by Rohan Wijeyeratne
Davenell Frederick Whatmore said a mouthful recently when he claimed before the start of the third Test that Sri Lanka could bounce right back if they were honest enough to recognize their faults and then put them right. Unwittingly, the man may have uttered some profundity that applies to this country across the board in a much wider spectrum than just its cricket alone, but cricket being our brief here, let us confine our comments to that subject for the moment.

Tell it to the birds

By the time Whatmore uttered those monumental stuff, our management in England had already gone on record expressing its great disappointment over the developments concerning Ruchira Perera, stating that he had played cricket all over the world and never had a problem with his action before. Implying tacitly of course that it was dashed unfair to have reported Perera to the Referee. Not to be outdone, a once respected local umpire now retired from active service, went one better saying that he saw enough of Ruchira Perera at Lord’s on television to be convinced that there was nothing wrong with the man’s action. And then to cap it all, midway through the last Test match, Chaminda Vaas had the brass to say that Lady Luck had deserted him despite him giving his best shot on the current tour of England. Operating mostly at less than 80 m.p.h. devoid of any swing or seam, and hardly able to rise above waist high on tracks where men of far lesser experience in the opposing camp were getting the ball to whistle about our men’s ears, Vaas has obviously not heard Whatmore’s wisdom or if he had, he couldn’t understand it.

Where was the craftsmanship?

Chaminda Vaas embarked upon this tour amidst much fanfare as our first choice strike bowler in the absence of Muralitharan. He had by then captured 196 Test wickets and was, along with a lot of us, smacking his lips in anticipation of a rich haul in those seaming, swinging conditions of England. But he had to wait till midway of the final English innings on the tour to get to the 200 mark, and that too not without considerable trouble and expense. There was enough evidence for all to see that Chaminda Vaas was nowhere near as potent as one would have expected and the wayward, unharnessed speed of Dilhara Fernando was always more likely to get the better results on account of the greater bounce and speed he generated. True enough, Vaas had not the pace to match most of the others, but there was no craftsmanship in evidence either, which, given Vaas’ considerable experience cannot be overlooked or excused. Men of absolute minimal experience by comparison, such as Flintoff and Hoggard became almost giant killers, while Vaas along with the rest was toyed about by all, just as they pleased. Therefore Vaas’ belief that he was happy with the way he bowled in the final Test and that it was only the absence of luck that deprived him of greater achievement we shall swallow with not just a pinch but just about a truckload of salt.

Arnold — austere but effective

What must serve as some consolation through an unhappy and disorganized campaign in England, is the discovery of Russel Arnold as an opening batsman. Promoted to open the batting which gave him all the time and opportunity to think out and execute his game plan, Arnold, much like what his mentor Darrel Wimalaratne once told me of him, looked very much the genuine article. There was no flourish, no flash and no histrionics in his game, just a calm and austere assurance that he will only play the ones that he absolutely must. And having reached his three figure mark, he was as stoic as ever; with only the slightest hint of satisfaction shown by way of a twitch of his mouth. His was the job of batting out the day for his side; and he understood his duty better than everyone else. It was an innings of great maturity, character and resolution, and given the circumstances, almost priceless. Pity that his efforts were in vain, for all it took was one little lapse in his concentration and the attendant indiscretion before the slide began again, never to be reversed. Sri Lanka were cleaned up quite comprehensively thereafter, and in the process made England seem a lot larger than what they actually were.

‘Time’ Gentlemen!

