The teams have at last been named for the coming tournaments in Toronto and Kuala Lumpur, but the announcement only leaves people asking bewildered questions. Such as whether they are playing football with cricket.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Indian Olympic Association may have settled for a draw, but it is doubtful whether that spells a win for the sport loved by the country's millions.

The clash of the dates of the Sahara Cup and the Commonwealth Games ought not, of course, to have meant an unduly prolonged confrontation between the two sport bodies with a bureaucratic sense of protocol and prestige. Nor, however, could the need for a compromise between the two be the decisive criterion in sorting out the dispute.

It was the rarest of rare occasions when the board was not seen as batting against the publicopinion (besides the players). An opinion poll would, quite probably, have revealed overwhelming support for the board's original idea of sending the top national team for the annual event in Toronto and the second-best side possible for the special Malaysia-hosted show.

And, not without reason. Indo-Pakistan cricket is the subcontinental equivalent of the Ashes, and the Commonwealth tourney without the participation of even England and with the truncated squads of most others is hardly comparable, while not many would mind the fact of the money factor weighing with the board and the players.

The board will now be seen as not only compromising with the IOA but kow-towing to the government. There will be few takers for its theory that the composition of the two teams has been guided by the interests of Indian cricket.

The claim that these are two equally strong sides lacks credibility. It may not be strictly true, even if tempting as a repartee, that they are equally weak either: betters might givebetter odds to the Canada-bound fourteen, despite the inclusion of Sachin Tendulkar in the team for Kuala Lumpur. The point, however, is that both the sides would appear equally unbalanced, with the most feared of our bowlers in one and the fastest of our scorers in the other. One of the team-makers has gone on record that the sides can lose "only if they play badly". This truism is tantamount to an attempt at a totally unwarranted abdication of selectorial responsibility.

Wide of the mark is the claim that all this is part of well-planned preparations for the World Cup -- particularly the rider about the imminent international exposure of younger players, many of whom may turn out to be mere passengers.

Of all the ludicrous claims, however, the one to take the cake is the board's insistence that it has treated Sachin only as one of the players in a team sport. It did not, actually, need the IOA to give the game away by its unconcealed glee at getting the `master blaster' as a quid pro quo for more seniorplayers for the team for Toronto. Tendulkar certainly merits the tribute, but the cause of Indian cricket deserves better than dependence upon a single individual's brilliance.