Published: Feb 02, 2012, 12:51 PM (IST)
Edited: Feb 02, 2012, 12:51 PM (IST)
If a cricketer chooses to play for as long as he continues to love the game, that is obviously his choice, but it is also for the selectors to decide if he is still the best choice for the team © Getty Images
By Madan Mohan
As India’s cricketing stocks kept plumbing newer depths in Australia through the last few weeks, the possible exit of Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman has been the subject of intense debate and, sadly, speculation. Last week, Dravid was even ‘retired’ by some extremely reliable sources only for these reports to be roundly rubbished.
Writers, be they former cricketers or journalists, have kept up a steady stream of articles on this subject. I found Osman Samiuddin’s write up for “The National” entitled “The search for a dignified end to a sporting career” an interesting one. But there were some ideas in his piece that I would like to develop, and probably not in the same direction as his own.
I quote from his article, “Why should sportsmen care about what people say? Why should Dravid, Laxman, Roger Federer go at any time other than of their own choosing? It is not for them to understand they are past it… To expect them to leave voluntarily and suddenly, when others think the time is right is presumptive nonsense.”
I completely agree with the last line. Indeed, we as members of the audience are in no tenable position to judge the right moment for a sportsman to leave. It is the sportsman himself who knows it when he is spent and when he no longer feels motivated to work out and prepare to perform on the big stage.
However, the matter is not quite so easily resolved. As against this, the general sentiment prevailing in the country is that players who have served the Indian cricket team so admirably over the course of a long career should be allowed to leave with dignity. In other words, that they should be allowed to retire on their own rather than be dropped. It is argued that they have earned the right to leave the stage on a high note at the end of such glorious careers. To put it more crudely: Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as opposed to termination!
I will in any case ignore the example of Roger Federer here because tennis is an individual sport and any notional gains or losses from choosing the right moment are only for the player. It does not in any way affect the fortunes of a team because they do not play for a team, except in national events like Davis Cup.
Obviously, the situation is very different when it comes to players in a team sport like Dravid and Laxman. As much as the decision to abandon what they have loved and what they have made so many sacrifices for would be tough, it is also deeply entangled with the needs of the team.
If a cricketer is left to choose his own moment, it can only be feasible when he also considers his role in the team and his continued ability to perform it up to expectations. If that is not the case, it is for the selectors to act wisely and firmly. If a cricketer chooses to play for as long as he continues to love the game, that is obviously his choice, but it is also for the selectors to decide if he is still the best choice for the team.
And in making such a choice, not only the reputation gained over his career but more recent form would also have to be considered. If Dravid and Laxman are to choose the dignified exit route of retirement, it necessarily has to be such that serves the team’s interests, current as well as prospective. If not, the selectors should only continue to select them for as long as they are still the best choices for their respective roles. We know from the experience of dropping Sourav Ganguly in 2005 that this does not quite work out so smoothly in the Indian context, but the selectors should be allowed to make their decision without the hindrance of public sentiment and outrage.
At the moment, Dravid would still have the cushion of a generally successful 2011 while Laxman’s position is not so secure. Dravid rode out a patch of poor form at a time when the team was consistently performing well. Laxman has not been so fortunate. It goes without saying that a player, if dropped at this stage of his career, is unlikely to make a comeback subsequently to the national team, so the timing of his retirement may be rendered little more than a statistical detail in such a case.
Whatever, but the right of selectors to make a decision in the interests of the team should be respected just as much as the right of players to choose their moment. Whether we truly are ready for such a no-nonsense, decisive approach to transition, succession planning and phasing out remains to be seen.
(Madan Mohan is a 26-year old chartered accountant from Mumbai. The writing bug bit him when he was eight and to date, he has not been cured of it. He loves music, cricket, tennis and cinema and writing on cricket is like the icing on the cake. He also writes a blog if he is not feeling too lazy at http://rothrocks.wordpress.com/)
