Cricket took a step into the unknown last week. It was a funny kind of unknown, because everyone knew it was coming. But it was still a step into the unknown. We talk, naturally, of the appointment as ICC chairman of Narayanaswami Srinivasan.
- Narayanaswami Srinivasan is new ICC chairman
- Srinivasan potential involvement in IPL spot-fixing is under investigation
- His appointment calls into question cricket’s commitment to members other than India, England and Australia
- Kevin Pietersen bends truth in criticism of Alastair Cook
- Jimmy Anderson tears are sign of hope for England
- Natwest T20 Blast lacks razzmatazz of Big Bash
Sporting politics can be as dry as a stick. It’s why this story hasn’t received the coverage it should have done, especially in England, where we should be up in arms. But this story matters. And it goes beyond the question of Srinivasan’s involvement – or lack of it – in the IPL spot-fixing scandal currently being investigated by India’s Supreme Court.
Let’s begin by reiterating a basic argument: it’s not OK for a man who has been instructed by the highest court in his land to stand down as president of his national board to then assume control of the world game. If Srinivasan is considered unfit to run the BCCI, he should not be handed the reins at the ICC, an organisation which – in theory at least – sits higher up the food chain.
This is not to judge him guilty in advance. It is simply to adhere to the basic tenets of good governance, as spelled out by Lord Woolf in his 2012 report into the way the game was being run. Needless to say, his report has been all but ignored.
No competent or credible global organisation would dream of appointing Srinivasan until the question marks hanging over him had been dispelled. That this is even up for debate is part of cricket’s problem.
But, like we said, it goes deeper than this. For it is a question of trust. Do we trust Srinivasan to run world cricket with a multilateral touch, with more than lip-service paid to the notion that world cricket means more than India, England and Australia? Do we trust Srinivasan at all?
Certainly, Justice Mudgal was unimpressed with his explanation of the extent of his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan’s involvement with Chennai Super Kings.
When Srinivasan’s coronation was rubber-stamped last week in Melbourne, he was asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to force him out of his BCCI position, however temporarily. Srinivasan claimed he had ‘voluntarily’ stepped down.
This came as news to many observers, because the same man who claims he volunteered to be removed from the BCCI presidency actually appealed against the decision – twice. Who was he appealing against? Himself?
Srinivasan also poured cold water on the idea that the BCCI would have walked away from the ICC had they not been able to force through – with the help of England and Australia – the financial restructuring of the game’s governing body. The BCCI, he insisted, would not have ‘dreamed’ of such behaviour.
This presented other administrators – Srinivasan’s own allies, no less – with a problem on two fronts. Both the ECB and Cricket Australia have tried to spin the line that their cooperation with the BCCI was necessary in order to prevent India absconding from cricket’s high table.
As luck would have it, of course, this arrangement was also of financial benefit to the English and Australian boards. But we’re quite sure this had nothing to do with their decision. No, it was all about keeping India inside the tent – a tent which, according to Srinivasan, they had no intention of leaving anyway.
Or did they? In early June, BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel said: ‘We told [the ICC] that if India is not getting its proper due and importance then India might be forced to form a second ICC of its own.’
Either the ECB and CA exaggerated the threat of the BCCI walking away, or Srinivasan was stringing them along. Both possibilities reflect poorly on the men who now run our game.
Then there is the question of the executive committee – ‘ExCo’, to give it its appropriately Orwellian nom de plume. India and its ever-faithful courtiers England and Australia have a permanent seat on this five-man committee, which will decide pretty well everything that matters in cricket.
To be invited on board is to win the acceptance of the Big Three – a ticket to respectability and influence now that the other Full Member nations of the ICC have been persuaded into voting for reform. So well done, for the time being, to Pakistan and West Indies, whose representatives will make up the initial five.
Yet on all the other committees (finance and commercial affairs, governance review, development, and anti-corruption), there is not a single seat for the South Africans. Even Peter Chingoka gets to sit on the development committee, which will raise an eyebrow among those who have observed with dismay the basket case that is Zimbabwean cricket.
