It is not easy being a selector, but...

The national selectors have again stirred a hornet's nest. So what else is new? It is always easier to criticise than to praise and these days, it is more fashionable too. After all, every cricket fan is an expert when it comes to picking a team so selector bashing is pretty common. Being a selector is a thankless job as everyone knows - particularly the selectors themselves. They know they just can't win for they obviously cannot please everyone. A couple of months ago, TA Sekhar, one of the selectors told me that he was well aware of what awaited him when he was nominated for the post. ``I knew there would be only criticism. So I just developed a thick hide and now the adverse comments don't really bother me.'' Selectors and thick skins have necessarily to go together.

More than the selections, it is sometimes the comments made by the chairman of the selection committee and the Cricket Board secretary at the mandatory press conference called to announce the team that invites even more ire and derisive comment. Invariably by defending their choices, they end up, more often than not, putting their foot in their mouth. At best, it is specious reasoning, at worst the arguments are just absurd.

All the same, spare a thought for `the five wise men' as the selectors are so often tauntingly called. After all, they can only select 14 or 15. They have to examine the records from various angles. First, the performances in the domestic circuit which means Ranji Trophy, Duleep Trophy, Deodhar Trophy, Wills Trophy, Challenger series etc. They have to juggle the form shown in instant cricket and the longer game. They have to judge the player's class, technique and international record. Is he good for Test cricket or one day cricket? Is he a good player against pace bowling or a better player of spin bowling? Is he a better prospect for bouncier pitches or turning tracks? And what of his fielding, so very important in the limited overs version? Is he too old? Is he being `rushed'. There are so many aspects to be considered.

And then of course there is the quota system, which will continue to exist as long as the five selectors are nominated on zonal basis. So many times have well meaning past Test cricketers voiced their opinion that the zonal system should be discarded and that there should be three selectors - even if all are from the same zone. But as far as Indian cricket is concerned, this could well remain in the realm of fantasy.

In matters of selection, predictably enough most of the players choose themselves. It is the borderline cases that cause problems, heartaches and controversies. In the team for the Asia Cup for example the borderline cases who made the squad were Hemang Badani, Saba Karim, Sunil Joshi, Nikhil Chopra, T Kumaran and Amit Bhandari. The borderline cases who missed the flight were S Sriram, Md Kaif, Vinod Kambli, RS Sodhi, Nayan Mongia and Zaheer Khan. And this is where the selection ends and the arguments and controversies start.

Do selectors ever receive praise? Oh, I suppose so in a grudging sort of way. But they are more remembered for their foibles rather than any bold choices or hunches that come off. Does anyone remember the selector who pushed 19-year-old Dilip Vengsarkar into the national squad on the basis of one dashing century against Bedi and Prasanna in the Irani Trophy game in 1975? Does anyone remember the selector who had the courage and foresight to pick the relatively unknown Bishen Bedi, then only 20, on the basis of one good performance for the Board President's XI against West Indies in 1966? Does anyone recall the selector who boldly gave the reigns of captaincy to the young Nawab of Pataudi, then all of 20 years of age, to lead the Board President's XI side against the visiting MCC in 1961?

However it must be said that in one aspect, selectors in this country have almost always been guilty of and this is in hiring and firing without giving the players enough chances. Not surprisingly, Indian cricket has the maximum number of players who have played in only one or two Tests, or a similar number of one day internationals. Sometimes the player is dropped even without getting a single chance to prove himself and this is really quite bizarre. If a player has class - and it is the selectors' responsibility to be aware of who has this special quality and who doesn't - he should be persevered with even if initial performances may not be very encouraging. In my book, the prime examples of this has always been the Australian selectors' treatment of Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson. The two took a long time in establishing themselves but the selectors wisely deemed the duo as a long term investment, in which potential far outweighed performance, nurtured their talents and the two paid back the encouragement with high interest dividends. Sadly, this kind of foresight has generally been missing in the Indian selection process.