We have perhaps said good bye to two stalwarts - Aravinda and Hashan - during the course of this Old Trafford Test match. No one would be wiser than themselves, that Test cricket is no longer the stage they belong to. Gallant men in their own right, it was sad however to see them struggle the way they did in most of their outings in this series. Four years ago, Aravinda would have dealt with the deliveries that got him in both his innings in the final Test almost dismissively, with the ball needing to be retrieved from several rows into the stands. Similarly, to watch the brave Tillekeratne take so many body blows reminded one of Brian Close sans helmet in 1976, taking on Holding, Roberts and Co. in their prime at the ripe old age of 45. Close opened the batting for England at Old Trafford and ended up black and blue all over for his trouble. Yet, never did he flinch as he did his job and posted a battling little knock on the board. Hashan did much the same here, but it was evident that his body made more frequent contact with the ball than did his bat. The time may have finally come for these two great servants of our cricket to bid their final goodbyes to the international scene, and the quicker they do it, the greater would our memory be of the days of their youth and glory.

Schaffter’s ‘indiscretions’

But the headline grabbing stuff came last Sunday with the news that Chandra Schaffter had been removed and replaced with Ajith Jayasekera, no sooner the English tour was over. If what we are told by a Sri Lankan correspondent in England is correct, Schaffter had angered the administrators back in this country by not allowing chairman of selectors Guy de Alwis access to the Sri Lankan dressing room. Then again another reason given is the induction of two players who were not members of the original team to play against Glamorgan which apparently had caused much concern back here in Colombo. Thirdly, Schaffter had become unpopular with the British media by refusing them interviews with his players other than the captain, coach and himself. Finally we are told that he also fined Chaminda Vaas US$ 200 for keeping a masseur in his room without permission in Sharjah.

Views and opinions on most of above are divided among the cricketing fraternity here, and certainly from this distance it would be unwise to attempt to pass judgment without knowing all sides of the stories. This is particularly so over the delicate matter involving the Chairman of selectors. Perhaps a bit more tact and guile all round may have averted this regrettable situation which has done the image of our country less than a powerful lot of good to say the least.

Not unprecedented if.....

As for the inclusion of two players outside the tour party to play in a county game, the attendant fuss may be uncalled for, if prior permission had been sought and obtained. This we are not certain about. Both England and Australia have similarly inducted players well outside the tour party for even Test match duty, when the original squad has been severely depleted through injury. Therefore it certainly is not unprecedented, though it would be, if no prior permission has been obtained from the Board by the tour management.

What’s good for the goose .....

As for Schaffter’s unpopularity with the British media for refusing them interviews with players, we give three cheers to Schaffter for his gutsy stand. When England were here just over 18 months or so ago, among its battery of men who trooped behind the team was a man whose job it was to keep out the local media from the players. It was impossible to get an interview with either a player or the coach, without first getting past this stoic Brit who had as much charm about him as the back of a belching bus. Therefore in our view Schaffter has not done something entirely unknown to the English camp, and therefore the attendant attention in our view is quite unnecessary.

Vaas and that $200 fine

And finally to end the litany of allegations against Schaffter, it has been suggested albeit tacitly, that he had gone - over the top in fining Chaminda Vaas $200 for an indiscretion in Sharjah, contrary to the manager’s standing orders. In the first place, the fine is so infinitesimal compared with the player’s annual takings, it will hardly be noticed, let alone be felt. However, this fine has apparently irked some others more than the victim himself, making it more of an issue than what it really was. Details of the story are unnecessary to recount, but those who know will confirm that clearly Vaas had overstepped the mark, showing scant respect for the rules on this occasion. There was also enough evidence in Sharjah to indicate that success had seeped into all the wrong places of our champagne sodden champions, and the events in England have merely gone on to confirm what many have been suspecting for quite some time now. This is not just our view alone, but that of several well meaning men who know their cricket. This included some from the Players Association who have been appalled by the team’s lack of focus particularly in Sharjah.

Shaffter’s, the only head to roll?

The replacement of Chandra Schaffter may or may not be necessary as much as some of the players given their current form and attitude. When things go so hideously wrong as they have in England, the first head that usually rolls is that of the captain of the side and not the manager’s. Unless we wish to be charitable towards personalities, the time may have come for the men in charge to provide the team with a better defined, more assertive and responsible leadership than what it currently enjoys.