First of all, a round of applause for cricket for finally ending what seemed at first to be the saga with no end but which quickly became the saga that if nobody cared much about it, might just go away. Second of all, everyone involved can claim a win. The PCB has its equitable and just agreement, the sense that it is being treated as an equal with the biggest board in the game. The BCCI is not going to play in Pakistan, which is what it has wanted from the off. The ICC has a tournament, and all members their ensuing revenues from it. We all get our tournament and perhaps, somewhere down the line, a triangular or quadrangular series involving both India and Pakistan.
Third - and realest - of all, though, better make that a really slow handclap for cricket. If anyone thinks the outcome of this entire sorry drama is a win - least of all for cricket - then it is not the game's interests they have at heart, no matter how much they tell us otherwise.
Consider the ICC. Their perfunctory statement on the resolution is, by one count, six paragraphs long. By another, less generous, count, it is actually six sentences long, two of which spell out the decision and two being space fillers about a schedule that will come soon and about how many teams will take part. That's it. Six sentences, with no explanation or context as to why there is a statement in the first place. Why do we need a hybrid model, ICC, when the tournament was awarded three years ago to Pakistan as the sole hosts? And how come this arrangement will last until at least 2027?
Remarkably, it is the only statement the ICC has made since November 9, when the BCCI first informed the ICC that India were not going to travel to Pakistan. Not a single statement about the uncertainty around one of their premier events, a tournament essentially held hostage by two of their biggest members who together form their events' biggest rivalry. There's Stockholm Syndrome and then there's this.
It used to be said, a little disparagingly in the years after Malcolm Speed was forced out as CEO, that the ICC had become a mere event management company and was no longer a global governing body. What, then, might it be left as these days, given its lack of management of the 2023 World Cup and then the fallout from the T20 World Cup this year? An event management company that is no longer managing events at all, or at least not managing them very well?
If you conclude that this is down to a complete absence of leadership, or the total subjugation of the ICC to the game's strongest constituents, then you would not be entirely wrong. But I think a more illuminating insight can be drawn from Greg Barclay's recent interview with the Telegraph, in which the outgoing chair deploys a curiously detached gaze on the game, as if he were a fond - but mere - observer, with no real skin in it. The game's a mess, isn't it? Lost a bit of perspective, hasn't it? Sure hope Jay Shah uses India to grow the game and not put it under the yoke of India. Gee, somebody should really do something about all this. Er, who's going to tell him, guys?
And so, in this reflection, the ICC has stood aside and shrugged, watching the game not grow but grow more unruly, pulled here, pushed there, stretched out so that it loses all shape and meaning. Yep, it's a mess, fellas. Yep, there's challenges. If only somebody would do something about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment