With the ICC executive meeting just a few days away, Malcolm Speed's comments could not have been worse timed. The chief executive of cricket's governing body intensified the ongoing verbal battle between the ICC and the BCCI, criticising the BCCI's handling of its stakeholders as well as ridiculing the Indian cricket team's international record.
While his comments will no doubt be misconstrued in some quarters as an attack on India's national identity, Speed does make some pretty valid points - points that are painfully familiar to regular followers of Indian cricket. The Indian board's prioritisation of profit above all - even player welfare - is the world's worst-kept secret. India plays more one-dayers than any other side in the world, often in brutal conditions, such as the 2006 home series against England where both teams had to endure 44 degree heat in Jamshedpur.
And that's just the national team. Conditions for domestic players are worse, with the remuneration far removed from that of their more illustrious counterparts. Contrast that with the systems in Australia, New Zealand and England, where professional players are well taken care of by their state teams and practice facilities aren't nearly as scarce. The end result for Australia has been tremendous, but results should not be an issue when it comes to ensuring the health and safety of players, and that is why I wasn't surprised when Malcolm Speed said what everyone was thinking.
It's a fair assumption that a board can be judged by the performance of its team. The board appoints the coach and selectors who then pick a squad, therefore the onus is on them to produce a winning team. There have been cases in the past where fringe players have been selected on the flimsiest of criteria (see Noel David and the notorious Abhijit Kale case) and predictably failed. Here too it is an indication of the transparency of a cricket board and the fairness of their decisions.
However, not all team failures can directly be attributed to the board. Modern cricket involves loose chains of command, whereby the players are answerable to both the captain and the coach, who have considerable influence over who gets selected in subsequent games. While it is the board's prerogative to select a squad for a tournament, it has no say in picking the final XI, or at least it shouldn't. That is the job of the captain and coach, and it is they who should be responsible for the team's performances, be they good or bad. Unless a squad has been picked without the captain's approval - as was the norm under Sachin Tendulkar's tenure - he must bear the ultimate burden of the team's performance. Tracing a poor showing in a major event back to the board is almost absurd, given the inconsistency of the Indian team and the consistently poor infrastructure of the BCCI. If there is a correlation between the BCCI's treatment of its assets and the team's current form, surely there must have been a correlation between the team's fantastic run between 2002 and 2004 and the state of the BCCI then. As far as I remember, it was just as callous and just as poorly run then as it is now. And it was just as avaricious.
Point 3 seems innocent enough. It is a cricket board's duty to ensure maximised opportunities in the game for aspiring youngsters. This includes setting up affordable practice facilities and academies around the country, marketing the sport (which they are very good at), setting up an efficient scouting network, eliminating corruption from within the enterprise in order to ensure fair selections and above all, ensuring player welfare through decent salaries and housing. The BCCI fails to deliver on all counts except marketing the game - they have no equal there. Unfortunately, very little money from the coffers of the world's richest cricket board actually finds itself reinvested in infrastructure or player welfare. Most stadiums are still well below standard, barring the excellent PCA Stadium in Mohali. International cricketers may travel in luxury buses and live in five-star hotels while on tour, but their cricketing itinerary is amongst the most taxing in the world. Domestic cricketers, as mentioned earlier, live on scraps in the hopes of one day making it into the national side. So all in all, Malcolm Speed seemed to be doing well, until he said this:
That is not to say India lacks top-class training facilities - it's just that the opportunity cost of being able to use them is far higher than it would be in New Zealand, which is why fewer children (as a proportion of the population) join cricket clubs. Breeding a sporting culture is essential to a country's sporting success, and India still lacks that on a large scale. If anything, that makes the efforts of India's sportspeople even more commendable. They managed to rise in spite of the system, not because of it, often for scant reward. Given the infrastructure, Indian sport could finally tap into its vast resource of sportspeople and come to dominate international sport. Unfortunately such a scenario will remain a pipe dream for at least the forseeable future. In the meantime, population cannot be seen as a determining factor when comparing the sporting results of two nations, especially those as disparate as India and New Zealand. If anything, cultural factors and infrastructure have a far greater bearing than population.
