The BCCI stands for Board of Control for Cricket in India, but that acronym has been played around with over the years to accurately describe what the organisation truly represents. The word ‘Cricket’ has been replaced with ‘Confusion’ and ‘Chaos’. Perhaps we can now add another word to it – ‘Contradiction’.
The Three C’s have reigned supreme for so long that it is safe to conclude that the board has had little ‘control’ over all of them. Recent evidence suggests that the board only pretends to be the custodian of cricket in India, as the decisions it sometimes makes only caters to its selfish interests. Protecting the interests of the game and its players is least important, apparently.
True, they are among the richest sports bodies in the world, and the envy of several other cricket boards who are struggling to break even. But ultimately, it’s the players who play the game for them, so decisions need to be taken keeping their best interests at heart. The players are paid handsomely, supplanted in no small way by the lucrative Twenty20 tournament called the IPL, and the board deserves credit for the rapid rise in salaries as compared to earlier decades. But high salaries don’t always guarantee victories, as the team’s performance in England this season shows.
India just lost their world No.1 ranking in Tests after losing the first three Tests, leaving only pride to play for in the fourth and final game. Quite a dramatic fall after they won the 50-over World Cup just a few months ago at home. Before the England tour got underway, India were the undisputed kings of world cricket, having taken Twenty20 by storm with the IPL. The players themselves are partly to be blamed for this sudden decline, but this has also exposed the BCCI’s shortcoming when it comes to scheduling.
It makes you wonder where the BCCI’s priorities lie. When India rose to the top of the Test rankings in 2009, dethroning Australia, it remained to be seen as to how long they could retain that spot. Staying on top is as challenging than getting to the top. Purists will unanimously agree that being the No.1 Test team is more prestigious than being the one-day world champions.
The BCCI already has a major clout in the International Cricket Council, so it immediately flexed its muscles soon after India reached the summit in Tests. In 2009, South Africa were scheduled to tour India for seven one-dayers, later reduced to five. But the BCCI felt this wasn’t going to safeguard India’s Test ranking, so it pushed for another change. A new schedule was drawn up, which included two Tests and three one-dayers.
Critics viewed this as a selfish step on the part of the BCCI, but it was evident that they were taking Test cricket seriously. The two Tests were shared 1-1 and India retained their ranking. As India were playing at home, they weren’t expected to lose anyway.
So it seemed like Tests were the priority. However, the scheduling for India’s future tours has been at odds with that policy. Late last year, India headed to South Africa shortly after wrapping up a home series against New Zealand and headed straight to the first Test at Johannesburg without a single warm-up game. Some players did arrive early to acclimatise, but there’s no substitute for match practice and not syprisingly, India were routed by an innings.
The board, in its infinite wisdom, didn’t feel it necessary to have a warm-up. Clearly defies logic considering the opponents and that India have a dismal Test record in South Africa. If the Test ranking really was the board’s priority, then the BCCI clearly contradicted itself by this piece of shoddy scheduling.
That India fought back in the second Test and drew the series 1-1 (they nearly won the series) is testament to the team’s resilience. They had themselves to thank but not their bosses. The board seems to be riding on the dictum that the Indians are traditionally poor starters who eventually find form. But it would be unrealistic to expect the team to surprise at each outing, as it discovered in its ongoing tour.
In the last four years, India have had four tough tours. In their 2007-08 tour of Australia, their captain Anil Kumble asked for three warm-up games. He got only one and India were walloped in the first Test at Melbourne. They lost the series eventually. When England toured Australia last year, they ensured they were sufficiently prepared, playing three warm-ups and arriving early enough to acclimatise. They steamrolled Australia 3-1.
The BCCI tends to fill up empty spaces in the calendar with meaningless one-dayers and triangular tournaments. The 2011 IPL, which started barely a week after the World Cup, was expanded with more teams and matches, further eating away recuperation time ahead of foreign tours.
India then headed to West Indies for five one-dayers followed by three Tests, hardly ideal preparation for England after that. It would have been better if the tour was staggered, leaving the one-dayers for later. The cramped schedule meant that India got just one warm-up game before the first Test at Lord’s. As a result, two key players in Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan, who missed the West Indies tour, were undercooked. The whole team is reeling due to lack of preparation and a whitewash is on the cards, unless England turn up the The Oval inebriated.
The BCCI clearly underestimated England, who looked more capable than any other team, to challenge India’s ranking. It can gloat over earlier success stories, but one feels that the team was running on borrowed time, and their luck finally ran out. Whether the board learns from this mistake or not remains to be seen.
If it’s intent on preserving the ranking, then why doesn’t Bangladesh, Test cricket’s favourite whipping boy, get invited to play Tests in India? Because Bangladesh isn’t marketable enough. It’s all about money, not rankings. At this rate, cricket will be the loser.
|
