This had to be one of the most enjoyable Cricket Committee Meetings of the ICC that I have attended. Perhaps the one in London a few years back was the best, for at that meeting there must have been almost 1,000 Tests experience attending. Apart from the experience part, the banter that took place helped to ease many a tense moment and that can only happen when there is respect for each other at the meeting. India was then represented by the irrepressible K. Srikkanth and after hearing out some ideas about making the field-restrictions flexible from me at lunch-time, he went and suggested it in the session after that. Here, a confession is needed and that is, I had heard the idea from Kerry Packer's interview to a newspaper and these were the ideas that with a little modification I discussed with Srikkanth. Though it was a slightly radical idea, the committee were most enthused and paid compliments to Srikkanth, who in his own imitable style nodded in acceptance and then turned to me and winked (or was it his usual wink?)
Whatever it was, the idea had to be shelved for a few years as countries were given time to mull over it and maybe experiment with it in their domestic games and report back to the committee. Now this time around, the Cricket Committee has recommended that the field restrictions in limited-overs internationals should be at the discretion of the batting side and not fixed for the first 15 overs, as is the case today. Batsmen will be able to nominate five successive overs that they want the field-restrictions. The idea first was to let the fielding side decide which 15 overs they were to use for field restrictions, but it was felt that in a situation where a side was bowled out within 50 overs, the fielding side could get away by having less than the 15 overs of restrictions. It was also felt that the challenge to the fielding side would be greater if the batting side decided upon the overs in which it wanted field-restrictions. It would bring out the tactical awareness of the fielding captain, as he shuffled his bowlers to cope with the flow of the game.
It should be interesting to see how this works and while the media seems to have asked for reactions for the experiment about the no-ball call from a third umpire, nobody seems to have asked, especially the captains, for their response to this proposal of flexible field-restrictions.
Neither have the current players been asked about double-play, where two wickets can fall off one delivery. Of course, all the experimentations can only be tried in the limited-overs format and as of now, they are only recommendations to the ICC's higher authorities to consider and decide whether to implement them from the season beginning in September 2004.
If accepted by the ICC, these recommendations will no doubt bring more life into the limited-overs game, which now has become fairly predictable. It will also give less fancied teams more of a chance to surprise the stronger teams.
It was good to see 'Tiger' Pataudi again after a long time. He has had the odd health problem but was looking fine and as he warmed to the ICC meeting, the twinkle in the eye was back as he passed me some notes which were typical of the dry humor he possesses. I have to say that I was surprised how much in tune he is with the modern game, for he invariably gives the impression that he is not in touch with the game and doesn't follow it too much. That is a totally wrong impression for there is no doubt that he does follow the international game and knows what is happening in world cricket.
His presence at the meeting and his active participation is a great sign for Indian cricket, for it indicates that he is ready to play a role in it. Now, it is up to BCCI to take the next step and ensure that his experience and cricketing acumen is made use of for the development and betterment of Indian cricket. Tiger may well hate me for suggesting that he gets involved with Indian cricket, but it would be a waste if a cricketing brain like Tiger's was not tapped for the progress of Indian cricket.
The BCCI might hesitate because he is the President of the Indian Cricket Player's Association, but we have seen that when it comes to discussing contracts, gradation etc, the players themselves are doing it and not the ICPA officials. The ICPA has been kept in the dark and is not in the picture at all, as the senior players have carried on discussions with the Board on their own. The players' reasoning is that since the BCCI refuses to recognize the ICPA, why bother with informing them of what they want to negotiate with the BCCI? This may raise questions about why the ICPA was formed in the first place, but the plus-point is that it means the BCCI should not object to Pataudi's position as the president of the ICPA and involve him more in BCCI matters.
