Srinivasan who had been the BCCI president during a large part of Dhoni’s captaincy has recently let the cat out of the bag. He has confessed that it was he who saved and protected Dhoni and that helped Dhoni remain the captain till he resigned voluntarily. It has always been suspected that Srinivasan had a role to play in Dhoni remaining as captain evenafter humiliating losses but it remained just that. Speculation. Now that Srinivasan has confessed, action will have to be taken against him for interfering in something that was not within his confines of power.
A brief look at Dhoni’s captaincy tenure
Dhoni first became the captain of the T20 team on 13 September 2007. This was the period when Dravid, Sachin & Ganguly announced that they will not be playing T20 and withdrew themselves from the team for World T20 in South Africa.
He became the captain of the ODI team in the same month but had to wait for about a year before he took over the Test captaincy from Anil Kumble.
Dhoni in his long career had been the captain for over 60 Tests, around 200 ODIs and more than 50 T20s. He has had some memorable wins during his tenure with the highlight being the 2011 World Cup. On the otherhand, he has also had lots of miserable losses too. The biggest threat to his captaincy came during the team’s miserable away series in 2011-2012. Till then, he had been the captain in South Africa, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. He did enjoy mixed success. Infact, till the time the Indian team travelled to England, Dhoni had a much higher wins than losses.
The humiliating England tour
Once the team landed in England, whatever was not supposed to go wrong went wrong. As a result, the team had a horror series and were thrashed 4-0 by England. Remember that India were the top ranked team when we went to England. To lose 4-0 and that too when the team were annihilated in every test was humiliating for the entire nation. We should also remember that in 8 innings, not once did the team cross 300 with the highest being 300. Two of the four tests were lost by an innings.
Agreed that the team were handicapped a little with the absence of Zaheer Khan in the first test. One other bowler and had to play with 3 bowlers in a couple of tests. There were also injuries to Gambhir & Sehwag, a Tendulkar who was more concerned about his 100th hundred. Hence, benefit of doubt can be given to Dhoni for not having had the regular team all the time. However, the next away series was even more humiliating.
The annihilation in Australia
The Indian team went to Australia in the same year with a fully fit, first choice side. Zaheer Khan had given an interview stating that the Indian bowlers will pick up Australia wickets using swing because New Zealand had just defeated Australia in the previous test with swing. Ultimately, the result was disastrous. The team again lost 4-0 and that too to an Australian team that was just a patch on the great side that preceded this team. Ponting was under tremendous pressure and he was about to be dropped but he scored loads of runs in that series. Three of the tests were lost by an innings. Dhoni was unable to do anything. Change the batting order, replace Sachin, Laxman or Sehwag, try a different bowling combination, stick to a different plan. It was like Dhoni was in auto-pilot mode.
Srinivasan’s support to Dhoni
At the end of the series, Dhoni himself should have resigned but he didn’t. No captain would have survived a 8-0 thrashing but Dhoni did. Not only he survived but he went to be the captain for few more years. Now it has emerged that it was Srinivasan who ensured that Dhoni was not replaced as captain. The reason he had given was how to replace a captain for ODI series who had won the World Cup.
Board President’s job description
Be that as it may, does the board president have such power vested in himself to decide whether the selectors should or should not replace a captain who has performed miserably? Common sense will say that no the board president cannot interfere in team related things. The 5 selectors and a chairman of selectors are there for this precise job. It is they and only they who have to decide whether a captain needs to be replaced. The selection committee can decide whether he can be given the benefit of doubt and be allowed to continue. Certainly not the board president. If the board president can dictate to the selectors, he might as well select the entire team, the coach and the support staff without consulting anyone. Why waste money unnecessarily on a bunch of selectors? Why waste their time?
Chapter one under rules and regulations of the memorandum of association of rules & regulations of BCCI and against the alphabet i, states
“CRICKET COMMITTEES” are the Committees as set up in Rule 26 which consist only of former Players and are charged with selection, coaching and evaluation of team performance.
Also under point no. 21 cricketing matters
The management of cricketing matters such as selections, coaching and evaluation of team performance shall be exclusively handled by the Cricket Committees comprising only of Players as set out in Rule 26.
This essentially means that the board president cannot be involved in the matters related to team selection. Neither can the board president interfere in change of captain. The board president cannot interfere in the appointment of a coach. These are the exclusive rights of the cricket committee.
Conclusion
Srinivasan may or may not have knowledge related to cricketing matters. He afterall owns the India Cements Chennai first division team. However, the manner in which he conducted himself as BCCI president by interfering in the exclusive domain of the cricketing committee and dictating to them not to the change the captain, he had certainly failed to perform his duty and failed to live upto the lofty credentials of being the President of BCCI.
Do you think Srinivasan was correct to interfere in selection matters?