The BCCI's professionalism and the ICC's Presidential hunt
The new-found professionalism in the BCCI didn't last too long, did it?
Last month, it withdrew the Indian team from the Asian Games
by declaring that it would be impossible to tweak around with schedules drawn up in advance
A couple of weeks ago, it announced that Ahmedabad, Kanpur and Mumbai would host tests against New Zealand
. Obviously there was a huge communication gap between the BCCI and the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) because the MCA announced 3 days later that the Wankhede wouldn't be ready
for international cricket.
Why exactly did the BCCI not check with its member association on the status of the ground & pitch? Of course, it is likely that the BCCI will clarify that Brabourne was scheduled to host the game, and not the Wankhede, thereby saving face.
Only ten days after being picked for the test series in Sri Lanka
, Zaheer Khan ruled himself out
because of a shoulder injury. Is this the same shoulder injury that resulted in him missing a lot of ODIs in 2009
after falling on his shoulder during the 2009 IPL season
Presumably the selectors asked Zaheer he was fit before announcing his inclusion in the squad. So, what changed in these 10 days? Did he get specialist opinion advising him against undertaking the tour? Is he going to soon announce his retirement from tests to focus on the 2011 World Cup?
On 1 July, Sharad Pawar took over the ICC Presidency
. Now, I don't know what the division of responsibilities is between the President and the Chief Executive (currently Haroon Lorgat) of the ICC. I've been unable to find anything on the ICC's website.
In a post in June 2007
, after the ICC announced that he would be the President from July 2010, I called him 'Superman Sharad Power' since he would be juggling multiple responsibilities, including that of Union Minister, BCCI President and ICC President. Obviously he did give up the BCCI Presidency, but he continues to be the MCA President
His stint as ICC President started off on a rocky note when John Howard's nomination as the next ICC President
was not approved. There are enough comments about the rights and wrongs of the decision, but here are some issues which are beyond debate.
- John Howard's candidature was not unanimous. New Zealand wanted its pick John Anderson to be the joint-candidate. That didn't materialize.
- The ICC had declared, after David Morgan and Sharad Pawar ended up with equal votes in 2007, that they would go back to a system that had been previously used to select Presidents. The members of the ICC are divided into 6 blocs: England/West Indies; India/Sri Lanka; Australia/New Zealand; Pakistan/Bangladesh; South Africa/Zimbabwe and Associates/Affiliates. The Presidency rotates among these blocs, with each member from the bloc getting a turn every 12 years. England and India had their turn, and it was the turn for the Australia-New Zealand bloc to nominate their choice. There was no mention of screening the candidate nominated.
- Among the ICC's Executive Board, there are at least 4 representatives who are linked to politics. Mustafa Kamal (Bangladesh) is a Member of Parliament. Dr. Julian Hunte (West Indies) has been MP, minister & President of the UN General Assembly. Ijaz Butt (Pakistan) was appointed by the country's president. Somachandra de Silva was (Sri Lanka) appointed by the Sports Minister & was cricket advisor to the country's president. Peter Chingoka is widely considered to be a Robert Mugabe crony.
- John Howard has foot-in-the-mouth-itis. Evidence from posts on this blog: #1 and #2.
Purely on the basis of the facts above, and the reality that the ICC Presidency doesn't seem to have any real significant role, John Howard should have been given the opportunity to stuff up big-time!
Labels: bcci, bombay, india, mumbai, scheduling, wankhede