Pointing to India's World Cup victory in 1983 seems to me to be a cheap shot. Not only is it a faulty comparison between the two nations, it also serves to belittle the team's performances since that day. Two semi-finals and one final in the World Cup since 1983 as well as a resurgence in both the Test and one-day arenas seem to be conveniently cast aside, in favour of New Zealand's record, which Speed described as 'consistent'. New Zealand's only real consistency since 1983 has been in failing to win a single major event barring the Champions Trophy in 2000. Maybe that's an unfair assessment - New Zealand's performances have consistently been far above what most people expected, but Speed's comments are simply ridiculous. India may be an inconsistent team, but that does not necessarily reflect on the BCCI. For all their inconsistency, they have won far more major honours than New Zealand in the same time period, and remain a formidable side in spite of their horrendous recent form.
Malcolm Speed may have just incited the wrath of not just the BCCI, but also the Indian public. It's rather unfortunate, because he raises some questions that we ourselves should have put forth to the board, but by resorting to cheap baiting he may have just shot himself in the foot. The stage is set for one of the most tense ICC executive meetings ever. Guy Fawke's Day will most definitely deliver on the fireworks this year.
While his comments will no doubt be misconstrued in some quarters as an attack on India's national identity, Speed does make some pretty valid points - points that are painfully familiar to regular followers of Indian cricket. The Indian board's prioritisation of profit above all - even player welfare - is the world's worst-kept secret. India plays more one-dayers than any other side in the world, often in brutal conditions, such as the 2006 home series against England where both teams had to endure 44 degree heat in Jamshedpur.
And that's just the national team. Conditions for domestic players are worse, with the remuneration far removed from that of their more illustrious counterparts. Contrast that with the systems in Australia, New Zealand and England, where professional players are well taken care of by their state teams and practice facilities aren't nearly as scarce. The end result for Australia has been tremendous, but results should not be an issue when it comes to ensuring the health and safety of players, and that is why I wasn't surprised when Malcolm Speed said what everyone was thinking.
"I have an old-fashioned view," said Speed when asked if the BCCI were using their superior monetary position to flex their muscle. "I judge sports organisations on the basis of three things: 1. How the team performs. 2. How the board looks after its stake-holders in terms of facilities on the grounds, and 3. How well they use resources like population to produce great cricketers."While I have no problem with point 2 (the facilities at most stadiums are atrocious and will need serious renovation before the 2011 World Cup), but points 1 and 3 seem to be a thinly-veiled effort to kick a team when they are down.
It's a fair assumption that a board can be judged by the performance of its team. The board appoints the coach and selectors who then pick a squad, therefore the onus is on them to produce a winning team. There have been cases in the past where fringe players have been selected on the flimsiest of criteria (see Noel David and the notorious Abhijit Kale case) and predictably failed. Here too it is an indication of the transparency of a cricket board and the fairness of their decisions.
However, not all team failures can directly be attributed to the board. Modern cricket involves loose chains of command, whereby the players are answerable to both the captain and the coach, who have considerable influence over who gets selected in subsequent games. While it is the board's prerogative to select a squad for a tournament, it has no say in picking the final XI, or at least it shouldn't. That is the job of the captain and coach, and it is they who should be responsible for the team's performances, be they good or bad. Unless a squad has been picked without the captain's approval - as was the norm under Sachin Tendulkar's tenure - he must bear the ultimate burden of the team's performance. Tracing a poor showing in a major event back to the board is almost absurd, given the inconsistency of the Indian team and the consistently poor infrastructure of the BCCI. If there is a correlation between the BCCI's treatment of its assets and the team's current form, surely there must have been a correlation between the team's fantastic run between 2002 and 2004 and the state of the BCCI then. As far as I remember, it was just as callous and just as poorly run then as it is now. And it was just as avaricious.
