Where to from here?

During the last few months, cricket has been transformed as the old world shifted its axis from the Anglo-centric basis to the monopolies of India, in which millions of dollars, rupees or rand are flowing into the coffers of the ICC.

The BCCI is now the strongest board amongst the major nations, and thus is at the forefront of the ICC decision-making committee. It has copped flak for its lack of action over Zimbabwe for what appears to be political reasons, but it changed the face of cricket with the introduction of the IPL.

The BCCI’s rise to power was always going to happen, whether old world administrators liked it or not. A nation of a billion, developing itself after colonial rule and colonial influences, was always going to reach a stage of being strong enough to throw its weight around.

There lies a problem within that. The BCCI needs to make sure it uses its power responsibly and not exploit it over the old guard of England and Australia, which previously had the power, and probably for too long, falling into complacency in some areas.

The response amongst the media has been mixed. Most Indian fans see any bashing of their board as either ‘racism’ or the inability of the old guard to adjust to a new world. The latter is probably true, although that has not stopped some from suggesting it is India plus the Asian block vs the rest.

The problems have arisen over the BCCI’s stance on some issues which have divided the cricket community; namely Zimbabwe and the prevalence of 20/20.

On Zimbabwe, India and the Asian block (Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) have supported the right for Zimbabwe to retain full member status despite having not played tests since 2005. The issue goes deeper than that, and it brings into perspective the thorny issue of politics and sport.

Zimbabwe’s cricket at grass roots level is in tatters. The domestic competition is reduced in stature and a great majority of the country’s best cricketers no longer play there anymore, with further rumblings within the last few months of players being refused permission to play in Europe and make more money.

The investigation into the board’s finances turned up serious irregularities into where the ICC’s money was going, not to the grassroots cricket but somewhere else. Peter Chingoka, the country’s cricket chairman, has proven himself no more than a bully boy, no more concerned with the cricketers than he is with adding a new extension to his mansion.

In return for keeping Zimbabwe floating in the top level of cricket, Zimbabwe are firmly in India’s corner when India require an issue that will be divisive of the major powers. It is frustrating that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level when (a) the team clearly isn’t good enough and (b) the grassroots level of cricket is not seeing the money the ICC shovels into the country’s cricket association.

Some have said that politics and sport should not mix with this issue, but the fact is that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level PURELY for political reasons. The BCCI recently cancelled a tour to Zimbabwe claiming it was not marketable. People should realise that they haven’t acted as so to keep Zimbabwean cricket healthy.

As a historical example, let me bring into the picture the South African ban from 1970 to 1992. This ban was based purely on that Government’s policy of apartheid, and all the major test playing nations of the time agreed to ban the South Africans from touring and refused invitations. In time, the Government changed and the cricket board changed for the better.

How is that not the same case here? A cricket board with fingers in plenty of pies and with extremely close ties to a dictator who has destroyed a country that used to be called ‘the bread basket of Africa’. A difference maybe is that Zimbabwean cricket is struggling, but will that not continue if the country’s board remains in power?

Away from Zimbabwe, the other major divisive issue is that of 20/20, which is quickly replacing one day cricket as the preferred short version of cricket. Whilst invented in England, India has taken to the game and in turn made it far more marketable and available to a wider audience.

The IPL was the BCCI’s brainchild to show off its organisational capabilities, its ability to lure to level talent, and expose the level of money it is able to produce for the game. It was a raging success, with competitive cricket and ultimate victory to a team that was initially unfancied, but brilliantly led by the genius that is Shane Warne.

The ECB, however, have been left behind as it struggles to maintain its prominence in the new order of cricket. While Australia and South Africa have leapt on the BCCI wagon, England continues to bluster around and make mistake after mistake. The Champion’s League was set to involve the top 20/20 teams from around the world, but the BCCI-endorsed tournament, set to appear in September, will not feature any county teams.

The massive feature of 20/20 is encouraging on many fronts, but my worry is that it may damage test cricket. India showed great problems readapting to test cricket against Sri Lanka recently and their batsmen were out at times when restraint was needed. Not to take anything from Sri Lanka’s bowlers, but India’s batsmen at times showed a lack of restraint.

On a closing note, may I point out (I’m aware this may seem a little biased) that as the 20/20 world cup is set to appear in India next, and the Asian countries are set to host the World Cup in 2011, Australia and New Zealand have not hosted a major cricket tournament (Not even a Champion’s Trophy) since the World Cup in 1992. Although the countries are set to host the World Cup in 2015, this is only because their bid, which was initially the only one presented, was usurped at the last minute by a decision to award the tournament to the Asian Block for the third time.

Anyone smell a rat there?