ICC is governing another game, it's just not Cricket

In the last decade, we have seen many fundamental changes in the game of cricket. Traditionally played in plain white clothes with basic minimum requirements of a stick, a piece of leather and six stumps – the game has travelled far but not in the direction it intended to. I must render an explanation to that statement in order to clarify it. The fundamental changes I am referring to range from, the introduction of T-20 cricket, power-plays in ODI’s, savage free hits, the UDRS, the T-20 league format for domestic cricket. To find an underlying common string to all these changes, we will find some common motivations. The first of these motivations is larger participation, primarily to strengthen associate nations and get more countries on board. The second reason is financial prosperity, commercial success for the game or specifically to develop a greater TV audience. This explains the direction that was intended by ICC but unfortunately events have turned out in another manner.

It happens only in India

The first question that needs be asked is if the game that is played now, is it cricket? Is the ICC bowing down to commercial concerns and misfiring by consequentially bending the rules a little too much? The second question that needs be asked is if the ICC has become subordinate (or compromised its authority) to the BCCI only to ensure the continuance of financial gains from this massive consumer of cricket.

In my viewpoint, there are no yes and no answers to these questions. There are arguments which I will list, both that answer these questions in the affirmative and in negation. But before that, it must be conceded to the credit of ICC that the primary motivation – that of increased participation is a noble one. Cricket is a game played in limited countries but its potential as a game with unique, unparalleled history and characteristically viewer friendly is vast, unexplored. The appropriate comparison must be with Tennis. The All England club hosts Wimbledon; the Lords on the other hand must be recognized as its equivalent in cricket. Wimbledon draws athletes from all over the world whereas all cricket has is a small number of competitive countries which can be counted on fingers. This calls for a change.

The first ideological problem that I see with the ICC’s method is that instead of promoting the beautiful game as it is, they have meddled with it to the point of its strangulation. I am not a purist and do not in the least resist the introduction of T-20. However, the idea of having batting and bowling power-plays and that too within the 16-40 over (that is indeed the new change being proposed) period in ODI’s is doing a little too much. To do so is to complicate a fairly simple game. At this instance we must look at how FIFA has done the fundamentals right with the game. It’s fun to just put the ball into the net! The basics!

The bowl-out is one of the many changes that were introduced and replaced. No one know why.

Ian Chappell has been the face of all the criticism delivered in the direction of the ICC. Even though, there is a definite element of jealousy in his tone now that India is at the pole, I am not entirely disagreeable to his criticisms. Chappell rightly points out, “As long as the whole game is financially dependent on India, it is not a healthy situation for cricket.” This are no two differing views to the fact that Cricket sells in India like hot cakes. India has the heart to bear the IPL for 2 straight months and still pack the stadiums. The television broadcast produces great revenue and thus we can see all major championships coming towards the Indian subcontinent. Is there a way that other countries could catch up?

Sri Lanka has prompted it’s entrepreneurs to come up in order to build an SLPL. The Big Bash is played in Australia and the English county is ever present. Is there a lack of marketing genius or a lack of interest there? I believe that there is a lack of strategic improvement. The policy that ICC is using is not secular equity but rather the trickle-down effect. Thus, India maximizes its games against Sri Lanka. Consequently, the SL Cricket Board gets a fair amount of revenue and in return there are no practice camps during the IPL. The revenue of a bilateral series are shared by the two countries and playing against India is a profitable proposition. But will this policy benefit cricket in the long term? Not really.

Geoffrey Boycott: ""If a majority of the ICC countries believe that the DRS is a good improvement for international cricket, they should vote for it and say, 'Sorry India, you are in a minority.' But there is fear to offend, and some countries are totally afraid to offend India."

I do not know why it has been fairly undermined in the media but the IPL was recently granted an unofficial window in the ICC”s fixed schedule. The Champions League which is pretty much an extension of the IPL in administrative terms, has received an official window. This is indicative of the partial treatment that you get when you are the source of all the moolah.

These changes throw a great question to us. It is a question that can strike fear in the heart of all passionate cricket fans. Has the establishment that run cricket lost trust in the game itself? The limited over edition seems to be a burden over the ICC’s shoulders so much so that the radicalization that is in progress hints at a T-20 style ODI. If that be the case why be hypocritical and impose an upper limit over the number of T-20’s played internationally?

There seems to be a lack of clarity within the ICC’s thought process. They are substituting their own disability to market the game with distrust in the game itself.