SLC must shoulder the blame

Spare a thought for our junior cricketers who on the surface of it have been completely outplayed by their English counterparts in both forms of the game 3-0 in the three under 19 tests and 2-0 (1 no result) in the three under 19 one-day limited over games.

Anyone following the performance of these young cricketers would come to the conclusion that our school cricket has reached its nadir and the future of Sri Lanka cricket is a rather gloomy one.

On the contrary it is far from that. The blame lies within the portals of Sri Lanka Cricket at Maitland Place where decisions are made with regard to the future of the game in this country.

The team that was selected for the tour of England we are told by the SLC's director of operations Bandula Warnapura was with keeping an eye on the 2006 under 19 World Cup which is to be hosted by Sri Lanka in February-March.

As a result, the cut off date for selection for England was fixed at September 1, 1987 and the national selectors asked to follow these guidelines went ahead and picked a squad of 14 players from what was available.

Thus the average age of the squad that went to England was around 17 years seven months. The oldest member of the squad was Sameera de Zoysa at 18 years, 198 days and the youngest Sachith Pathirana at 16 years, 149 days.

England on the other hand stuck to their task of concentrating on the immediate series against Sri Lanka. Needless to say their selection policy was to pick a team that was their strongest at this age group and it was almost two years older than Sri Lanka.

Nine of the 16 players who appeared in the matches against Sri Lanka were well over 19 years (the oldest being Kevin Latouf who was 19 years, 344 days) and the rest over 18 (the youngest being Christopher Thompson who was 18 years, 52 days). They were not only big made, stronger and matured but 11 of them had experience playing county cricket while the others had played for county second elevens.

In comparison the exposure the Sri Lanka under 19 players had received before they departed to England was mainly two-day school cricket. Needless to say the difference in the age and experience showed in the results. There is no point blaming the coach and the manager who accompanied the team or the selectors for this folly. The fault lies with those at SLC who took the decision to send such a young and inexperienced set of players to England.

Would it not have been common sense to have selected a side concentrating on the immediate task at hand, the England tour and then diverting the energies to the 2006 under 19 World Cup later, which is six months away.

Does the SLC find six months insufficient to prepare a team good enough to win the World Cup? Were there any hidden agendas in bringing down the age limit? These are questions that are being bandied about in cricket circles following the poor results in England.

Three months prior to the England tour a Sri Lanka under 19 team captained by Harsha Vithana made a successful tour of Pakistan. Several of the players who went on that tour would have been eligible to go to England had not the SLC brought about this foolhardy policy of picking only players who would qualify for next year's World Cup.

The results in England would have been totally different had these players been selected. No cricketer's education is complete until he tours England is the famous saying. Why they say so is because the conditions and pitches vary so much during the day that the player must concentrate on his game 100 percent if he is to be successful. Had some of the cricketers who toured Pakistan been included for England they would not only have furthered their cricketing education but come out better cricketers from which the country would have benefited.

One could argue the present team that toured England although they were under age, also got the same exposure, but the margins of defeat and the lack of success in any of the matches played on tour could have a demoralizing effect on them. That is the danger.

Probably if Sri Lanka wins the 2006 under 19 World Cup, the SLC may turn around and say #'Our policy was right'. But that is not the argument here. One should plan to play the best side available for the immediate series before thinking of future series.

SLC has plenty of time to prepare for the 2006 under 19 World Cup because they have a one-day under 19 quadrangular in India in November which also features teams from Pakistan and Zimbabwe and a one-day under 19 triangular in Bangladesh in December involving England.

All these tournaments have been arranged as part of the preparations for the under 19 World Cup. So why dilute a Sri Lanka team on an important tour as England with inexperienced and under aged cricketers when a better, stronger side could have been sent, which would have brought back better results? It all points to poor planning and lack of imagination.

One hopes the SLC learns from these mistakes and takes decisions in future which are not detrimental to the future of the game.