G'day all, and greetings at the start of another working week.

I wonder what you made of the team that was picked for the first three one-dayers. As for me, my first thought was to sing hosannas for the fact that our newly appointed foreign coach, John Wright, saw something that our own wise men have been blind to for far too long -- namely, that it was high time Robin Singh was given a letter of commendation for his sterling efforts thus far in the team cause, and a nice farewell.

I won't go into why Robin needed to be dropped -- that is a case I argued in an earlier newsletter. For those who came in late, here is the link: http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2000/oct/30oct.htm

That apart, I must confess that some of the other selections puzzled me no end. Starting with a sight I saw time and again during the first three days of this Test -- namely, Mohammad Kaif, a talented batsman and brilliant fielder in any position, using his skills to ensure that he didn't drop the drinks tray.

What has been the net resulf of Kaif's one-Test stint with a side he, and all the rest of us, knew he couldn't get into? Simply this -- the young batsman will now miss the next Ranji Trophy fixture for his side, Uttar Pradesh, which is slated to play Vidharba on November 29, the last day of this particular Test.

And now we are doing the same thing to Shiv Sundar Das, by picking him for a one day squad knowing there is no way on earth he will get a look in. I mean, at this point, there is a whole slew of middle order batsmen looking to try and force their way into the team. Where, then, lies the sense in picking an opener, and telling him that he won't get to open and if he plays, it will be in the middle?

Haven't we learnt our lessons? We took a free-flowing middle order batsman -- VVS Laxman, to give him a name -- forced him to open in Tests, ruined his game and his confidence, and now don't give him a second thought. And now we want to do something similar in the one-day context -- take a competent opener, have him twiddle his thumbs in the dressing room, demote him to the middle (assuming he gets to play at all) and, in the process, do our damndest to ruin his natural game.

Why?

An enlightened board would, instead, have sat down with his coach, and asked for an assessment of Das's Test skills. A halfway decent coach would have told him that the lad has potential, that he is good off the back foot, that he has a knack of looking for singles which is very welcome, but that his lack of shots in the V, especially on the on side, could be a disadvantage.

The coach would then suggest remedial action, including if necessary a stint at the Indian cricket academy (ooops, I forgot, the academy, like the best tourist resorts, only works during the 'season', and not year-round -- okay, then, the Australian academy, where Das has already spent some time to very good effect). And the board would take steps to fill the coach's prescription, thus ensuring that Das's skills are honed even finer by the time the Australians get here and the youngster faces his first real challenge.

But we are like this only -- Das did well in Tests, so we will pick him for ODIs, yes we know he won't be able to bat in his usual position, yes we know he won't get to play, period, but he did well in Tests and therefore should be picked -- if only so that we have someone to drop for the last two ODIs.

Is this what they mean when they say, the more things change the more they remain the same?

Have a great week, all

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor