There is a proposal for a new executive board of the International Cricket Council to be permanently made up of the England and Wales Cricket Board, Cricket Australia and the Board of Control for Cricket in India, with one other member nominated on an annual basis by three other boards. The draft proposal also suggests the scrapping of the Future Tours Programme for a new bilateral system which will see England, Australia and India play each other more often.
So are there any positives in the suggestion? Let us take a honest look at the suggestion.
There are some positives, but also major negatives in this proposal. What we have to think about is whether it will work? Whether the idea is sound? Whether the dangers out the derivable benefits?
First and foremost, If accepted, it would divide the ICC into a 'P3' with veto vs. Others like the United Nations. As we see in the UN, by itself, the P3 suggestion is not something unworkable. SAF, NZ and others might well feel slighted, but that feeling has to put aside if it can better World Cricket as a whole.
If we think back, Cricket was ruled/regulated/administered by MCC through ICC till 1993. Only after 1993 the ICC as we know (hate?) became functional with more say for WI, SL, BAN, NZ and of course PAK and BCCI.
Before 1993 it was MCC all the way; in effect it was TCCB (the predecessor of ECB) and ACB in the guise of ACB which was running world cricket. Some would say that NZ also had a say, by hanging on to the coat tails of ACB; and WI was hand in glove with its masters in ECB, and their players being well looked after with lucrative contracts in Country Cricket.
After 1993 and the emergence of the 900 pound gorilla-cum-elephant (nay, gorilla-cum-rhino -for its short-sighted policies) BCCI, made ICC into what we have today. SL and PAK were allowed to play their chuckers and every one who had a bat in hand wanted a say in FTP and a full fledged series.
I never understood the use of all the Test teams playing against ZIM or BAN. Frankly, except for those in BAN/ZIM, I doubt if any other (except those in the touring nation) care for those cricket series. In contrast, an Ashes or an Indian jaunt in SAF is looked at with interest.
If we are brutally honest, strictly speaking, wouldn't we say there are only 7 Test quality nations today? AUS, SAF, ENG, IND, NZ, and SL with a toss between PAK and WI for the last slot.
If we actually remove the chuckers from SL and PAK (and cheats and fixers from PAK), those 2 would be only slightly better than BAN/ZIM, and we would have only 5 Test quality teams.
To be perfectly honest, IND and NZ (despite the rankings) are slightly weaker when compared to AUS and SAF. The reason being that these two teams only *win* (regularly/consistently) in their home soil and don't play good while travelling.
To be fair, ENG till the current Southern Ashes was in touch with AUS & SAF, but now looks like have to be relegated to the company of IND and NZ.
This is what the current (1993-2014) 'rotational' administration policy of ICC has brought us. Of the undisputed reigning champion teams of 1990s (AUS, ENG, WI), one is in shambles (WI) and one has gone diddly-donkey (ENG). Only the Proteas have lived up to their potential from 1990s and joined AUS atop the pyramid of Cricket.
The rest of the others from IND to SL/PAK have stagnated almost at the same levels as they were in 1990s - in spite of genius players (Sachin, Dravid, Inzamam, Akram, Jayawardane, Jayasurya) and despite the chuckers (Harbajan, Murli, Akthar etc.)
Now, what Giles Clarke is proposing is to turn the clock back a little and bring back the pre-1993 administration. It only turns it back a little, as instead of TCCB-ACB running roughshod, it will be the 900 kilo short-sighted BCCI which is going to smash the china, and one of the other 5 from (WI, SL, PAK, NZ and SAF) there to be crushed in the process.
Apart from the fact that the BCCI is being run by short sighted, selfish, arrogant, impulsive, imprudent and not-so-wise men, it does sound good that the present 'democratic' functioning of ICC is done away with and a more consistent, and like-minded approach is adopted to try and improve Cricket.
Since the present administration has failed, let us try something else - and that something, why not modeled on an arrangement which worked before?
Of course, there are 3 dangers if this system is adopted and which need to be guarded into.
(new oompire? image courtesy Punch circa 1925)
The dangers which have to be looked into before adopting the new management model for ICC are:
1. Review arrangement:
If it doesn't work out, then we should be ready to adopt a different approach after ~20 years. If present ICC rotation-in-administration policy followed from 1993 till 2013 is to be superseded, then the new management set-up should also have a built in review period in 20 years, to be changed if necessary; and to be modified as will be necessary.
