fast bowlers or six batters'. Those sort of discussions are always there. Sometimes captains like to have their players, they back their players because he is going to lead the team at the end of the day. So you try to help them. You can't go and put your thumb down and say `I want this guy to play'.

In Pakistan all the selectors were sent at different times on the tour. Is that not strange? In the future will there be just one for the whole tour?
Because it's a long tour. It's not a paid job, it's an honorary job. By the time you go for two months you have to forget everything at home. I believe that BCCI should think on the lines that it should be a paid job. It's not a question of doing it in my time. You can start it from the new season. At least start paying selectors, and he should be answerable also. Sign him for three years or four years, give him a contract, if he does not do a good job, send him home. All jobs in BCCI, specially concerning the cricketing area, coaches at any level, or people who are running the NCA, CIC (Cricket Improvement Committee) chairman, everybody should be paid. If they don't do a good job, send them home. Everybody should be answerable. Here everybody is doing a honorary job. If I don't do a proper job as selector, I should go at the end of the day.

The other innovation now is attaching young players to the team for home games. We have seen Piyush Chawla and VRV Singh earlier in the season.
We need to do more of that. This time we wanted to have more junior guys who are talented, get them with the team, work with them. What happens is that the international level when they come they are not ready with the fitness and a few other things - that's why I say that the state associations need to be very strong. What happens is that every year the state associations have their camps. The boys come there for the fitness, to get fit. They don't come prepared. They should be 80% fit when they come to the camps. They are 100% unfit and they come to the camp to become fit. They get 40% fit. So by the time the season gets started they are still 60% unfit. They should be prepared. When they are picked for the Indian team they get surprised - `this what I have to do'. That's why the state associations need to be strong. They should have the same systems what we have at the Indian team level.

When you attach them with the team, they basically get a feel of the work required?
They get a feel. But it's too late by that time. By the time they come here they put in so much hard work here they have a lot of niggling problems here and there. They get surprised. Their body is not prepared to get that level of cricket.

Is it worth it then attaching them to the national team even if it means them missing domestic games? Did Chawla miss any games earlier in the season because of it?
No, he didn't. This time also we allowed all the guys to play the Deodhar Trophy. We wanted some of the guys who played the under-19 World Cup, a couple of fast bowlers, to be along with the team, work with the physios and the trainer and Greg. When the boy comes to the Indian team he should be ready. Nothing is monitored also at the state level. I don't think that anywhere in the country at the state level fitness has been monitored. It's always that people go to England, when they come back they are overweight, they start their work for the domestic cricket. That's what happens. A boy get picked, he comes into the Indian team and he is struggling with his fitness. That's why it has to be at the state level.

Which under-19 players from the World Cup have caught your eye?
All are very talented. We picked for the West Zone five under-19 boys for the Deodhar Trophy. Few of them are doing so well - Rohit Sharma from Bombay, he got 141; Ravinder Jadeja bowled very well and got 29 not out first match, yesterday he got 4 for 29. In the World Cup itself all the performed very well, except the final. Piyush, Ravinder Jadeja, Rohit Sharma, there is Pinal Shah the wicketkeeper, fast bowler Yomahesh, one fast bowler is there from Assam. Captain (Ravikant) Shukla, (Cheteshwar) Pujara. (Gourav) Dhiman is there. There is a lot of talent. Definitely we will look at them for the India A tours.

Have you been happy with the performance of the national team? You've taken a few risks.
See you have to take a few risks. You have to create a space for some talented cricketers. Once you give a break to them they know what international cricket is about. If you don't create that place for them they will never be able to get an opportunity and get the experience of it. Once you create the opportunities for them they push the seniors also. It's a healthy competition. I believe that if we have backup for each guy then we have a strong bench. Otherwise if we lose someone we struggle to get someone for him.

Some of the fast-bowling new caps have been forced on you because of the injuries.
I am very happy that some youngsters are getting opportunities. We are creating more fast bowlers. By the time this season finishes we might have got eight to nine fast bowlers. At least we will have a strong bench strength.

What is the status on Lakshmipathy Balaji and Ashish Nehra?
Balaji has a stress fracture. He has not started bowling, he is taking complete rest. I think it will take another three-four months time. Nehra we are just waiting for the news. I read in a newspaper that he's just started bowling off a few steps. It will take some time. He'll be out for another six-seven weeks maybe. So it's going to take some time. We have Munaf coming in, VRV, RP Singh, Sreesanth is there, Ajit [Agarkar] and Zaheer [Khan] ...

