Of Management and mis-Management: the ICC and its farcical governance

The ICC has plenty of questions to answer

The English chapter of the Ashes might be done, but it isn’t dusted by any means. Especially as repeated introspection into the English victory takes us back to their subtle, yet unmistakable, feat of underhandedness in the fifth Test at the Oval, even as they clamoured against the umpires’ verdict of bringing the curtains down on their thrilling second innings run-chase on account of lack of adequate light on the final day.

As both teams prepare to head into the Australian cricketing realms in the winter for the return-leg of the series, it would be this feeling that would weigh hard on their minds over anything else. In the aftermath of the English leg, while both teams thank and curse their share of luck for helping in adjudicating the series’ end, it wouldn’t be right to ignore the share of contribution from the sport’s chief organiser – the International Cricket Council (ICC) – that enabled England to win their third consecutive Ashes triumph.

Silence is often quoted to be golden, with certain illustrious philosophers attributing the quality to be a demarcation between intelligentsia and fools. But contrary to what has been laid down before us about this feature, in this case the ICC has proven itself to be one of the biggest kinds of chumps – as harsh as the word sounds – as far as its management and rule-book governing policies go. Call it a bias of sorts, yet another attribute that the ICC has been known to disperse to certain teams and cricketing bodies. The ICC’s marked silence nonetheless evokes a feeling of detriment to the qualitative appeal of the sport. One perhaps, that has never been seen before.

If it were that the difference between the expected and the delivered – in this case the over-rate – wasn’t as glaring as it was when the match statistics were tabulated and presented; the ICC’s lack of vocal participation could have been excused or perhaps, even overlooked. But the fact that the English team was tangibly slowing the game’s proceedings citing reasons that would have induced the ICC to come up with a hefty ban for the squad along with a steep ban for the team’s captain in case of any other team, and got nothing except a clear and neat sidestepping from the governing council on this issue, is proof enough that the ICC is swaying to the whims and fancies of certain elitist cricket boards.

And to say that such an attitude doesn’t bode well for the sport’s nurturing would only be touching the mere surface of the iceberg. In the past when teams like Australia, as infamous as they were, came up with ingenious tactics to twist the match tables to their advantage, the ICC proved itself to be a worthy sporting authority taking prompt and swift action. In comparison, the ICC’s stance towards this Ashes series (why restrict it to just one match) has been along the lines of absolute disinterest and lackadaisical appeal. While the critics of Australian cricket may indeed pinpoint this lapse of the ICC in context with the time-honoured shoe fitting the other foot, it isn’t about answering Australian cricket or English cricket anymore.

Instead some questions arising about preserving the sport’s integrity, even as several pillars of the sport’s standards have started to collapse and disintegrate under the ICC’s management, need to be answered. The ICC’s lapse in penalising England, even in the wake of Sir Geoffrey Boycott’s stringent comments and David Saker’s quick-fire defence about England’s decision to bowl slowly – brings to the fore the underlying rot pervading the cricketing body.

In the present times thus, the ICC seems to have become a farce of its own lofty aspirations and promises. It appears to have transformed itself into a power-hungry managerial authority, discarding the sport’s well-being in search of preserving its own niche in the commercial existence that the sport has been subjected to in entirety, leaving no exceptions whatsoever.