Sid’s The Man For The Job

Sidath Wettimuny

From The Sunday Leader

“I am not sure if you should congratulate me…,’’ says Sidath Wettimuny, responding to compliments following his appointment as Sri Lanka Cricket’s new chief, “… or sympathize with me.’’

Beset by factionalism, born of decade-long political intrusions, and burdened with colossal debts, the call to helm the Cricket Board in its current chaotic state is anything but an inviting prospect. “The job is messy, and sorting it out is not going to be easy. Is it insurmountable? If it was, I wouldn’t be here. Where our cricket is concerned, I’ve always been hopeful, however big the problem is.’’

“Hopeful’’ is a safe and cautious word – it doesn’t bind you to guaranteed delivery of promise, which in this context means to bring order and solvency to an administration long hamstrung by politically-inspired divisions. The job before him is unenviable, to say the least. So, it is excusable if one assumes that Wettimuny’s usage of ‘hopeful’ is intended to cover against blame in the event the problems on his plate go unresolved. But there’s a lot about the new cricket honcho that rebuffs such an assumption.

If he found himself in cricket administration in the past, it wasn’t out of desire – rather, because he wished to contribute to a game he knows much about, as player, selector administrator and mostly, as faithful devotee. The reasons for his acceptance of appointment last week are not different. He has never hankered after office in the Cricket Board, a fact borne out by his absence in any elected Cricket Board.

“I am not going to get into arguments about the virtues or otherwise of elected Boards, but personally, I am not the one to stand for elections. It’s a matter of principle. That doesn’t mean I won’t have anything to do with elected committees – if requested to serve in the capacity of an appointed official, I will and I have.’’ In other words, his commitment to cricket is honest, pure of intent – so there’s reason to be “hopeful’’ he’ll deliver a cricket administration with less troubles than the one he inherited.

His importance to cricket is acknowledged by the fact that he has served in seven of the nine past government-appointed interim committees, the first time being in the Rienzie Wijetilleke committee of 1999 and the last, in the Arjuna Ranatunga -led body of 2008, a span embracing the regimes of Chandrika Kumaratunga, Ranil Wickremasinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa, proof of his a-political nature. So, when it was deemed a ninth interim committee was necessary, it was only logical that Wettimuny should’ve been chosen to head it – as good an acknowledgment as any that he is indispensable to cricket’s administration. As a member of seven previous interim committees, he comes into the job knowing well what it entails, something you can’t say the same about many past chiefs, driven as they were by desire for power, riches and social elevation.

Interim Committees are appointed to replace dysfunctional or corrupt elected committees; so Wettimuny, with his vast experience in interim committee administration, must know more than a thing or two on how to restore order to administrations thrown into serious disarray by the hand of politics. The legacy he inherits, however, appears to be far more burdensome than that bequeathed to past chairmen. He has to find ways to erase from Cricket Board’s ledgers monumental debts, the biggest being the near Rs.500-million owed to the State Engineering Corp for construction of the Rajapaksa Stadium in Hambantota, as well refurbishment of the Pallekelle and Premadasa Stadiums.

It wouldn’t be wrong to blame our disappointing performance in the recently concluded World Cup on the huge debts incurred by extravagant expenditure on the aforesaid infrastructures for the 2011 World Cup, of which we were joint hosts. If a part of that 2011 investment was instead made, as it should have, on a systematic program to develop our young emerging cricketers, we might not have found ourselves in the position we were for the 2015 World Cup: dependent solely on a few seniors for success. Sadly, it’s this overbearing dependence on Sangakkara, Jayewardene, Dilshan, Mathews and Malinga that proved the undoing of a country which had figured in finals of the past two World Cups. With what was, effectively, a five-man team, to qualify for a third straight final was pure wishful thinking.

As well, that a near half-dozen players from the original 15 members were ejected from the squad owing to injuries, and the embarrassing frequency with which requests were made for replacements, asks the question if administrators have given the medical and fitness aspects of training, not just to the national team but also the feeder teams, the importance it merits. Or, was the relegation of players’ fitness to secondary importance a cost-cutting exercise in the face of the Board’s stifling debts. That Chandimal, Karunaratne and Mendis, all young emerging cricketers, whose fitness ought to be at peak, were World Cup casualties begs for a comprehensive fitness program to be put in place, not just for the national team, but feeder teams, too.

