Conventions in the Indian sporting world present interesting case studies, when efforts are made to mirror them in the ‘real’ world. Take the recent controversy over chief selector Dilip Vengsarkar. The corporate world is equipped to deal with such issues, because the regulations are in place. In the unorganised world of Indian sport, however, rules are yet to be institutionalised — this, despite the billion-dollar television rights and million-dollar endorsements.

Vengsarkar is certainly a professional of repute. Here is a man of cricketing experience and reasonable foresight, who can indeed separate the bad apples from the good, and do this in an impartial manner. Ultimately, the job of selecting a team is like that of any top management official in any corporation. A selector’s duties would involve being aware of new talent, of form and fitness of current players, of conditions for forthcoming tours. It also involves touring to observe action first-hand at national and international venues. With the cricketing itinerary now stretching virtually throughout the year, this job becomes an almost full-time occupation. To that extent, it would be impractical — and certainly a disservice to cricket — to employ part-time selectors. It follows from this, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would be doing a disservice to selectors if it avails itself of their services in a full-time capacity on an honorary basis.

Asking Vengsarkar to stop writing wasn’t such a bad idea. After all, he should not be seen commenting on the very people whose future he will soon be determining. It’s like the EC frowning on practices that could influence voters’ minds. But the Board should have also been sensitive to Vengsarkar’s financial status.

... contd.