At the height of the Anil Kumble-Virat Kohli row, one of the oft-repeated suggestions was a logical one: why can’t they sit across the table and sort things out?

Now, as the bickering between the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (COA) and the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) reaches embarrassing proportions, perhaps it is time to ask them the same question: why can’t you sit across the table and sort things out?

The constant back and forth between the two committees points to a complete lack of transparency and communication between the two. So much so that the absurdity of it can even strike one as funny in a dark, twisted way.

The timeline of events that have taken place since Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman interviewed the India coach candidates is not only perplexing but also very disturbing.

  • July 10: The CAC interviews the five candidates and decides to delay the decision as they felt the need to speak to India captain Virat Kohli.
  • July 10:  COA Chairman Vinod Rai, however, asked the CAC to complete the process by July 11 evening. The news made it to the papers through a source.
  • July 11: Sourav Ganguly, though, was stumped by the COA’s sudden demand. He said the COA was party to the decision (to defer the announcement).
  • July 12: CAC names Ravi Shastri as head coach for the India team. They also name Rahul Dravid as batting consultant for overseas tours and Zaheer Khan as bowling consultant.
  • July 12: The BCCI issues a press release. The subject line of the email sent read: Committee of Administrators hails the CAC coach recommendation. It was an unsigned letter.
  • July 13: According to reports quoting sources, the Committee of Administrators was unhappy with CAC’s decision to pick batting, bowling consultants.
  • July 13: The BCCI issues another press release in which it thanks Ganguly, Tendulkar and Laxman for executing “the assigned task with total transparency, professionalism and commitment to Indian cricket.” 
  • July 14: The Mumbai Mirror  carries a front page story quoting an unnamed COA source which talks about how the “Big Three have undermined Ravi Shastri by appointing Zaheer and Dravid” and also mentions that the appointments of Zaheer and Dravid will be reviewed on Sunday (July 16).
  • July 14: CAC writes strongly-worded letter to COA chief Vinod Rai which, of course, gets leaked.
  • July 14: An insider reveals that COA will ask Zaheer Khan to give up Indian Premier League contract for India job.
  • July 14: Another BCCI press release. This time, they clarify that Ravi Shastri was consulted before Zaheer and Dravid were appointed.

The most disturbing part of the whole issue though has to be how badly compromised the COA is. They have just three members now – chairman Vinod Rai, Vikram Limaye, and Diana Eduljee – and have been appointed by the Supreme Court to reform the BCCI. In effect, they have the mandate to set things right in the way they see best. Despite that, they still feel the need to talk to newspapers and agencies as “sources.”

Surely, they could have picked up the phone and called Ganguly, Tendulkar or Laxman. Instead, they have chosen a well-established BCCI practice and presented their views as a source. They talk about transparency but then respond to a tactic that can only be termed as a low blow. Given that there are just three people left on the panel, can it be so difficult to identify this source?

The CAC’s response to these underhanded methods was to fire off an email to the COA:

“As we have outlined, that [forcing Zaheer and Dravid on Shastri] is not the case, it is imperative that the cricket- loving public at large is made aware of the reality. We could do it ourselves, of course, but we don’t want to further queer the pitch. So we would respectfully request you to clear the air and set the record straight in this regard,” the letter reportedly read.

That the BCCI had to send off a press release praising the CAC is also an indication of how angry the members of the CAC really are.

More than meets the eye

Clearly, there is more to this than meets the eye. The COA clearly seems to believe that the CAC has exceeded it’s brief by selecting the consultants as well. The CAC, on the other hand, seems to believe that they have done no wrong.

It would have helped if the BCCI or the CAC had held a press conference after the appointment and explained their decision. That would have been transparency. Instead, we still don’t know why Shastri really got the nod – was it because Kohli wanted him or was his plan for the next two years better than that of the other candidates?

The last two appointments for the India coach position have been gentlemen, who despite having stellar records as players and commentators, have never really coached a side. Sandeep Patil, a former player and chief selector, criticised the selection process for India’s next coach in a hard-hitting interview to Mid-Day on Thursday.

“I wouldn’t even call it warped. I’d say it’s all wrong,” he said. “Sachin, Sourav and Laxman are absolute legends as players and have done great things for the country, but none of them have coached a team. Do coaches pick umpires and vice-versa?”

Whatever the reasons may be, there’s someone, somewhere who is having a good laugh at the COA and CAC’s expense. Given how some of the most respected names in Indian cricket are reacting to newspaper reports to CAC’s coach appointment is a bit of a joke and the COA haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory either.

Still, the free-for-all that has ensued only does the reputation of Indian cricket more harm than good. Why neither the esteemed COA nor the legends who make up the CAC understand this, is frankly beyond the realm of logic.