Lets take stock

Kumar Sangakkara's decision shook the cricketing world just as it was recovering from the hangover of the World Cup- be they celebrations or commiserations. Here was a Sri Lankan Captain who sat in the hot seat but had commanded the respect of cricket playing nations for his leadership and his skills, a leading batsman in the world.

Very few who wear the mantle of glory that Sangakkara does would want to step aside from the bright lights, from the trappings that go with it and the financial gains that accrue through a variety of forms.

Yet, to his credit he did not hang on. Rather he graciously stepped aside in the time of his own choice. He made room for a new leader stating that he will quit as captain of the 50 and Twenty20 game, adding that a new captain should be installed NOW to take us to the 2015 World Cup to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand.

In the after-glow of the Sangakkara resignation, the selectors bowled a 'doosra' resigning en-block given that their tenure ends on April 30. It is now up to Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage to appoint a new selection committee.

It is heartening that Sangakkara has offered the prospective cabal of Selectors that he is available to lead the team in the Test against England, Australia, if required to ensure an orderly transition. The ball is now in the court of the new selectors. As to how the selectors will react will be interesting to watch.

Sangakkara had said that, it was not the loss to India in the World Cup final that prompted him to take this decision, but that he had decided on this course of action even before the World Cup was called 'play'.

Blaze of glory

Sangakkara must be applauded for his courageous act. He is quitting when sports fans are asking the question why? And some, albeit a much smaller number, ask why not? He would of course have liked to crown his task by going out in a blaze of glory by winning the 2011 World Cup. But that dream remained elusive. However, the next World Cup is four years from now, and like that perennial - it's a long way to Tipperary. Before the World Cup comes the Twenty20 World Cup to be contested in Sri Lanka and picking a captain and squad to win that contest should be our first priority.

It is salutary that Sangakkara has said that he would be available as captain if needed for the Three Test series in England and when Australia tour here next for a Test series. That's on offer on the table for the selectors to ruminate on.

Not tickety boo

To Sangakkara's quitting, the talk doing the rounds is that everything was not tickety boo in the squad in the run up to the World Cup final in Mumbai which we lost to India by six wickets.

It is not unusual for people to start venting their feelings and opinions, and put forward "what-if" theories once a trophy is not won. That is nothing new. It may even be a good thing to let off steam and to reflect and draw lessons from. After all, nobody is perfect.

But the fact is that we lost a final that we could and should have won. Sangakkara's captaincy was brilliant one day, and ordinary the next day. That was the conundrum. Consistency is what is expected of captains and Sangakkara had his days.

Winning team

It is customary for a winning team to be lorded on. But it's also the cross that the Captain of a losing team is forced to bear when a key game such as the Cup Final is lost and is put on the table for a post-mortem. Winners have many fathers but losers are often orphaned! That is traditional. And Sangakkara will have to face that as part of his lot. But given his track record and his standing and his broad shoulders he will be able to take the heat.

It is fair to say, therefore, that this was a World Cup final that should have been won and it requires Lankans to reflect in earnest as to where and what went wrong. Excuses are being adduced, chief being that the dew factor stepped in and the bowlers found it difficult to grip the ball and deliver the way they would have liked. But in my previous columns I have stressed that excuses however good are unacceptable once in the big league. And I hasten to reiterate.

Dew factor

When the Lankans played New Zealand at Wankhede where they lost the final to India, the Lankans would have noticed how the Kiwi bowlers were struggling to handle the soggy ball. The dew factor is synonymous with Wankhede.

Then it begs a question as to why we chose to bat first having won the toss. Obviously the decision to strike first in case the toss was won would have been a majority decision which later turned out to be the wrong decision.

Yes we are being told that in the run up to the game,Lankan bowlers were practising with balls soaked in buckets to get used to the wet ball in case a situation arises like what happened that night at the Wankhede. So what excuses, one may ask. In this aspect we feel for spinner Suraj Randiv who would have been out of depth handling a wet ball, without having any practice of bowling with a wet ball. He was an afterthought and being thrown to the wolves would have unsettled him.

Pertinent question

Also a key question to ask in relation to the final eleven: Wasn't it made public that Randiv was being taken as cover for the injured Muttiah Muralitharan whose chances of playing was in the balance. In a theatre of war - and the final was more than a theatre of war - there is no room to be sentimental.

When Muralitharan was declared fit to play - and he was certainly not the manner in which he fielded and bowled - there was no plausible reason to play Randiv. And what is more is that our mystery bowler Ajantha Mendis was benched. But that was a cardinal error or to put it bluntly-the mother of all blunders.

So ended a chapter in Sri Lanka cricket, that should be consigned to the limbo of the forgotten and when the great scorer comes let him write - that this was an expedition that should not have ended in the abyss it did.

[email protected]