How a professional cricket body differs from an amateurishly run one
Apr 21, 2007 - 8:28:53 AM
|
|
|
It was amusing to hear India's Sports Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar remark that his cabinet colleague Sharad Pawar had assured parliament that he had no difficulty in simultaneously shouldering the responsibilities of his omnibus agriculture ministry and the presidency of the BCCI. Knowing Aiyar, his statement was diplomatic jargon for displeasure. The best service Pawar can render Indian cricket is to pave the way for qualified full-timers to govern Indian cricket.
|
By Ashis Ray,
[RxPG] The difference between a professionally operated cricket organisation and an amateurishly administered one was acutely illustrated by the way the England & Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India's handled their respective post-World Cup crises. In less than 24 hours, the ECB appointed a long term successor - Peter Moores - to Duncan Fletcher, who resigned as coach of the England team. Almost a month after India's ignominious exit from the competition, the BCCI continue to be groping over who will replace Greg Chappell, who quit two weeks ago.
The contrast is hardly surprising. In today's highly competitive cricketing cosmos, a decision delayed is a decision denied. This is highly detrimental; yet authority in India rests with clueless part-timers, who enjoy disproportionate power emanating from the money the game attracts, without being accountable.
Clearly, Ravi Shastri will have to be made a godfather-like offer he can't refuse to abandon his cushy arrangement with ESPN. Besides, cricket-wise, he may be knowledgeable and sharp, but is he up to speed with contemporary coaching techniques? Any competent institution, while hoping for the best, should be prepared for the worst and, consequently, ready with a contingency plan, which the BCCI wasn't and cannot cope with even now.
The BCCI pompously call their execute entity a 'working committee', akin to an Indian political party out of touch with the modern world, functioning incongruously with corrupt, pot-bellied members who constitute it. This committee set a terrible precedent by 'directing' its selection committee to pick a 'young' side, ignoring not only the interests of the country -, but trampling upon the jurisdiction of selectors.
Dilip Vengsarkar and company, though, produced a confused response. The exclusion of Irfan Pathan, Harbhajan Singh and Ajit Agarkar in the one-day squad makes sense, but the retention of Mahendra Dhoni doesn't. While the Jharkhandi is wholly capable of smashing Bangladesh to pieces, despatching him to domestic cricket would have served him and the country better in the longer term and against sterner opposition. And Dinesh Mongia, while deserving a recall, isn't exactly a spring chicken. However, the recognition granted to Manoj Tiwary is probably a step in the right direction.
As for the test 15, why Gautam Gambhir has been omitted from this is a mystery. Far worse is the lack of conviction demonstrated by no vice-captain being named for either the one-day or test series. It reflects a selection committee under pressure, passing the buck to the cricket manager and captain.
It was amusing to hear India's Sports Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar remark that his cabinet colleague Sharad Pawar had assured parliament that he had no difficulty in simultaneously shouldering the responsibilities of his omnibus agriculture ministry and the presidency of the BCCI. Knowing Aiyar, his statement was diplomatic jargon for displeasure. The best service Pawar can render Indian cricket is to pave the way for qualified full-timers to govern Indian cricket.
-, which can be bought online on www.ians.in)
|
Subscribe to India Sports Newsletter
|
|
E-mail Address:
|
|
Feedback
|
For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send
any medical news or health news press releases, use
feedback form
|
Top of Page
|
