Open letter to the ICC members from the untouchable nations!

At the end of last year I wrote an article in which I suggested that India should be banned from world cricket. The article appears below.

In short, I argued that the body in control of cricket in India, had become too powerful for its own good, and that it was abusing its power to the detriment of the game, and I concluded by saying:

"It is also time for the ICC (The International Cricket Council) to stand up and be counted before the BCCI decides to abolish them."

At the time, I was being facetious. Little did I know how close to the truth those words would turn out to be.

It seems  that India, England and Australia have or will table a proposal at the next ICC meeting in terms of which the cricketing bodies of those three countries will usurp the lion's share of the say in world cricket in addition to a greater share of the revenue generated by international cricket.

Although the proposal, as it has been reflected in the media, does not exactly ban the ICC, it certainly seems that it will lose much of the power it has always had to the three so-called permanent members.

I call them permanent members because they have proposed a two-tier test structure which will involve promotion/relegation.  But, yes, you guessed it, the big three will not have to suffer the indignity of relegation.

Presumably, it is intended that two new nations should join the existing ten cricket playing nations to bring about a premier and a first league of test cricket.

At this point, it needs to be acknowledged that cricket in India, England and Australia finds itself in a very healthy position indeed. The game is very popular in all three countries, and all forms of the game, including test cricket, not only attract large crowds, but a large television audience as well.

Although South Africa, the world's number one ranked test side, have world class cricket facilities, the crowds at recent test matches in Johannesburg  and Durban left much to be desired. (Yes, I know that they should have played in Cape Town...the Newland's faithful  always rise to the occasion.)

I have little knowledge as to how revenue from cricket is divided amongst the ten test nations and beyond. Suffice it to say that the rich three have declared that they are no longer prepared to subsidise the poor, if that is what they have been doing, to the extent that they have been doing.

If cricket is to grow as an international sport, it requires a vast injection of capital by the richer nations into coffers of the poorer ones. If the revenue is to stay where it is, the big three will eventually have only themselves to play with. That cannot be in the best interest's of the game.

It is conceivable that this would lead to the world's top cricketers from poorer nations, let us refer to them as the untouchable nations, experiencing an exodus to find employment in the big three countries in order to acquire their share of the spoils.  This would only serve to increase the existing disparity in world cricket.

However, I am not opposed to a compromise which is fairer to the big three  on the one hand, without resulting in a new cricket apartheid of second class nations and players, on the other.

No one, least of all the BCCI, can be trusted to be a judge in their own cause. For this reason, the ICC must resist any attempt by the permanent three to acquire the power to decide such matters unilaterally.

The sort of bias, naked self interest and injustice which is likely to result from a handover of power to the big three is evident from the proposal that the permanent three will not have to suffer relegation from the proposed upper tier of test cricket.

The reason offered for this suggestion is that the revenue generated by the big three is such that it warrants this arrangement, and the risk of large losses from possible relegation necessitates such an arrangement.

Not only are the reasons offered illogical, without merit, and self-serving, they demonstrate precisely how cricket will be arranged in future if the other nations are not brave enough to oppose this tyranny.

The proposal of non-relegation of the big three has several major flaws. If one, or heaven forbid, more than one, of the big three end up in the relegation zone, without suffering relegation, it will mean that one or more, possibly as many as three teams could find themselves in the lower tier of world cricket when they, on merit, may deserve to be in the upper tier. That is not only unjust, but it would reduce the upper tier of world test cricket to a total farce. I cannot see any nation putting up with that for long and the demise of world cricket will surely follow.

In addition, the immunity from promotion / relegation would also undermine the entire functioning of the two-tier system and with it, any benefit the lower tier nations would have legitimately expected  to obtain from it.

The whole point of a second tier would be to have a strength versus strength contest which would not only improve the cricket of the second tier nations, but if properly conducted, it would probably make for riveting television for many fans of test cricket across the globe and would no doubt also attract growing, larger crowds to the test venues. This would not only save test cricket, but it could also bring in much needed revenue.

It goes without saying that this would not be the case if a country like South Africa, found itself in the second tier solely due to it not being blessed with permanent status by the benevolent three. 

Many lower tier matches would again be one-sided and not a strength versus strength affair, and so, for that matter, as I have said, would the upper tear be.

I have little doubt that given a choice, genuine fans of test cricket would prefer to have a test cricket tier system which is not a farce, which is a genuine test of current strength versus current strength, and where the prospect of genuine promotion/relegation on merit would add a mouth watering prospect of riveting viewing by everyone interested in test cricket across the globe.

I believe that, if England were not good enough to play in the first tier, and if they were relegated, the English test fans would turn up to support their team in the second tier and with a view to doing their bit to ensure a prompt, but deserved return to top flight test cricket. I cannot believe that test cricket fans who are the ultimate connoisseurs of the game, would want to watch a farce instead of a genuine test system on merit.

I deny the existence of any logic, common sense, or fairness in the arguments underpinning the immunity of the Big three from test cricket relegation. If they insist on this, the other nations should simply withdraw from the ICC.