That is not all that’s on the Wettimuny committee’s list of problems to sort out. The future of the national team has never looked bleaker than now. If previous generational transitions had been seamless, there’s a chasm facing the next change.  The transition to the next generation, in fact, should’ve been nearly completed by now. This is not to say that emerging players were not experimented with at the international level, but none, bar Thirimanne, showed they have the capacity to fill the boots of retiring elders.

A shakeup of the national coaching staff and reinstating a foreigner as head coach will no doubt be contemplated – but those won’t solve the deeper problem. You can hire the world’s best coaches, but if the replacement players come with inherent deficiencies (due to inherent deficiencies in the domestic cricket structure) there’s not a lot any coach can do. The focus for long has been on the national team – and not its feeders. At best the attention given the second tier has been ad hoc-ish. If it were otherwise, our cricket would not be agonising over finding suitable replacements for the departing generation. Some might argue that through experience the next generation would eventually come good, their deficiencies overcome – but international cricket is not a learning ground. When cricketers enter the portals of international cricket they are supposed to come equipped to challenge rivals on equal terms.

If these concerns have not been addressed previously, it is mostly because Sri Lanka Cricket has rarely been helmed by a national cricketer. In the post-Test era only two past national cricketers have headed the Cricket Board: Ranatunga in 2008 and D S de Silva, 2009-11.  So, in 34 years as a Test-playing nation, the Cricket Board has been presided over by former national cricketers for just three years – not the sort of ratio that goes to make a cricket-orientated administration. This is not say that the other heads of cricket have not made any contributions – they have, notably Ana Punchihewa under whose 1996 presidency, Sri Lanka won the World Cup. That however has been an exception to the rule. That cricketers are the main players in the business hasn’t been acknowledged by administrators – if it was, members of the 2011 World Cup finalist would not have been kept waiting an year for payment of their dues. And no thanks are due to the Cricket Board for the eventual settlement – rather thanks to the ICC, which directly paid the cricketers dues, not via SLC, something the ICC will have to be reminded should questions be raised about the legitimacy of the need to appoint the Wettimuny interim committee.

The Wettimuny committee has a huge undertaking on its hands. The first moves, though, encourage optimism. It is hard to imagine that Sport Minister, Navin Dissanayake, named the committee without consulting the chairman. Wettimuny has often spoken of ushering newly retired cricketers into administration – as a way of fostering better rapport between Board and players, apart from the fresh first-hand ideas they bring to administration. More importantly, with more cricketers in administration, a more cricket-orientated administration would eventuate – and the game would be less about personal aggrandisement and power that it presently is.

To invite just-retired Mahela Jayewardene and Muralitharan as consultants is unprecedented, and Wettimuny’s hand behind this move is difficult to disguise. No one knows the whys and wherefores for the present decline better than the named duo; so their thoughts can only provide the Wettimuny committee the remedies to work on – rather than dwell on the ills of past administrators for the team’s failures, the norm on assumption of office by previous administrators.

As well, in the committee are two members with whom Wettimuny has worked in past interim committees: Kushil Gunasekera and Prakash Schaffter, both former secretaries. Nuski Mohamed, also a past secretary, too is included, and the collective experience of three former secretaries can only have a positive impact. And having as Sport Minister the son of the man who battled formidable odds and successfully led the country’s campaign for Test status in 1981,  there’s reason to be more than “hopeful’’ of the future.

But cricket’s curse has been political interference. And unless Wettimuny is spared of this curse and allowed to run cricket in the way he thinks its best, be warned that he’d up and leave – as he did the game in 1987. He quit at just 31, after only five years of Test cricket – unhappy with the Board’s handling of players. Not the one to be embroiled in controversy, he quietly announced his retirement. He could do the same again if he’s unhappy in his new job.