Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard will not be the ICC president. While that has led to an international controversy of sorts, the moot question is: Would it have made any difference? A former chief minister would be replaced by a former prime minister in 2012.
While FIFA has a stranglehold over football and the IOC manages all global Olympic-related activities with an iron fist, one wonders whether the ICC has any real control over cricket in the world. Most of the major decisions are taken by the concerned boards and the ICC seems to be a mere rubber stamp. The fact that the BCCI seems to be the strongest and highest authority in cricket is also not a good sign.
The pre-International Cricket Council era
From 1909-63, the ICC was called the Imperial Cricket Conference. That was probably its most decisive era, for cricket finally got a global outlook and the ICC admitted West Indies, New Zealand, India and Pakistan as Test nations.
Dhoni c&b Sakshi
From 1964-88, it was known as the International Cricket Conference. With an idea from Pakistan, the ICC was expanded to include non-Test playing countries, which came to be called associates. Later affiliates were also added and today the total membership of the ICC is more than 100.
During this era, the rules of the game were amended, the ODI World Cup was launched, world cricket survived the Packer crisis and Sri Lanka became a Test playing nation.
The ICC becomes democratic and strong…
1989 was a landmark year. The ICC became the International Cricket Council. The MCC head no longer became the automatic ICC head. The ICC had greater powers and could suspend members. It became more democratic and global and also subsequently had a Chief Executive who would run the body better.
However, the new improved ICC has been plagued with a host of never-ending problems.
Dissent: India does what it wants. Pakistan always stands in isolation. Zimbabwe was a case that was totally messed up. Bangladesh got Test status in 2000 and won just three Tests in the next 10 years, one against Zimbabwe and two against a West Indies B team. The ICC cannot really crack the whip on any country if it wants to.
Discipline: While the ICC Code of Conduct is getting tougher, don’t the on-field skirmishes seem to have increased? There are more altercations, while sledging became an art form in this era.
Tournaments: The ICC Champions Trophy was one of the most irrelevant tournaments around. If that was not enough, then the 2007 ODI World Cup was one of the most boring and longest ones ever (that was the ninth edition of the tournament and you would have thought that the ICC would have perfected the art by now).
Chucking: M Muralitharan was left off the hook solely because Sri Lanka captain Arvind De Silva walked off the field. The on-field umpire is the best man to tell whether a ball has been chucked or not. And he’s the one who’s been made the most powerless.
ICC Calendar: The calendar was supposed to be fixed and unchangeable, but if two boards get together, then any amount of changes can be made, the ICC just watches.
T20: This was an ECB innovation. When India opposed T20, the concept went to the backburner. When India supported it, we had a World Cup. But the sad part is that the ICC has not gone beyond the World Cup. T20 is the only way to get associates and affiliates hooked to cricket.
FIFA World Cup
Match-fixing: Match-fixing became a huge issue in the 1990s. Two former captains were involved in the match-fixing controversy. South Africa’s late Hansie Cronje and India’s M Azharuddin. Even today, the ghost hasn’t been fully laid to rest.
Rot at the top…
So what went so wrong with the Reform of 1989? The rot probably started right from the top. The last ICC Chairman was Sir Clyde Walcott, one of the three great Ws of the Windies (the other two being Everton Weekes and Frank Worrell). Before him was Colin Cowdrey who had played 114 Tests at that time, a rarity. They were among the most respected figures in cricket.
After that none of the presidents of the ICC have been international cricketers of any repute. From Jagmohan Dalmiya in 1997 to Sharad Pawar in 2010, all of them have been more of politicians rather than sportsmen. That clearly shows in the way the game is run.
Mark Taylor has been suggested as a replacement to Howard. Taylor was one of Australia’s best captains and one of the most respected figures in international cricket.
Taylor’s appointment would definitely go a long way in restoring the credibility of the ICC leadership.
The author is a Bangalore-based journalist and blogger.
