When the news of Anil Kumble's appointment as captain was announced, it seemed that this old warrior has been given his due even if it is very late in his career.

There are two things that make one a little uneasy about this decision. Firstly, he has been given the job for three Tests only against Pakistan and, secondly, Kumble was appointed only after Sachin Tendulkar had turned it down.

It is never easy to produce a miracle in three matches. The last thing we need is instability at the top. India don't  have a full-time coach at present, hardly the best basis for facing the best team in the world. It does not augur well for a national team. Kumble has said in an interview that he thinks that he is not a stop-gap captain, but the plain fact is that he has been appointed for only three Test matches.

'Very few things that the selectors and the board have done have been right. I simply cannot understand these short-term announcements'


It is not clear whether Kumble has been told that the appointment will continue into the South Africa's tour of India, but if he has been (that is what some media reports claim) why couldn’t the selectors, and the board, make it official that Kumble will be skipper for three full series and not just three Tests?

Very few things that the selectors and the board have done have been right. I simply cannot understand these short-term announcements. Appoint teams for two games, appoint captains for three Tests or one series. It would be a good idea to appoint selectors for two games. I know that's a preposterous idea, but that is the very same theory that the selectors seem to be following as far as team selection goes. And I do not understand why the selectors give in to media rhetoric.

Every time the team is about to be selected, and that is almost three times a month these days, one wonders about the future of the senior batsmen. But our batting does not seem to be the problem, and certainly not the three seniors who have been targeted. The problem lies with the bowlers.

If we look at the Australia series and this series against Pakistan, whenever India have bowled 50 overs, they have conceded runs at the rate of 8.83 in the last 10 overs. That has usually been the difference between winning and losing. If the opposing team scores close to 90 runs in the last ten, it leaves the batsmen with a mountain to climb while chasing, or it becomes extremely difficult to defend what the batsmen have put up.

Does this small fact not irk the selectors, especially when we have a bowling coach? Somehow, the media is obsessed with big names. The selectors have needlessly fallen prey to the rhetoric. They have dropped Rahul Dravid needlessly just because he did not play well against Australia (he has scored 823 runs at 37.4 in 31 ODIs in 2007).

The other two batsmen being placed under needless scrutiny are Sachin Tendulkar (who has scored 1298 runs in 31 ODIs in 2007 at an average of 46.35) and Sourav Ganguly (who has scored 1235 runs in 31 ODIs at 45.74). The two Indian openers are numbers two and three in the highest scorers list in 2007. And in the top 10 run-getters of 2007 there are four Indians and three of them in the top four. The problem is clearly not our batting.

The selectors are trying to fix something that isn’t broken. There are three things that need to be fixed. 1) Give the captain a long rope; 2) Don’t touch the batting until the South Africa series is over, and fix the bowling quickly; 3) Get the board mandarins and the selectors to shut up and work for Indian cricket, and not try their best to give the media stories, get their faces on the telly and their columns in the papers.