Boards of Control for Cricket

The governing bodies of Cricket across all nations have of late been following one single thing : Domination. Be it with their own players, with the other boards or even with the International Cricket Council for that matter. Though there has been very little interesting happening on the field, a lot of issues have been doing the news off the field. This article deals with the issues, the causes and their consequences on a smaller as well a larger audience.

Board of Control for Cricket in India :

This is by far the most strongest and 2nd richest sports body, according to Forbes, in the world. The money power that they have has enabled them to make the ICC act to their whims and fancies. Be it the decision making in the venues in India for the 2011 World Cup, the persisting of non-usage of the UDRS, and so on and so forth. The body has drawn a lot of flak from a lot of international players calling BCCI to be having unfair influence on the decision-making with the ICC. And with the advent of the cash-rich Indian Premier League, it is seen that many players prefer playing the league over their home nations,victims include Lasith Malinga(quitting from tests),Gautam Gambhir(missing out on the Windies tour) and many more. The grapevine is that BCCI can be compared to Sonia Gandhi and ICC to Manmohan Singh.

Pakistan Cricket Board :

In the history of World Cricket, this is the first time, a player has quit owing to misunderstanding with the cricket board and making the reason public. Shahid Afridi, on May 30th 2011, announced his conditional retirement from all forms of the game,and said he would be available to play for Pakistan only if the current members of the Board are changed. “There is nothing bigger than a man’s respect, and the way the board has treated me, there is a limit to everything,” Afridi was quoted as saying to a local Pakistan television. The board has also invited criticism from a lot of the current and former players. Its involvement in the team decisions have also been heavily questioned by the cricketers.

West Indies Cricket Board :

Merriam Websters are considering of adding WICB to the list of synonyms for ego. This board has been in the news for many years with the sponsorship problems, contract issues and many more. The latest include the unceremonious dealing with their former captain and top order batsman, Chris Gayle and the sacking of Brendan Nash from the 2nd test against test. I strongly feel they made Brendan Nash,the vice captain for the first test, just to make sure, they would be making news,for dropping a vice captain after just one match. The arrogance shown by the board in the Gayle issue is costing them pride by losing the one day series to Pakistan and India,and losing the first test against India. Atleast if they are able to satiate their ego by bringing in a right replacement for Gayle and not hurting the nation’s cricketing sentiments,it can be appreciated. But if it goes in this rate, I see West Indies being stripped off their test status sooner than later.

Cricket Australia :

The country-continent cricket board are not very far behind in hogging the limelight. Since there has been little cricket concerned with Australia after the World Cup,the board seems have been feeling rather insecure with the news never covering their team. So they plan and create waves by not offering Simon Katich a central contract. Katich has been the most prolific run getter for the Australian side ever since he made a comeback from all the injuries and is the second highest just after the English run machine, Alistair Cook,since mid 2008. This decision is rather surprising since Katich was dropped owing to his age,but at the same time,Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey who are older than him have been awarded contracts. I was just wondering what would have happened to the Australian team if they had denied the central contracts to Shane Warne, Steve Waugh and Glenn McGrath owing to their age. The total irregularity in the selection system bewilders most of the players and critics alike.

The cricket boards,being rightly called the governing bodies of the sport in their countries,should probably stick to a more conducive governance rather than an authoritarian one. The welfare of the players and the overall good of the nation’s cricket should be given more priority over sheer ego and other irrational and unreasonable causes. I would rather suggest a body just for management and not involve in the team selections and issuance of contracts. Rather a players’ association headed by former players should be installed along with a couple of current players for the decision making at team selection levels.