Point 3 seems innocent enough. It is a cricket board's duty to ensure maximised opportunities in the game for aspiring youngsters. This includes setting up affordable practice facilities and academies around the country, marketing the sport (which they are very good at), setting up an efficient scouting network, eliminating corruption from within the enterprise in order to ensure fair selections and above all, ensuring player welfare through decent salaries and housing. The BCCI fails to deliver on all counts except marketing the game - they have no equal there. Unfortunately, very little money from the coffers of the world's richest cricket board actually finds itself reinvested in infrastructure or player welfare. Most stadiums are still well below standard, barring the excellent PCA Stadium in Mohali. International cricketers may travel in luxury buses and live in five-star hotels while on tour, but their cricketing itinerary is amongst the most taxing in the world. Domestic cricketers, as mentioned earlier, live on scraps in the hopes of one day making it into the national side. So all in all, Malcolm Speed seemed to be doing well, until he said this:
"Let us look at New Zealand. They are in the semi-final of the Champions Trophy with a population of four million. They don't have a lot of money, but they are consistent. India last won a [ICC] cricketing event in 1983. I am very sure in 2007 it will be great if India win. It would mean that the power that India has, the population and booming economy, is being reflected in the performance of India. It helps to have money to do that, but it is not always necessary."The population debate reared its ugly head once more. New Zealand's cricket board may not be overflowing with dollars, but it can hardly be described as cash-strapped. Being a small country and producing so many world-class athletes is indeed a major achievement, but to hold India, a developing nation, to the same standards as that of a developed nation seems a tad unfair. Firstly, sport is woven into the very fabric of Australian and New Zealand - most definitely not the case in India, where there is a greater focus on education. Moreover, New Zealand has excellent training facilities not just for its professionals, but also for the general public. If I wish, I can walk down to the nearest park at any time of the day and practice my bowling in the nets - an impossible scenario in India's major cities, where parks are hard to come by, let alone nets.
That is not to say India lacks top-class training facilities - it's just that the opportunity cost of being able to use them is far higher than it would be in New Zealand, which is why fewer children (as a proportion of the population) join cricket clubs. Breeding a sporting culture is essential to a country's sporting success, and India still lacks that on a large scale. If anything, that makes the efforts of India's sportspeople even more commendable. They managed to rise in spite of the system, not because of it, often for scant reward. Given the infrastructure, Indian sport could finally tap into its vast resource of sportspeople and come to dominate international sport. Unfortunately such a scenario will remain a pipe dream for at least the forseeable future. In the meantime, population cannot be seen as a determining factor when comparing the sporting results of two nations, especially those as disparate as India and New Zealand. If anything, cultural factors and infrastructure have a far greater bearing than population.
Pointing to India's World Cup victory in 1983 seems to me to be a cheap shot. Not only is it a faulty comparison between the two nations, it also serves to belittle the team's performances since that day. Two semi-finals and one final in the World Cup since 1983 as well as a resurgence in both the Test and one-day arenas seem to be conveniently cast aside, in favour of New Zealand's record, which Speed described as 'consistent'. New Zealand's only real consistency since 1983 has been in failing to win a single major event barring the Champions Trophy in 2000. Maybe that's an unfair assessment - New Zealand's performances have consistently been far above what most people expected, but Speed's comments are simply ridiculous. India may be an inconsistent team, but that does not necessarily reflect on the BCCI. For all their inconsistency, they have won far more major honours than New Zealand in the same time period, and remain a formidable side in spite of their horrendous recent form.
Malcolm Speed may have just incited the wrath of not just the BCCI, but also the Indian public. It's rather unfortunate, because he raises some questions that we ourselves should have put forth to the board, but by resorting to cheap baiting he may have just shot himself in the foot. The stage is set for one of the most tense ICC executive meetings ever. Guy Fawke's Day will most definitely deliver on the fireworks this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment