The Indian team selection for the Australian series would be a keenly watched one by all, and Krish Srikkanth and his band of selectors in their very first test have their work cut out. An Australian series is tough at any given point of time, and now when every selection is a discussion on whether the seniors should be left out or whether the junior are capable of replacing their illustrious peers, it is a task that not many will envy the wise five.

For this Australian series, I think it is a given that three of the Fab Four – Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman - will be part of the team without too much debate. From what I have heard of 'Chikka' in the media in the last couple of years, and having seen Yashpal Sharma's preferences during the Chappell / More era of selection, I have a very strong suspicion that Sourav Ganguly will be occupying his customary number five position, his non-selection for the Irani Trophy notwithstanding. I think it is a step back but I also have no doubt that this is what will be.

Vengsarkar and his team took a bold decision in leaving Ganguly out of the Irani Trophy tie but in one clean stroke, Tendulkar made it irrelevant by opting out of the tie. When one could select Tendulkar for the test matches without being part of the Irani Trophy match, why should one judge Ganguly by a different yardstick? Especially with the butt-kissers present in every nook and cranny of the BCCI set-up, this loophole will surely be the biggest weapon for supporting a Ganguly selection for the tests.

I have heard these chestnuts before of respecting the players and their having earned the right to leave on their own terms. I have heard more than one expert and knowledgeable commentator or media specialist write about how the selectors should sit down with the seniors and talk to them about the transition plans and about how they plan to infuse an element of youth in the team. It all looks very nice in the articles but when each of the senior players has clearly spelt it out that retirement is not on their minds and they will continue to play till they 'enjoy it' (and damn the runs), it really leaves no options open for selectors who are not willing to take strong decisions and not keep popular opinion in mind. They have to select the players or risk the ire of the media and public.

It is in that respect that I find Kiran More's tenure as one among the best in recent memory. One can argue about whether the selections his committee did were good or not but they took a policy decision and tried to implement it, public opinion notwithstanding. Yashpal Sharma was probably one of the lone dissenting voices in that selection committee and Ganguly's comeback would further be strengthened by the fact that Yashpal is a part of the current selection panel.

If the previous selection committee had selected the team for the Australian series, Ganguly at least had a minimal chance of making the team. The scenario has changed with the change in personnel. However, one thing is clear! Ganguly can go out now or he can go out in the next series or in the next; so with Dravid, Tendulkar (who will definitely never be dropped but will retire on the day he chooses), Laxman and Kumble. For the seniors, it is a matter of time. One need not chuck out the complete set but one by one, they will have to make way for the Rohit Sharmas and the Suresh Rainas. Even if the current selection team selects all seniors today, including Kumble as the skipper, the days when their reputations surpassed that of Indian cricket is over. Greg Chappell ensured that, if not anything else.

My personal preference would be to have two batting youngsters in the squad while including Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar, and have one of the youngsters be part of the eleven in every test match. Based on their performance - and the pressure would be tremendous - either they could be carried over to the next series or any other youngster could replace them; it is a judgment call based on whether the youngsters look all at sea during their time in the middle or they look capable of adapting with time. The one thing that should not be done is to bring back a Ganguly should the youngsters fail. That would be a step back.

It is not just about Ganguly; this is not a vendetta against him. As expressed in a previous column I think Ganguly should be the first to go simply because he is the weakest link. In time, maybe within a year to year and a half's time, I would like to see at least three of the five (Fab Four plus Kumble) replaced by youngsters in test matches. And while the example I have given is for the batting slots in the test team, the principle remains the same for the bowling attack.

We might get a few centuries less but where team results are concerned, I doubt if we will see a massive difference in the win / loss / draw percentage. The Indian team, with all its superstars, never had a good record in terms of test match victories.

October 1, Krish Srikkanth on strike; Ball 1; Will he defend or attack?