Indian cricket is once again in the midst of turmoil. Even as the team recovers from yet another loss in a One day final, there is more bad news lingering in the horizon. This time it’s the board president whose statements have created flutters inside the echelons of Indian cricket.

Apparently, while appearing on a TV show for a popular news channel, the president, Ranbeer Singh Mahendra, announced the formulation of a committee to investigate the reasons for India's poor show in the one day game.

The committee, which is comprised of former cricketers and board officials, would look into the reasons for India's dismal performance in the limited overs game and subsequently provide its recommendations to the board. Rumors in the press about India's new coach Greg Chapell reporting certain players for attitude problems have been already making rounds and some are looking at the new developments as an aftermath to those rumors.

Formulation of committees is nothing new to Indian cricket, however, this is probably the first time a committee has been formed to look into poor performance. Unfortunately, if committees have been a common sight, then so has been the poor implementation of suggestions made by them.

In the past, we have seen committees formed for pitches, for grounds and for pretty much everything. However, to this day nothing much has changed as far as the character of Indian pitches or for that matter the quality of grounds is concerned.

Even at the risk of being termed a pessimist, I will put my foot down and say that the results of this committee would be no different from the several others that preceded it. I also have my reasons for it.

One of the main reasons for my negativity is the time of the decision and the time span for which the performance would be analyzed.

First, lets look at the timing of the decision. Honestly, I would have loved to see the board taking this step when India lost the Pakistan series 4-2 in March. Then, there could have been no excuses, no other considerations to influence opinions.

The Indian team was playing its arch rivals, so motivation could not have been a problem, they had been playing for almost six months in a row so it could not have been rustiness or lack of rhythm or form. Most importantly it would have been the end of the season, which would have meant a longer period to judge performances, rather than the two series' we have now.

Second, the time span this investigation. The committee would be looking into performances during the Sri Lankan series and the Zimbabwe series, a total of 10 one day games, of which four were amongst weaker teams. I find the 10 games appraisal period somewhat absurd. Absurd because one-day cricket is so unpredictable that 10 games may prove inadequate to really analyze performances, especially when 4 of those 10 games have been against poor sides.

A batsman or a bowler might have performed exceedingly well in these four games and moderately in two out of the six games against the stronger teams. However, in the final analysis, he would have performed in 60% of the games, which is not bad at all.

However, can such performances really be termed meaningful and consistent? I don’t think so, yet, despite this disparity in performances against weak and strong teams, the individual whether a bowler or a batsman would in all probability get another chance to represent India.

Moreover, some of the games in this period have been closely contested and there have been times when conditions have suited the bowlers more than the batsmen. Keeping such factors in mind the committee would be tempted to give some benefit of doubt to the batsmen.

The bowlers on the other hand, in helpful conditions, would have done their bit to retain their place in the side. Considering these circumstances it wont be a surprise if the entire exercise proves nothing more than an eyewash.

The last of my concerns is the inclusion of certain board officials in the committee. While, the presence of the board president and secretary is fine considering their positions, what mystifies me is the presence of Jagmohan Dalmiya.

Admittedly, he is the president of the Bengal Cricket Association and former president of the BCCI, but so are several others who are currently presidents of state cricket associations. It is natural then that Dalmiya’s inclusion is bound to raise more than a few eyebrows.

However, what bothers me is the fact that people blame Dalmiya’s influence in the cricketing circles for the selection of certain players in the team. Sure, this maybe no more than a figment of some idle minds' imagination but what if these allegations are true?

It would have been great if all the committee members were cricketers with peerless records and performances, and more importantly, cricketers with credibility. Having Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri and Venkatraghavan is the step in the right direction, but it could have been better had we seen a couple more names of the same stature.

Finally, while formulating a committee to measure performances is indeed a noble idea, it is vital that those assigned this responsibility carry it out with sincerity and commitment. That they keep the interest of the country ahead of all other considerations and provide Indian cricket the direction that it desperately seeks.