Somel interesting points raised by the author.
(Though personally i think that every year there should be a series between the Rest of the World IX and the best team for that year and that series should be offical. It would be a great honour for the players to be selected for the Rest of the World IX and it would increase the competitiveness. However, all other matches such as charity macthes, asia IX vs africa IX blah blah should be non-offical.)
Nothing Official About It
**STOP PRESS: **At the time of writing, the ICC has apparently also announced making “official” matches involving the top five qualifying teams in the ICC Trophy from 2006 onwards, thus further accentuating the murky goings-on. Even before these countries have developed a cricket infrastructure and talent pool, the ICC is hurriedly rushing into giving them a formal license (as in “official status”) to play other international teams. Interestingly, the clause also includes “outside ICC events,” which means perhaps bilaterally arranged or Europe XI vs Africa XI; imagine the value of official records if Adam Gilchrist faced the Scottish attack, and Brian Lara pulverized the USA speedsters.
Using the guise of cricket development, ICC has gone completely berserk. Strangely enough, this is the same ICC which recently suspended the “Test status” of Zimbabwe, an unprecedented step; so why these double-standards? Cricket, unknown to several fans world-wide, faces the biggest threat – ironically, from ICC itself.
That is the reason for this open letter to Mr. Ehsan Mani and Mr. Malcolm Speed, the ICC's top brass.
**Dear Mr Mani/ Mr Speed**
The ICC decision to make the forthcoming Super Series between Australia and the Rest of the World XI and the Africa XI vs Asia XI in August as ‘official’ matches, is one amongst several initiatives being undertaken, which makes a downright mockery of the fundamental fabric of the game, its rich cultural traditions and the priceless treasure of personal and country records, for pure commercial reasons. The ICC is being highly arbitrary and extremely injudicious in taking such drastic steps without even giving thought to its serious long-term ramifications.
I will deeply appreciate your answers to some ticklish issues bothering me and several cricket lovers on the above subject:
- In early Y 2000 when we at CricketNext.com were negotiating with ICC for the sponsorship of the CricketNext.com Cup match (Asia XI vs World XI) in Dhaka, I asked the ICC representatives as well as the Chief India Head of IMG/ TWI, Mr. Ravi Krishnan (who were the event managers) if the match could be made ‘official’. I was promptly told that such cases can NEVER be made official because they are not in the ‘cricket constitution’, a player is not formally representing a full national team, record-keeping is impossible as they deal only with country representation against other countries, the players have to don unique colours for that event only, and that these matches are for specific purposes only, usually for either charitable, ceremonial or crowd pulling ends. Moreover, I was told that making the match ‘official’ would be akin to tampering with a sacrosanct law which governs this classical game. I accepted, being a reasonable bloke, all of ICC’s arguments, which is why I am totally appalled and indescribably aghast at the dramatic turnaround.
I would like to ask the ICC: So what has changed over the last few years which makes the current change suddenly so acceptable? Is the game’s ancient rules no longer consecrated?
-
Can the ICC please make public the minutes of the meetings held and let us all be enlightened on the subject, as it signifies a paramount shift in the very DNA of the game, so that once and for all the cricket-loving public of the world is duly informed, so that we are not subjected to whimsical decisions and capricious ways of the ICC? For instance, how was the historic decision to play a six-day Test match decided? By the way, aren’t Test matches supposedly getting over in less than four days? So why the quixotic change? Who were party to the decision? What is the logic behind these incredible happenings? It is like the ATP unilaterally deciding to have a best of seven sets in Grand Slams, just because it can perhaps have greater television mileage, isn’t it?
-
Is it true that the ICC has opportunistically exploited its universal powers of giving ‘official status’, as this achieves twin objectives; one, it attracts the premium players who usually shun these ‘exhibition’ matches or ‘masala’ matches unless given ‘appearance money’, and two, it raises the sponsorship value and TV rights money , thus giving ICC mega bucks for these ‘non-traditional’ games. The Tsunami benefit match was the ultimate master-stroke by the ICC, given its noble objectives, to legitimize exhibition matches as ‘official’, wherever commercial stakes suited them. Naturally, no one has protested because they believe that ICC is being driven by some holy drive of pure goodness, when it is just another garb of money-making, forever condemning the game of cricket, its pristine glory and its treasured archives of history.
-
By having blurred the line of what is ‘official’ and what is not, hasn’t ICC assumed discretionary powers, which means better bargaining powers, and playing to vested interests? So technically **ANY **match being played by ANYONE in ANY PART of the world, can now be made official, if you are lucky enough to get ICC sanction. You can imagine the lucrative deals and masala matches under the brilliant disguise of charity matches and do-good and feel-good factors, which prominent sports management companies can now conceive and market. The moolah will flow, because the players will inevitably sign up, get their match fee payments and please their sponsors, while the TV rights will soar. Tell me, from which unheard-of-planet has the African XI vs Asia XI emerged from, like an Extra-terrestrial walking gingerly out of an alien space-ship?
-
Is the ICC aware that such ‘non-traditional’ games can re-ignite match-fixing (it has not died out despite ICC’s so-called patrolling which are nothing but cosmetic gestures), as there will be inevitably more cricket, hybrid games will become the norm, and soon cricket administration will become a virtual nightmare. Is ICC at all concerned about the innumerable side- effects? It is like opening a Pandora’s Box, the consequences may be irretrievably damaging.
-
Mr. Mani/Mr. Speed, we love the game of cricket, and we will refuse to let cricket be hijacked by self-styled megalomaniacs, myopic bureaucrats, and those controlling ‘purse-strings’, intent on doing their own unique numbers for petty gains and satisfying personal egos. Do you all really care for this august game, or are you there for some larger hidden agenda we guys aren’t aware of?
I am copying this letter to media representatives across the world.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
**SANJAY JHA**
**Managing Editor
http://www.cricketnext.com/features1/sanjayjha/sanjayjha149.htm
**