by Rohan Wijeyaratna
It may not quite be just a toe. In fact from this distance, it looks more like an entire foot. And if the man succeeds in his quest as many of his ilk so vehemently boast, it is very likely that he will be in it up to his eye lashes!

In case our readers are wondering what the devil I am alluding to, the person under reference is Arjuna Ranatunga, the once stormy petrel of Sri Lanka cricket now turned politician. The occasion being his decision to delve into the murky waters of our national politics.

The deplorable depths of politics

Never has politics hit such deplorable depths as now in this country, where corruption and downright thuggery is talked about and tolerated by the body politic with almost nonchalance. Standards in public conduct and accountability have hit such deplorable depths that many in this country refer to national politics and its purveyors with the kind of revulsion that has to be heard to be believed. The days when politicians were respected as men of principle and decency are really, a long time gone.

It is into this melee that Arjuna Ranatunga has thought it fit to step into. His decision therefore raises serious doubts about the man’s sagacity in the first place. A man less of impulse than of calculation by disposition, this seems more a decision based on the former and less on the latter. Whichever way one were to look at it, it is quite probable that he will not come out of it unscathed.

Messing up things further...

Not once has a politician who delved into cricket come out without messing it up further. And that includes the late Gamini Dissanayake, during whose time tyrants and bullies held sway behind the scenes. Due largely to the forgiving nature coupled with bouts of acute amnesia we all suffer from, these incidents have now been almost forgotten. However, by and large, Dissanayake did well on many fronts, particularly in diplomacy which won this country many a good friend in cricket, but the same cannot be said of many others who held that post other than those who had authentic cricketing credentials to back them.

Will cricket’s loss be Arjuna’s loss too?

And now, for the first time in this country, we have a cricketer stepping into politics. Not just any cricketer, but someone who almost enjoyed icon status. All this mind you, when we were told cheering stories of how keenly the man was getting involved in the restructuring of the game with the Board and so on. All hopes therefore of Ranatunga walking the straight and the narrow must now remain dashed at least in the short term, for there is no scope for that in national politics even if Ranatunga wanted to. For the sake of cricket in this county, we hope his new innings will be a brief one, for our cricket needs him more than does politics. For the moment, cricket’s loss appears very much to be Arjuna’s loss too, though sadly, the poor man doesn’t seem to know it. We wish him a speedy return to sanity and to cricket.

A little cameo with Russell Hamer

Russell Hamer during his day was quite a character. Dressed in his immaculate cream flannels, with a smart navy blue cap atop his sandy coloured head, he made himself noticed whenever he was around on a cricket field. It mattered not whether he was behind the woodwork or in front of it, there was never a dull moment when he was around. Had the reverse sweep for instance been even thought of during his day, he would have revelled in it, swishing sixes over third man with rare disdain! He was the supreme showman; and guaranteed to upset the opposition be it when he was batting or wicket keeping.

Nearly thirty-five years on, it was a pleasure to see him chatting and chattering away alongside a vastly more sedate Jayantha Seneviratne some days ago in an interview on television. As usual Hamer had plenty to say, and it seemed a pity that the conversation was not led on a bit more to make it more gripping. The subject had a lot of potential to be developed into a really interesting chat, and all it required were a few cross questions. Unfortunately, most of these interviews are styled on a question and answer basis with no second questions asked on the same subject based on the answers received. Therefore although the answers received are sometimes ripe for a challenge, that hardly happens and a great chance is often let off as a consequence.

"Wicket keepers are born, not made"?

Hamer was saying that it was none less than Wally Grout who said that wicket keepers are born and not made, the exact opposite of what Duncan Fletcher the England coach and many other wise heads currently believe. What Hamer also forgot to say was that Grout was around in the business nearly 40 years ago and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then in the game and its thinking. What he was never asked was how come that recent history seems to show a different picture on the subject with men such as Stewart keeping for his country long before he kept for his county, and how men such as Rodney Marsh were picked well ahead of several others who were a lot better at the time. To compound the issue still further, England first chose Jim Parks in 1954 purely as a batsman. He won his next cap in 1960 by which time he was a batsman who kept wicket! Similarly John Murray was another, like Parks who didn’t begin his career behind the stumps. Gilchrist and Andy Flower though not really the best in the business when first chosen for national duty behind the stumps, have improved beyond recognition in their keeping and additionally show a Test batting average of over 50.00.

Keepers who can bat

Therefore, history seems to indicate that selectors the world over prefer to shore up their batting depth with keepers who can bat. In the process, they have made nonsense of the theory that wicket keepers are born and not made. In most instances, the selectors who have defied Wally Grout’s belief are well aware that a missed opportunity with a rookie keeper can sometimes cost the team dear, but then they will also tell you that there is no guarantee that the very best man will not have his off day too. As a consequence, he cannot be relied upon to give in turn a near 100% return in terms of performance day in and day out.

Two princely Sri Lankan keepers

When it comes to wicket keepers, they say this country had none better than Ben Navaratne and H. I. K. Fernando. I never saw the former though I did see quite a bit of the latter in my youth. Fernando was amazingly swift, and would do his work using lightening reflexes without fuss or having to lunge around. I have seen him keep up to Ian Peiris and Darrel Leiversz in internationals with the same nonchalance as when standing up to the likes of Fuard, Chanmugam, Crozier and Polonowita. Once I asked a respected former national cricket captain whom would he have picked between Navaratne and Fernando. Pat came the answer "Fernando" and by way of explanation he said that ‘HIK’ had the ability to score a hundred at any given time! That was the deciding factor, though many of the old timers say that Navaratne was the better keeper.

The changing face of cricket and its thinking

The game itself has changed so much, it is almost unrecognizable from the days when Wally Grout ball in hand refrained from whipping the bails off even though Fred Titmus, the makeshift England opener who had tripped, lay sprawled on the ground nearly a pitch length away from safety. Cricket and its thinking has changed from its very inception, and must like all others, continue to do so. With it though, sometimes regrettably, will go out for all time many a theory or belief that is near and dear to many who may belong to the ‘old school’. At its present rate of change, you win some, you lose some; but I guess you can’t have them all.