Now cricket goes colonial

Let’s see if I can segue seamlessly from one subject to another. Now, I am all for a little cry when you are playing for your country and emotions come to the fore. It is a nice goose bumpy feeling and no one grudges you that. That flag flies for you. But Rafa’s sobs at the Aussie finals were a bit tacky especially when you saw how he bent the injury rules much to Wawrinka’s annoyance. According to both Stanislaw and Roger the constant grunting and the extra delay in serving were being overlooked by the umpires, a strategic fouling that upsets the other guy’s rhythm.
Besides, Nadal isn’t a newcomer to victory by any means so man up, Sir…and cease this detestable boo hooing instantly. Not that this absolves the fans from jeering, which is just so wrong in any sport but especially in a top tennis tournament. What has happened to the quality of tennis spectators that they have fallen to raspberries?
From agony to hubris and there is tangible outrage over the new ICC plot to give India, Australia and England exalted status in the fresh scheme of things loaded with veto power and a high-octane decision-making authority that is almost colonial in nature and reduces the other nations to second class citizens. The central point being that India coughs up 80 percent of the global revenue and should, therefore, have more executive power with the other two being runners up in the financial stakes and so eligible for more clout. That means the Windies, the Kiwis, the Lankans, the South Africans, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis become shabby relatives at a rich man’s wedding.
That a solution has to be found to the current dog’s breakfast called the ICC is a given. In the eloquent words of Mike Artherton: “Politics, race and personalities interfere with any decisions. Two member nations are known to be corrupt, four are essentially broke, most cricketing nations rely on India to keep going.”
The 2012 Woolf report calling for more transparency, better governance and an independent board rusts in its own glory. It creates competition for the Indians and they don’t want that.
While there is a reluctant acceptance that cricket worldwide needs India desperately, there is no guarantee that superpower status will necessarily mean more fairness or efficiency. On the contrary if you go by the arrogant, almost rude, tenor of the BCCI’s demand for a “promotion to a higher ground” this conceited body will just become so much more despotic.
More liberal folks like Pakistan’s Ramiz Raja dredge for virtue in the reworked pyramid. This way the three top tier nations will have to play their “quota” of games against the rest thereby oiling the turnstiles and making for a more equitable distribution of the finances. So the Aussies will go to Bangladesh as part of the new fixtures cycle and Pakistan will invite England and India will play the Lankans and we’ll be one happy family, just that some of them will have to sit at the kids’ table.
Former ICC President Ehsan Mani has found the plan offensive especially when you register that all ICC matches between 2015-2023 will be held in India, Australia and England. For starters that itself is arbitrary and selfish and scarcely augurs well for the future of cricket per se. Former ICC bosses Malcolm Speed and Malcolm Gray have also mumbled their agreement with Mani.
Of the $300 million that would be up for grabs if this re-organization goes through, the biggest chunk would go to the “unholy” trinity rather than the associates and affiliates for whom it was meant, consequently making them poorer in standing and prestige even if they are, paradoxically, a trifle richer with their share of the increased quantity of crumbs.
Greed will win in the end and pride will take a tumble. The ICC is not likely to take on these three nations and the scent of money will quiver the nostrils of all the members. After all, what’s a little humble pie and a seat in the back of the bus if it comes studded with enough shillings.