Right of reply:

Selection of under-14 tennis team to Australia

I refer to the articles appearing in the sports page of the Daily News of 26th April, and 3rd and 4th May, 2005 regarding selections for the above team.

I have served as the Chairman of the five member Selection Committee for tennis for the last 2 1/2 years. During this period we have worked diligently to ensure that the highest standards are maintained, both in relation to the quality of tennis which we support and the integrity of this committee, in the often difficult task of selection.

Particularly, in light of the very large talent pool which exists among young tennis players in Sri Lanka at the moment we have taken great pains to clearly specify a set of rules to which we will adhere in order to prevent any injustice.

Given this, I was deeply saddened and disappointed to read the accusations made against our decisions in the abovementioned article. Having competed nationally and internationally in the sport, I myself have been at the centre of many such decisions.

Some have worked in my favour and other against me. At all times, following the footsteps and advice of my mentors, I have taken adverse decisions in the spirit of the sport and never resorted to such actions as those referred to in the article.

It is vital that promising young players of today who will be our champions of tomorrow learn early that the only way to settle things is with a racquet on the court. Such professionalism is an essential quality of a true champion. For their sake, I detail below the facts upon which the decisions under attack were taken.

1. During our period as Selectors, the method of selection of all tennis teams by the Selection Committee was based on the following -

* Initially identifying and picking a pool of players based on ranking points and eligibility. The quantum of the pool depends on the depth of players in that particular age group.

Note: The SLTA General Committee's recommendations for selection (dated 30.12.2002) in terms of composition of the pool were not strictly followed, as from 2003 onwards the Selection Committee has consistently decided on a pool larger than the number specified in this recommendation.

The size of the pool selected was dependent each time on the depth of talent available in a particular age group / national squad. This system has been in operation for the last 2 1/2 years, and was applied to all teams selected and approved by the ministry to date.

* Having picked a pool, based on performances of players over the last 12 months, it is then necessary to pick the team on current form to give every player an equal and fair chance. In order to ascertain this aspect, trial matches are played among the members of the pool. Players who have shown outstanding form consistently, and are considered to be way above the rest, are exempt from trials and selected directly to the team.

2. The criteria for selection of the team from the trials, as well as rules and guidelines of conducting trials, are set out and clearly communicated by posting on the SLTA notice board, along with the draw for the trial matches.

3. The draw for any of the recommended trials is always conducted by a Selector, an SLTA official and the Tournament Referee, which ensures full transparency. Note: The Chairman, Selection Committee has not been involved in any of the draws for any trials, for any age group, to date.

4. The method of selection stated in (1) above has been followed consistently during the tenure of the current Selection Committee, and the teams recommended on this basis have always received ministry approval. Further, there have been no objections recorded with regard to this selection process/methodology over the last 2 1/2 years.

With reference to allegations in your articles regarding the following -

Player rankings and size of pool:

In selecting the under-14 boys' team to Australia, the selectors were of the unanimous view that Indika Wettasinghe and Dinesh Kanthan by virtue of their superior performance among the players of the U-14 age group, deserved to be included in the team.

Thereafter, as there were many players of a similar standard in this age group, and to afford everyone of them a fair chance, it was decided to have a knockout tournament involving 19 players (pre-qualification rounds for 4 players, with the winner to main draw of 16) as this would be the most fair and efficient manner to conduct the trials.

The criteria for selection to the pool is based partly on ranking points obtained by participating in tournaments and also on performance record - past and present. However, some ranked players cease to be eligible for that particular age group in the following year.

Taking this into consideration, the Selection Committee included in this pool, and in the previous pool for selections to Vietnam, a few young players who had no U-14 ranking points but had shown promise in the U-12 age group with wins over some of the ranked U-14 players.

One of these players (Amresh Jayawickrema), having come through the pre-qualification rounds to the main draw, made it to the semi-finals of the captioned trials, thereby endorsing the views of the Selectors.

Please note: Of the players who were available for the trials. Shehan Gomes was ranked 3 and Arvind was ranked 15 in the U-14 age group.

This same format of trials was conducted with regard to the team selections for Vietnam in December, where Shehan Gomes was the winner, and therefore selected as 3rd member of that team.

Similar trials were also conducted for the following teams which were selected recently:

U-14 girls teams for Vietnam and Australia

U-16 teams for boys Junior Davis Cup and girls Junior Federation Cup.

It should also be noted that the current Davis Cup pool which was selected by my team of Selectors, consists of 16 players and includes Renouk Wijemanne who was Sri Lanka's star performer at last year's Davis Cup and yet was ranked 18th at the time of selection to this pool.

Communication to players:

The criteria for selection for the U-14 boys and girls teams to Australia was clearly communicated to all players involved, and very definitely stated before the trial matches were conducted. This was posted on the SLTA notice board before the trials, and through the entire duration of the trial matches.

The criteria stated: "The winner of the event will be the third member of the team, whilst the runner-up will be the first reserve."

Results / team selection:

Eshan Jayamanne, by beating Arvind Fernando in the final round of the trials (7/6, 6/2) was selected as the 3rd member of the team. And by virtue of being the runner-up, Arvind Fernando earned his place as first reserve for the team.

