CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

Regardless of the country or the sport, it never ceases to amaze how fickle its fans and quick the about face when failure comes. We supposed adults who preach to our children the empty platitudes that it is the game that matters and not its outcome certainly do not practice this.

The multitude of armchair critics, who claim to know all sports so very well and do not hesitate to expound their uncalled for and more importantly unwanted theories, are the same who probably never played any sports, or if they did, were not very good. We all know how easy it is to sit in the pavilion or on the couch, coaching and second guessing.

Reading the vilification of Arjuna Ranatunga makes one wonder whether cricket is a team sport. While everybody agrees a captain is required to lead, is there not an incumbency on the other ten players to do their best, to pull together? Is that not the meaning of the word Team? So by extrapolation when a loss is suffered, shouldn't the responsibility be shared? A captain cannot win a game by himself.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ranatunga, the same reporters, politicians and fair weather friends who put him on a pedestal since 1996, are now crucifying him. The question has been posed time and time again, whether we would have won that World Cup if Australia and the West Indies had played us in the first round. That however is water under the bridge and mercifully now we will be spared the ad nauseam harping to the 1996 World Series.

For those who do not get caught up in personalities, the fact is Mr. Ranatunga did not win the World Cup, the team did.

In North American 'sports', captains are non existent or nominal at best. The coach runs the team both on and off the field. In baseball, when the pitcher is having a bad time, first the pitching coach comes out to assess the situation and if things do not improve, then the coach comes out, takes the ball, and replaces him with another. A most humiliating scene.

Fortunately this does not happen in cricket. But in both and all sports, when things do not go right, it's leaders, not the whole team, who get criticised.

Whoever was responsible for expanding cricket in Sri Lanka and bringing it to the level it has been should be applauded. Too long it was the conclave of the 'establishment' who, like the English, believed cricket should be played in the same old hackneyed manner, successfully keeping out those they felt did not meet their standards both in capability and socially.

That our national team is now representative of the whole island (?), is enough testament to the efforts of those visionaries. The fact that is now caught on a ``sticky wicket'', both on and off the field, is something that needs to be dealt with quickly in order that we get back into the swing of things.

Life as a whole is dependent on succession, to progress. When this is stymied, it stops. Similarly, cricket has to have a succession path. To remain stagnant is to encourage staleness and impotence. The tendency to hang on to positions whether they be in politics or sports is international. More specifically here in Canada among the Sri Lankans who continue to get much joy and sentimentality in perpetuating events like 'big matches', there is difficulty in getting the older ``old boys'' to give those younger a chance.

We must infuse new blood into our team, to recruit, train and expose new talent with a view to the future. Private organisations, like Singer, will I am sure, be quite prepared to be part of this re-building exercise. This must be done however without interference from any quarter even though in Sri Lanka, like many other Asian countries, it is not what one knows, but who and politics pervades every aspect of daily life.

There are many individuals in Sri Lanka who must be up to this task and will I am sure, undertake it with a vision, not for today or tomorrow, but with, at least, the next World Cup in mind. Then and only then will we rise again.

And RISE AGAIN we will.