2. Safeguards against ICC becoming a 'cabal':
Seeing the nature of the beast that is the BCCI, I wouldn't place any bets that the ICC would not become a mirror image of BCCI (with all the adjectives I used in the paragraph above). This is one of the most important safeguard to be put in place. Something like a one or two tenure limit, with an succeeding ban on any elective position (in National or World Cricket) for the duration of 3rd (next) tenure.
:-)
3. Nurturing Cricket Talent:
An alternate system to provide talented cricketers from other non-Test playing nations an opportunity to play in Tests and also in 1st class (handsomely paying) domestic tournaments - for e.g. Someone like Ryan ten Doeschate shouldn't be neglected/not find an opportunity just because he is from Holland. The mechanism has to be put in place for someone like him to have the same opportunity as say Eoin Morgan.
(b) Uniform (or basic) rules of play for even domestic 1st class tournaments, so they actually foster Cricket talent. For e.g., Ranji Trophy, which was once compared to Country Cricket is in shambles now. I doubt if India can put together a 'decent' Test team for a tour of ZIM or BAN (forget other places) from all the 27 teams playing Ranji Trophy.
Some basic playing conditions have to be put in place for a (or all) Premier domestic competition in all Test Playing nations, which would ensure an adequate bench strength of the Test playing nations. It is not only India which is abjectly bare in this regard, look at the bare cupboard of ENG in the Southern Ashes.
(c) ,,,
(d) On the Anti Corruption Unit (ACSU) being disbanded (rumoured May 2014) - "Originally its was established as an educational body and to police international cricket matches" --> so they want to make it into an educational body and separate out the policing function to National Boards. Bad idea! Here is one better idea. Policing of one nation's board and players should be given to another - preferably the arch rival.
Thus Pakistan should police India, England to be set upon Australia, and so on. The Big 3 should get to police 2 nations each. Australia will watch both England and New Zealand; India both Pakistan and South Africa [;-)]; England both Australia and Zimbabwe. /LOL/
So, what do you think? About the proposal and my own suggestions?
PS: This is an edited and (slightly) rewritten version of my Disqus comment on the Telegraphy.co.uk report about ICC reorganization.
So are there any positives in the suggestion? Let us take a honest look at the suggestion.
There are some positives, but also major negatives in this proposal. What we have to think about is whether it will work? Whether the idea is sound? Whether the dangers out the derivable benefits?
First and foremost, If accepted, it would divide the ICC into a 'P3' with veto vs. Others like the United Nations. As we see in the UN, by itself, the P3 suggestion is not something unworkable. SAF, NZ and others might well feel slighted, but that feeling has to put aside if it can better World Cricket as a whole.
If we think back, Cricket was ruled/regulated/administered by MCC through ICC till 1993. Only after 1993 the ICC as we know (hate?) became functional with more say for WI, SL, BAN, NZ and of course PAK and BCCI.
Before 1993 it was MCC all the way; in effect it was TCCB (the predecessor of ECB) and ACB in the guise of ACB which was running world cricket. Some would say that NZ also had a say, by hanging on to the coat tails of ACB; and WI was hand in glove with its masters in ECB, and their players being well looked after with lucrative contracts in Country Cricket.
After 1993 and the emergence of the 900 pound gorilla-cum-elephant (nay, gorilla-cum-rhino -for its short-sighted policies) BCCI, made ICC into what we have today. SL and PAK were allowed to play their chuckers and every one who had a bat in hand wanted a say in FTP and a full fledged series.
I never understood the use of all the Test teams playing against ZIM or BAN. Frankly, except for those in BAN/ZIM, I doubt if any other (except those in the touring nation) care for those cricket series. In contrast, an Ashes or an Indian jaunt in SAF is looked at with interest.
If we are brutally honest, strictly speaking, wouldn't we say there are only 7 Test quality nations today? AUS, SAF, ENG, IND, NZ, and SL with a toss between PAK and WI for the last slot.
If we actually remove the chuckers from SL and PAK (and cheats and fixers from PAK), those 2 would be only slightly better than BAN/ZIM, and we would have only 5 Test quality teams.
