Crickees.com - All Rights Reserved

There have been a lot of heated discussions prevailing in the cricketing world to ‘control’ the game. What does this ‘control’ imply? Is this to control the T20 matches to make the traditional versions alive or to truncate the Test matches and the ODI matches to increase the gush of money to cricket? ICC, at the helm of cricket is in a dilemma to choose the best for cricket; to make it popular at the same time not diluting it.

FIFA – the perfect example

So, what is the real concern? There are lots of wise men at the helm; however they couldn’t come to a conclusion to find the resolution for this ‘concern’. There are many things which cricket could learn from Football.  Being a game of small-duration, spectators endorse the brevity of Football, which perhaps is the main reason why it has roots across the globe. Being played in over 200 countries, football hardly has any crisis which threatens its existence. FIFA, the governing body of Football has the last word in football, when it comes to a decision. They continuously improve the game by applying new rules that would entice the spectators at the same time won’t kill the soul of the game. ICC should come up with new revenue models so that they stay on the top of the national cricket boards. Currently, ICC hardly has any power to stand against the power houses – India, Australia, England and South Africa. BCCI, the Indian cricket board stands tall due to the chunk of revenue coming from India.

Too Many Matches

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ is perhaps 100% correct in the case of cricket. Let’s take the example of India – Pakistan matches before 2005 and after 2005. Though the matches played after 2005 were in front of a full house, the intensity plunged due to matches played often between them. The 80’s and the 90’s experienced lot of high-voltage contests between the two and never lacked the exuberance. Contrary to the current scenario is the Ashes series, which is not played very often, attracts lot of spectators and never lacks the intensity. It is the dream of every Aussie or English player to win the Ashes urn more than a World Cup simply because of the legacy it carries. Downsizing the number of bilateral series and implementing more 3 nation or 4 nation tournaments is also another solution.

Fortifying the grass-root level

The respective Cricket Boards should strengthen their domestic structure to form a good pool of potential players, who could represent their nation at any point. If the domestic structure is robust then, the team won’t lose its momentum when a senior player retires. Apart from this effort, the ICC should conduct the U-19 World Cup and other junior level ICC tournaments in more serious ways as these tournaments are the stepping stone for the youngsters to the International cricket.

All the efforts will go fruitless, if the member nations won’t participate actively. ICC could only formulate plans, which should be carried out by the member nations, who should not show their financial arrogance when decisions concerning the fate of the game are made.

In what is said to be a controversial revelation, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) chief Julian Hunte has told reporters that India, the financial super power of cricket has dismissed the proposal by ICC to setup a World Test Championship around the four year cycle. Being a full-time ICC member, Hunte’s disclosure will wallop the cricketing world that is already rocked by several controversies.

According to Hunte, ICC was considering a Super League – a four year structure resulting in a World Test Championship as a part of changing the structure of the Future Tour Programs (FTP) after 2012. Hunte exposed the decision-making power of 4 commercially valued members headed by India in the ICC meeting. Though Hunte hadn’t revealed their names, it is well understood that the other 3 super powers are England, South Africa and Australia.

Hunte also revealed that a few members of the ICC are skeptical about the motives of the IPL team promoters. He told that the ICC should take reasonable steps to take hold of the game as it’s in a crucial juncture.

The main reason for BCCI’s rejection is the sharing of broadcasting revenue from a central pool, which would not be profitable for them unlike other tournaments. As 70% of the ICC’s revenue comes from India, it makes it difficult for the ICC to stand against India.