As matters stand, it is most unfortunate, that South Africa, as the number one ranked test team in the world, who have beaten both Ashes contenders, Australia and England, not once, but twice in a row in two back to back series away from home, have not been considered worthy of a five test series.

I am certain there are many Aussie and English test fans who believe that their sides could have come back to win if the last two series in question had not been limited to only three tests. This Ashes apartheid also needs to be revisited, not only for the sake of South Africa, but for all those who suffer at the hands of its test team, who are on the plane and heading home by the time the opposition realise its all over. (I mean to make a point about fairness, not to be arrogant, lest there be doubt!)

Yes, if the big three are left to their own devices it may please them for a short while, but I promise you that their fans will soon tire and become bored with the repetitive series' and they will yearn for the return of the South Africans, the West Indians, the Pakistani's and the like in order to see just how good / or bad, their test team really is.

I call upon all genuine fans of test cricket around the world to condemn this attempt by the big three to convert the rest of the cricketing world to the status of mere cricketing untouchables. We are better than that and we demand the equality to which we are entitled as human beings!

As for South Africa, we beat the Indians despite what the BCCI did, and I pray, for the sake of world test cricket, that we destroy the Aussie test team now, so that each of the big three will realise, that money alone is nothing without excellence!

Not since the Second World War has so much ridden on the shoulders of so few. The future of cricket itself lies in the hands of the ICC untouchables and the South African cricket team. I wish both groups of honourable gentlemen courage and Godspeed.



"BAN INDIA FROM WORLD CRICKET

India’s handling of their recent cricket tour to South Africa is indicative of the arrogant and dictatorial attitude their controlling body, the BCCI, seems to have adopted in recent times.

India, with its population of one billion people, arguably has more cricket fans and players than the rest of the world put together. That gives Indian cricket considerable clout and the BCCI is not shy to use it.

The details are unclear, but it would seem that the BCCI took exception to an opinion expressed by Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) Lorgat and that they later took exception to his appointment as CEO of CSA, despite their protestations.

In retaliation India, who were due to tour South Africa from November 2013 to early January 2014, announced a tour to New Zealand which conflicted with the proposed itinerary of their South African tour. In defence of their actions, the BCCI indicated that the schedule proposed by CSA had not been agreed to by the BCCI.

In the result, CSA were forced to back down in humiliating fashion and to agree to a much curtailed tour. Apart from the considerable financial loss this has caused to South African cricket, cricket fans worldwide were robbed when the New Year’s test at Newlands was dropped and a three test series was reduced to a two.

The BCCI’s explanation cannot stand. They have toured SA in December/January before and the test schedule is so predictable that it could almost be said to be cast in stone. A test during or after the day of reconciliation (December 16), the so-called Boxing day test, (December 26), which is usually held at Durban, and the New Year’s test at Newlands which commences like clockwork at ten am on the second or third of January every year.

Whatever other misunderstanding there may have been about other events on the proposed schedule, by having agreed to tour South Africa over the period in question, they expressly or impliedly agreed to play those three tests.

The BCCI’s failure to honour their obligation to play at Newlands is an absolute disgrace.

Unfortunately, the BCCI is aware that they are a law unto themselves in world cricket and that the ICC is too weak to hold them to account.

It is a pity that the BCCI could not have taken a leaf out of the book of one of India’s favourite sons, the great Sachin Tendulkar. Despite that he too was in a class of his own, he always conducted himself with humility, dignity and class. It is for this reason why he is so loved and respected by cricket fans around the world, despite the destruction he so often wrought to their teams with his bat.

In sharp contrast, the BCCI have made themselves very unpopular with many South African cricket fans. They should be under no illusion that the resentment runs deep.

The Newland’s Test is a highlight of the cricket calendar for cricket fans in Cape Town. It is extremely well attended irrespective of the stature of the opposition. The BCCI’s role in the cancellation of this fixture will, I am sure, not soon be forgotten.

As it is, any test nation playing against India is forced to give-up the use of the DRS (TV umpire system) because the BCCI objects to it on grounds which are lacking in any logic.

The DRS system, although not perfect, has been welcomed around the world by most cricket fans and players. In the main, DRS works very well indeed and it has largely eliminated the glaring errors which even the best umpires can make, and which could often influence the outcome of a test or even end a career.

It is said that the BCCI apparently refuses to agree to DRS because it is not a perfect. This explanation lacks any merit, since nothing is perfect. Most notably, umpiring without DRS is far from perfect. DRS’s limitations are far outweighed by the certainty it has brought to umpiring in world cricket and it is precisely for this reason that it is used by every other test playing nation.

The BCCI’s solitary stance is so illogical that one cannot help wondering there is another reason behind it which we are missing. Could it be that some bookmakers in Mumbai do not approve of the added certainty the DRS system brings to the game?

Whatever the case, it is time for the BCCI to be brought to heel. Failing that, India should be expelled from world cricket until they do. It is also time for the ICC to stand up and be counted before the BCCI decides to abolish them. As it is, it seems the BCCI have claimed the right to dictate to CSA about Mr Lorgat."