Was Munaf disappointed that the team was not picked a couple of days later? [He wasn't in the first Test squad despite taking ten wickets in the warm-up match against England.]
Not really. Definitely we feel we should have waited one more day...

It happens regularly in India, though, that teams are picked before an important match is completed.
It's not a question of that match and you pick a guy. It's not a question of that. We had our plans, we had decided to pick a side. We have to give some time because the administration matters also takes a lot of time. They do their clothing and everything else and that takes a bit of time.

I know this is a controversial topic, but you made a very strong statement about Sourav Ganguly after the last team was picked, that as far as you'll were concerned there is no looking back on the issue. How should cricket followers interpret that - was it for this series or for as long as this committee is in tenure?
We took a decision that we have to look ahead. We decided that so much has been said on this issue, that we wanted to send a message across that, `this is what we are looking at, and as far as this committee is concerned, this is what we have decided, that we will not look back at all.'

As long as this committee is intact?
Ya.

It's a decision that must have put a lot of pressure on you. How's it been to deal with?
Pressure is always there in any job and it is a good thing. If you don't have pressure you're not going to get the best out of it. Especially I believe I come out best when the pressure is on. You have to make some strong decisions. That's why you're selecting the Indian team, not selecting a state team or... You have to make some strong decisions, you have to look ahead.

Was the situation that was there no other solution left but to leave it behind now? It had reached that stage?
Definitely, that's what we decided. It's what we thought was best after the 4-1 win in Pakistan also, some areas are concern areas. In this series also we will continue to look ahead. One main area is fielding in Test matches.

Do you get angry phone calls and letters and things?
That reaction always comes. Because of them cricket is here!

More pressure than when you were a player?
Definitely playing is much better than selecting. You are playing with somebody's life here. You are taking decisions. There are 20 cricketers or 30 cricketers. Out of them you have to take 15 guys. You know they are talented. You are backing them. Especially when you are picking a young boy you are replacing a senior player and you feel that you have given this opportunity to a young boy, he should succeed. That pressure can be quite a lot on you at times. If he does not do well - okay, it is part of selection, it's not going to click every time.

There is a perception that Greg Chappell runs the selection committee. How do you respond to that?
No, I don't agree. Everyone is just creating a story out of it. It is a selector's job and the five-man selection committee takes the decisions. Definitely what captain wants we always try and give, but we have to put our minds to it because otherwise there is no point of us being there. So we make the decisions as a five-man committee and whatever we think is best is what we have decided between the five people. We have to give the best side to give to the captain. He is going to lead the team. It's a fair job we do basically. There is no issue on that.

Kiran More maintains that both coach and captain are being accommodated © Getty Images

From Sourav's point of view, it's clear that even if he plays and performs in domestic cricket that it's something basically the team is looking beyond?
Ya definitely, looking beyond.

How are you finding dealing with media pressure? It got a bit nasty during Chandu Borde's time and the press conferences were stopped. Sunil Gavaskar has mentioned that he is sure that Ramakant Desai's heart condition was affected by it.
See, the media has come to this level. Last two years I have experienced after becoming chairman that so many things were said before we selected the team also. Some people just put a thukka [guess], you know just take a chance and put it on TV. So-and-so is selected, so- and-so has become captain, just gimmicks, you know. Then you realise how can they do this? The selection committee has not met, before that they announce the captain also, they announce the team also.

At press conferences do you feel badgered?
No, press conferences are very interesting, a lot of people come out with good questions. I believe that there should be more cricketing questions. There are a lot of individual questions coming up. Team performance are more important.

Why do you think the team has done well in one-dayers but not so well in Test cricket?
We are worried on the Test cricketing area. The fielding is very, very important for us. The fielding is a big concern for us. That's what we did in one-dayers, our fielding standard has gone so high. It makes a lot of difference to the team. A lot of youngsters are really doing well, players like Suresh Raina, MS Dhoni has come ...

So you think there needs to be some new energy in the Test team as well?
Definitely, we have certain plans. Slowly we will have to look at the areas. No need to panic.

Earlier we used to choose 14 for home Tests but now we've been choosing 15. Is that a policy change or is it flexible?
Flexible, basically. We select 14 or 15, it does not make a big difference. If we want to groom someone, someone like Suresh Raina, an outstanding cricketer, a future cricketer. Or Piyush Chawla, or VRV, why not carry one player. Work can be done with the coach and the trainer. He should know what is Test cricket also.

Again, you don't mind if that comes at the expense of domestic games?
Not at the expense of domestic games. He has to go and play. Everyone has to play domestic - this year we have been very particular about this.