(Please note that No. 1 seed Shehan Gomes lost to Eshan Jayamanne in the quarter-finals of these trials (3/6, 5/7) and the No. 2 seed B. Thassim lost to Arvind Fernando (6/7, 0/6) also in the quarter-finals).

After the trials, the names of the 3 team members and team reserve were forwarded for ratification in our letter to the Ministry of Sports on 5th April, 2005. Note: Ministry approval was received on 11th April, 2005.

Therefore, when Dinesh Kanthan informed the SLTA in writing on April 7, 2005 that he would be unable to participate in Australia in May, it was clear that the reserve would fill that vacancy in the team, as per the criteria laid down and communicated prior to the selection process.

(In the U-16 girls selections for Junior Federation Cup, a similar situation arose, where one of the members who qualified could not make the trip (due to her being also included in the U-14 team, and overlap of tournaments). The reserve, Hasini Jayatilake, was then included as the 3rd member of the team.)

Re: Daily News article of 26/4:

Referring to allegations made that although Shehan Gomes is far superior in performance to Arvind Fernando, Gomes was overlooked for the team to Australia - whilst appreciating his performance record in 2004, given below are the results of the Asian u-14 series tennis tournament concluded at the SLTA courts on Friday 29th April, 2005.

For 3rd place - Arvind Fernando beat Shehan Gomes: 9/4.

Doubles finals - Indika Wettasinghe and Arvind Fernando beat Shehan Gomes and Eshan Jayamanne: 6/2, 6/1.

Re-trials:

Following allegations in the article, and after several meetings, the SLTA General Committee recommended on 1st May that further trials be held between Shehan Gomes, Arvind Fernando, B. Thassim, Kelum Thiyambarawatte and Amresh Jayawickrema, subject to Ministry approval.

As Chairman, Selection Committee, I pointed out that we have had no directive from the Ministry asking for fresh trials and as the team had already received Ministry approval we should first check with the Secretary, Ministry of Sports before commencing fresh trials. Of the 5 Selectors, 3 were of the view that we should start trials on the morning of Monday 2nd May.

Amresh Jayawickrema informed the SLTA prior to the draw that he would not be available due to ill-health.

Trial matches were therefore arranged between Shehan Gomes, Arvind Fernando, B. Thassim and K. Thiyambarawatte.

In the SLTA's letter dated 1st May 2005 to the players regarding these re-trials, it is clearly stated that the winner of the trials would be the 3rd member of the team, and would be selected to represent the country.

On the morning of 2nd May, after the draw was posted on the Notice Board, Shehan Gomes informed the SLTA that he would not be available. Despite this, the SLTA committee insisted that Arvind Fernando play two matches vs Thassim in the morning and Thiyambarawatte that same afternoon.

The results of these trial matches are given below: Arvind Fernando beat B. Thassim: 6/2, 6/1. Arvind Fernando beat K. Thiyambarawatte: 6/4, 6/1.

Meeting with Secretary, Ministry of Sports on 2nd May, 2005

The Selectors are appointed by, and answerable to, the Minister of Sports. As there had been no directive from the Ministry to re-select the team, it was essential to brief the Secretary to the Ministry of the SLTA's recommendation to conduct fresh trials.

I met with the Secretary to the Ministry and detailed the sequence of events that had transpired.

Having reviewed the facts, and after a meeting with the Secretary SLTA, the Secretary to the Ministry informed us that same afternoon that the team had already been approved, and he would not sanction any changes. I then communicated this decision to my co-selectors and the SLTA committee.

It should be evident from all the facts above, that there had been no conflict of interest at any time during my tenure as Chairman, Selection Committee. All policy and guidelines have been clearly defined and communicated, and transparency and impartiality have been shown at all times.

- Arjun R. Fernando.

Editorial Note:

Arjun Fernando has merely described a selection criteria adopted by his selection committee. The above selection criteria defers from the set selection guidelines, advised by the SLTA Committee.

Though Fernando and his selection committee has adopted their own selection criteria for more than two years, it does not mean that it is the right thing.

Approval of their teams on previous occasions by the Sports Minister does not give recognition to their own selection criteria, considering the fact that the national governing body (SLTA) has already set guidelines with a national policy.

He has admitted that the SLTA rules on selections have not been strictly adhered to. The SLTA rules clearly specify that, when a team of three players is to be picked, trials must be held for six players only. As his son Aravind Fernando is ranked No. 15, he would not have even played trials.

As a result of not following SLTA criteria, his committee has deprived another player, ranked much above, a chance of making it to the team.

We assume that the SLTA Committee had trust in Fernando and that did not closely monitor selection criteria followed by them. But once it was exposed by us, the SLTA investigated the committee's action and decided not to renominate Fernando as Chairman of selectors, considering the 'conflict of interest'.

When we first highlighted the controversial selection and on subsequent follow up stories, we have been fair by Fernando and gave him a reasonable opportunity to explain his side of the story and published what he had to say on the allegations.

We also understand that when the selection topic of his son was discussed by the selectors, the Hony. Secretary had repeatedly reminded Fernando Snr. that he should not remain at such meetings due to conflict of interest.

Lastly and more importantly, if Fernando believes that they followed proper selection criteria, why did they decide to have fresh trials after we had exposed the matter.

We do not have anything personal against anyone, but only want justice and fair play to prevail as any backhand selection would be a bad example and bitter experience to younger players.