Continuity is a word seldom associated with Pakistan cricket, so when one
discovered that seven members of the Pakistan A squad that triumphed over
Sri Lanka in the unofficial three-Test series, also played in the Under 19
World Cup here last year, one felt obliged to comment, because the converse
is true of Sri Lanka.
Not a single member of the Sri Lankan team in the final Test Match, played in the Youth World Cup; a tournament in which they had defeated Pakistan in the semi-finals, before losing to India in the final. Ian Daniel, who played in the First Test Match in Dambulla, and Akalanka Ganegama, who played in the first two Test Matches, were the only representatives in the entire series.
Indeed, for Pakistani players, the route into the national side is clearer.
The Under 19 team side is a natural feeder into the A team and then from
there one can progress into the national team.
For Sri Lankan cricketers, however, the process is confused - there is no
natural progression from the Under 19 team to the A side. Worse, no one
seems to quite know what the A team is.
Sri Lanka used 22 players in this three-match series, an unwieldy number
that smacks of selectorial indecision and almost certainly hampered the
performances of individuals involved and contributed to the team's eventual
downfall.
With the squad being chopped and changed with alacrity, the players were
forever looking over their shoulders and were put under unbearable pressure
to perform. Privately they admitted to unsettling feelings of insecurity.
According to the team management, the selectors rationale was that they
wanted to give an opportunity to as many players as possible. This series
was to act as a stepping to the future when a leaner squad of approximately
16 could be picked for forthcoming A tours.
It is true that many players were given an opportunity, but it is the
quality of that opportunity that poses the problem. With an overbearing
importance attached to each innings played and with the omnipresent threat
of the axe should they fail, it is no wonder that the batsmen failed to live
up their potential.
Sure, the selectors are looking for strong-minded players, but one cannot
expect even the most battle hardened young cricketers to flourish in such an
environment of flux. Continuity of selection breeds confidence and an
environment conducive to personal success.
One wonders as to what poor Hemantha Devapriya, the A-team coach, said to
his batsmen before each match. Perhaps it was: "Good luck machang but
remember, if you don't score today, you will probably be dropped because the
selectors think you may be a good player but they are not very sure."
Is it really true that the selectors could not identify a squad of 15
players for the Test series? If they have not seen enough of the players
involved then the obvious question is, why not? A stable squad would have
been preferred by the players and would have provided a clearer indication
as to the potential of each player.
As it stands, the selectors have gained few insights from this three-match
series. The now know that Thilan Samaraweera deserves to be promoted ahead
of Kumar Dharmasena; they will realise, perhaps reluctantly, that Avishka
Gunawardene is head and shoulders above the other upcoming batsmen; and that
Michael Vandort is an exceptional slip fielder and a promising batsman.
Apart from those three, we know little more. Those that have failed were not
given a proper chance, so a judgment now would be premature. This is true of
Ian Daniel, Jeevantha Kulatunga, Dammika Sudharshana, Shantha Kalavitigoda
and Malintha Warnapura.
In the defense of the selectors they did they need to balance the needs of
the national team. For several of the 24-man national squad this A tour
provided an ideal opportunity to gain valuable match practice against a high
quality opposition. In normal circumstances the likes of Kumar Sangakkara,
Tillakaratne Dilshan, and Indika de Saram may not have played.
Clearly a decision has to be made: the A team is either a vehicle for the
national players to practice or it is a gateway to the senior side, a means
of providing experience to an emerging crop of players.
In fact, the situation is crying for a complete overhaul of the
developmental system. The concept of an A team has become confused. Is it
the Sri Lankan second team, a natural feeder into the test team? Or is it a
collection of young players, a true developmental team, who are unlikely to
play for the national team immediately, but could so in a couple of years?
The obvious solution, in a country such as Sri Lanka where the domestic
cricket is so poor, is to have two developmental sides: an A team which is
effectively a Sri Lankan 2nd XI and an Academy side, which provides a
stepping stone from the Under 19's to the A team, and offers young players
an exposure to a high standard of cricket at an early age.
A proper Second XI or A team is crucial because it will help to bridge the
gapping divide between first class and international cricket. The Second XI
would play touring teams in Sri Lanka and could tour the likes of Australia,
South Africa and England to gain greater experience. In the spirit of Asian
co-operation there could even be regular tournaments with our neighbours.
The Academy Side would also play touring sides in their warm-up games and
tour abroad to play against the Academies that are springing up all over the
world. The important point is that the squad members get a greater exposure
to a higher standard of cricket at an earlier age, something that is not
possible in the present hybrid system because the youngsters are crowded out
by more established players. Even if they do get an opportunity, it is often
shortlived.
The root of the problem is, of course, domestic cricket, but that is a
dilemma that could take time to adequately resolve. In the meantime the
setting up of an Academy and A team is essential if Sri Lanka's young
cricketers are to realise their full potential.