Only those that played understand Test cricket

It was with some interest that I read the following at the end of a Cricinfo article about the forthcoming BCCI meeting: "All senior selectors will now have to have played at least five Test matches or 50 first-class matches. Currently a selector merely has to have played one first-class match. To be a member of the junior selection committee, the eligibility will be a minimum of 25 first-class matches."

I'm not sure I fully understand the thinking here. While he didn't select the team, John Buchanan "coached" Australia to success (although many might argue that it would have been harder to fail given the players at his disposal), despite playing just 7 first class games himself. And Clive Woodward, while having played for England at rugby, brought success to England in the 2003 rugby world cup because he saw England rugby as a business, rather than a sports team. I agree that the ideal sporting administrator has a blend of business and sports backgrounds, but the ratio of skills might be say 80:20 - i.e. it's more important to be skilled in business than it is to be skilled in sport. The BCCI are ensuring a few "jobs for the boys" but I can't help thinking their policy will reduce the chances of India achieving long-term success.