Why this absence of proper democracy in the new all-democratic ICC? No doubt it has absolutely nothing to do with the identity of Cricket South Africa’s chief executive Haroon Lorgat, who was a constant thorn in Srinivasan’s side when Lorgat was chief executive of the ICC.
The upshot of making three countries more powerful than the rest – and, let’s face it, of making one of those three more powerful than the other two – is that the concept of checks and balances vanishes altogether.
It never attracted more than a fleeting acknowledgement in the first place: the old veto owned by England and Australia, followed by India’s dominance, saw to that. But cricket has now given the thumbs up to a scenario in which the notion of an independent executive has been tossed aside like an old pair of batting gloves.
Who, frankly, will look after the global interests of cricket if every nation is driven primarily by their desire to claim a chunk of the power and cash handed out to them by the Big Three?
Srinivasan claimed in Melbourne that cricket didn’t have an ‘image problem’. Apparently he wasn’t joking. But he might want to consider this: as FIFA has discovered, when the administrators become the story, you know it’s time to worry.
THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS
Telling it like it is… and isn’t
There’s no question that Kevin Pietersen’s new column in the Daily Telegraph is required reading, as much for the between-the-lines interpretations as for the words themselves. His column on Saturday contained plenty of salient points, especially about the captaincy of Alastair Cook. But was there a hint of revisionism about his critique of Cook’s second-innings declaration during the first Test against Sri Lanka at Lord’s?
Pietersen was scornful about Cook’s decision to set Sri Lanka 380 in a day, arguing that ‘setting out for a target of 320 would have been enough’. Yet when he arrived at Lord’s that day, he tweeted: ‘Want to see SL out 460 & ENG bat positively to a 380 lead then declare…entertain today pls, Cook’s men!’
Miserable run: England captain Alastair Cook lost the Test series against Sri Lanka this month
In the event, Sri Lanka were dismissed for 453 (tick), before England scored at 3.86 runs per over (tick) to lead by 380 (tick) before declaring (tick).
Part of Pietersen’s beef, he now makes clear, is that Cook should have declared before stumps, yet the excellence of Shaminda Eranga that day meant England were forced to recalculate. Sometimes, the other team can play well too.
Pietersen also claims England scored at ‘3.4 an over’ at Lord’s. Not so. In their first innings, the figure was 4.4; overall in the Test, it was 4.2.
There are plenty of reasons to worry about this England team, and Pietersen nails a few of them. But his case would be strengthened if he a) took a consistent line, and b) got his facts right.
Jimmy’s tears
Was the emotional reaction of Jimmy Anderson after the Headingley defeat by Sri Lanka evidence, as Pietersen suggested, of an unhappy dressing-room? Possibly – though it feels like a slightly literal reading of lachrymosity.
This column feels Cook is no longer the right man to lead England, but Anderson’s tears are not part of the problem. If anything, a team that can come within two balls of batting throughout the last day after beginning it five wickets down is full of spirit.
The issue is not that they want to do well for England – it’s that they are playing under the wrong man. Another interpretation of Anderson’s response is that he cares deeply. In other words, all hope is not yet lost.
Brace yourselves…
Why doesn’t the NatWest T20 Blast come close to replicating the razzmatazz of the IPL – or even the Big Bash League? There are many reasons, and we were reminded of one of them last week, when it was made clear that England’s players, with the exception of Moeen Ali, would not be released to represent their counties.
On one level, this is understandable: a five-Test series against India begins next week, and the administrators have deemed it reasonable to squeeze this into 42 days’ playing time. But let’s not kid ourselves about the wow-factor of our domestic Twenty20 tournament when the wow-players tend not to take part.
Damp squib
The BCCI were in such a rush to send out a self-congratulatory press release following the appointment of N Srinivasan as ICC chairman that they neglected to update the subject heading of their email. Thus, a missive hailing a ‘proud and historic moment for Indian cricket’ (well, one out of two ain’t bad), will forever sit in our inboxes with the title: ‘Fwd: Media Release: Pre-departure Media Conference.’