To be perfectly honest, IND and NZ (despite the rankings) are slightly weaker when compared to AUS and SAF. The reason being that these two teams only *win* (regularly/consistently) in their home soil and don't play good while travelling.
To be fair, ENG till the current Southern Ashes was in touch with AUS & SAF, but now looks like have to be relegated to the company of IND and NZ.
This is what the current (1993-2014) 'rotational' administration policy of ICC has brought us. Of the undisputed reigning champion teams of 1990s (AUS, ENG, WI), one is in shambles (WI) and one has gone diddly-donkey (ENG). Only the Proteas have lived up to their potential from 1990s and joined AUS atop the pyramid of Cricket.
The rest of the others from IND to SL/PAK have stagnated almost at the same levels as they were in 1990s - in spite of genius players (Sachin, Dravid, Inzamam, Akram, Jayawardane, Jayasurya) and despite the chuckers (Harbajan, Murli, Akthar etc.)
Now, what Giles Clarke is proposing is to turn the clock back a little and bring back the pre-1993 administration. It only turns it back a little, as instead of TCCB-ACB running roughshod, it will be the 900 kilo short-sighted BCCI which is going to smash the china, and one of the other 5 from (WI, SL, PAK, NZ and SAF) there to be crushed in the process.
Apart from the fact that the BCCI is being run by short sighted, selfish, arrogant, impulsive, imprudent and not-so-wise men, it does sound good that the present 'democratic' functioning of ICC is done away with and a more consistent, and like-minded approach is adopted to try and improve Cricket.
Since the present administration has failed, let us try something else - and that something, why not modeled on an arrangement which worked before?
Of course, there are 3 dangers if this system is adopted and which need to be guarded into.
(new oompire? image courtesy Punch circa 1925)
The dangers which have to be looked into before adopting the new management model for ICC are:
1. Review arrangement:
If it doesn't work out, then we should be ready to adopt a different approach after ~20 years. If present ICC rotation-in-administration policy followed from 1993 till 2013 is to be superseded, then the new management set-up should also have a built in review period in 20 years, to be changed if necessary; and to be modified as will be necessary.
2. Safeguards against ICC becoming a 'cabal':
Seeing the nature of the beast that is the BCCI, I wouldn't place any bets that the ICC would not become a mirror image of BCCI (with all the adjectives I used in the paragraph above). This is one of the most important safeguard to be put in place. Something like a one or two tenure limit, with an succeeding ban on any elective position (in National or World Cricket) for the duration of 3rd (next) tenure.
:-)
3. Nurturing Cricket Talent:
An alternate system to provide talented cricketers from other non-Test playing nations an opportunity to play in Tests and also in 1st class (handsomely paying) domestic tournaments - for e.g. Someone like Ryan ten Doeschate shouldn't be neglected/not find an opportunity just because he is from Holland. The mechanism has to be put in place for someone like him to have the same opportunity as say Eoin Morgan.
(b) Uniform (or basic) rules of play for even domestic 1st class tournaments, so they actually foster Cricket talent. For e.g., Ranji Trophy, which was once compared to Country Cricket is in shambles now. I doubt if India can put together a 'decent' Test team for a tour of ZIM or BAN (forget other places) from all the 27 teams playing Ranji Trophy.
Some basic playing conditions have to be put in place for a (or all) Premier domestic competition in all Test Playing nations, which would ensure an adequate bench strength of the Test playing nations. It is not only India which is abjectly bare in this regard, look at the bare cupboard of ENG in the Southern Ashes.
(c) ,,,
(d) On the Anti Corruption Unit (ACSU) being disbanded (rumoured May 2014) - "Originally its was established as an educational body and to police international cricket matches" --> so they want to make it into an educational body and separate out the policing function to National Boards. Bad idea! Here is one better idea. Policing of one nation's board and players should be given to another - preferably the arch rival.
Thus Pakistan should police India, England to be set upon Australia, and so on. The Big 3 should get to police 2 nations each. Australia will watch both England and New Zealand; India both Pakistan and South Africa [;-)]; England both Australia and Zimbabwe. /LOL/
So, what do you think? About the proposal and my own suggestions?
PS: This is an edited and (slightly) rewritten version of my Disqus comment on the Telegraphy.co.uk report about ICC reorganization.
No comments:
Post a Comment