One of the problems in Indian cricket is the misconception around selection of players, particularly when it masquerades as a solution with the player being selected playing as important a role as the player being axed.

An axed player stays out for only as long as it takes for the public to forget his shortcomings. Meanwhile a selected player’s inadequacies resurface in our minds as we get ready to drop him again.

Selection can be used more positively if the recalled player has sorted out his problems. Sourav Ganguly came back a changed man mentally, but is exactly where he left off as far as his fitness and running between the wickets is concerned. VVS Laxman keeps coming back with similar problems. Irfan Pathan got dropped and we are just hoping that by bowling on lifeless, featherbed wickets at domestic level cricket, he will be able to revive his bowling.

But we all know that he is not getting the guidance he needs there. It’s hard to believe that talented people like Pathan and Laxman are losing productive years of their careers for no good reason when solutions to their problems have always been there within the reach of the BCCI.

Another misconception is that a senior player should captain the side. Cricket boards in other countries work hard on selecting the captain, but like everything else, the BCCI takes this issue lightly. They simply see who is the most successful senior in the side and they make him captain.

Captaincy is often treated as a perk in our country. While other boards use phrases like "captaincy material" when assessing players for captaincy, the BCCI, I’m sure, never thinks of captaincy as an issue in its own right.

Graeme Smith and Stephen Fleming were made captain ahead of other senior players. They look like captains, they remain in control of their men throughout the course of the match. But the BCCI think differently.

Have the BCCI got it wrong? We want to hear your views at Sportingo.