Merit Among The Pigeons

It has been claimed by the wise ones in analytical programs that Amit Mishra's initial success is not unlike the proverbial cat romping among the pigeons. Their hint is towards the immediate future - towards the dilemma which could present itself to the selectors as they mull over the components of the team for the next test match. It is suggested that Amit Mishra now is a conundrum for the selectors if Kumble's shoulder is better: a Gordian Knot of Indian proportions. It has been advocated, now, by the wise likes of Sunny Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri - two men for whose opinions I always have space for careful consideration - that the team structure be altered to accomodate Kumble and Mishra at Delhi at the expense of a batsman.

That, according to me, typifies what I have always felt about the cricket following community of India - a distinct nation within a nation, defined by an intricate thorn hedge pattern, with its own heirarchy, written and unwritten rules, and like perceptions and methods. The hedge decrees the path you may take and the lines you must not cross. But it is a hedge after all - it cannot halt the flow of air, water and spirit. The forays through could be challenged, or as easily overlooked - that is the peculiarity of what's unwritten but every soul in the cricketing nation of India is acutely aware of. There are more peculiarities which are clearly reflected from the statements of Messrs. Gavaskar and Shastri.

Why would you want to alter the team structure outside and beyond policy, tactics and strategy? Why would you want to do it so that either Kumble or Mishra could be accomodated? Why would you want to accomodate anyone?



Why would you want to retain Amit Mishra now when it was clear to him that he was holding the fort for Kumble? He knew and he must wait. He just did the best he could when a chance came by his way.

Why would you now pick Mishra ahead of even Kumble when he was a non-existent soul for you all till just a few days ago? Obviously, your sage eyes saw no merit in the man's performances over the past five years, nor did they pick out the Shane Warne hidden inside him, which appears so obviously evident to you now. It is a thorn hedge which demarcates, decrees, prejudices while allowing people to slink through it under the kind condescension of the unwritten heirarchy, or forcing you to respect those who crash through despite it. Why would you be ready now to alter the team structure without a coherent philosophy just on the basis of just one performance? And by a chap who you certainly did not call for on merit and thereby did not stand up for?

Perceptions play a huge role in these matters which are largely subjective. Many non-cricketing factors affect these perceptions. I mean who travels to see a lad bowling leggies in some distant corner of India? Those are mere pigeons without the merit of predators. Especially when you have a huge park filled with a million predators playing cricket with leather, cork or tennis balls to pick from? Perceptions suggest that if you are unable to pick out one from this microcosm, then you are certainly not going to find anything better in its expanded version. The extreme confidence limits of chance are too small for such a massive effort.

Or, there may be a certain body of other perceptions prevailing in this hedged-in nation - like who knows best and what that best is. The denizens of the cricketing nation of India sense these perceptions acutely...they know, they understand, they remain quiet even if they disagree. There is a tangible heirarchy even if it cannot be seen in black and white, and views of this heirarchy must be adhered to, on the thorny pain of non-selection ever!

Someone, sometime, is maverick enough and qualified enough to burst through this thorny reservation, which is a preserve, of those few who fulfill the criteria of those unwritten perceptions of that unseen but tangible heirarchy. Such a person stands as a perpetual challenge - merit cannot be wished away - the thorn bush could be hacked down instead, or, one will have to walk around it if all else fails. Mishra is representative of thast ilk which for some reason fails to capture the imagination...fails to ignite interest till it stands before you bursting with pure merit. You may rather not have it, or you may acquire it at the expense of an expendable courtier. The cricketing nation of India is a peculiar one.

And why carry Kumble? Or why push him into retirement on the basis of one performance? Why not have a valid system in place which is slightly more objective and consistent than the subjective? Either you have found a perfect replacement or you haven't yet. If you have there should be no questions about it...no accomodation. If you haven't, then there it is needless to stoke contriversy by calling for accomodation! Amit Mishra was hired as a replacement and must accept it that his time may come when the occupant retires. Or, one should have a protocol where there is a clean retirement plan for our stalwarts which is objective and well understood and is not manipulated at whim.

I think these are the things to ponder...not whether Amit Mishra deserves to play alongside Kumble at delhi as part of a five-prong attack! The attack will have to be four-prong capable one unless the fifth is an all-rounder...which we haven't. So no questions in my mind...either Mishra plays or Kumble plays. Equally clear in my mind is Kumble should have been into an established retirement plan beforehand rather having it sprung upon him.

And oh, let's not jump to conclusions on one performance when 5-6 years were not enough to convince anyone to stand up for him.

Amit Mishra has waited five years...the smart man knows how to bide his time well for the right moment.