Weak ECB kisses up to the BCCI

One of the many rules I learnt during a former career in Westminster - and have since seen reinforced in journalism - is that if you want to bury a bad policy, there is little better way than sticking out a press release at 10.30pm on a Friday. Far too late for the Saturday press to do much with it and chances are the Sundays will ignore it in the morning rush. So it was with scepticism and gloom that I read the following sent out by the ECB barely an hour ago, which I print in its entirety and rebut underneath.

"The ECB today announces that it is taking immediate steps to deal with the threat posed by events which are not authorised by the ICC and its members (“unauthorised events”). The ECB believes that the steps are necessary for the protection of the organisation and administration of the game in England and Wales, primarily for the reasons communicated by the ECB to the Chief Executives of the Counties, the MCC and the PCA on 1 November 2007.

"The steps are as follows: The Regulations Governing the Qualification and Registration of Cricketers (“the Regulations”) will be amended with immediate effect to provide, amongst other things, that a cricketer who has played in an unauthorised event in the 12 months leading up to 1 April in any given year will not qualify for registration. Although the ECB has discretion to waive non-compliance with its registration requirements, the policy of the ECB from now on will be to decline to exercise its discretion in favour of cricketers who have played in unauthorised events, save in the most exceptional circumstances.

"In addition, the Regulations will now provide that, once registered with the ECB, a cricketer will be disqualified if he plays in an unauthorised event. The ECB will not exercise its discretion in his favour, save in the most exceptional circumstances. In respect of cricketers who are already registered with the ECB, and who have already contracted with an unauthorised event, the ECB has been advised that no action should be taken against them. The ECB understands that this affects only a handful of cricketers. However, in respect of future contracts which any cricketer enters into with unauthorised events, the amended Regulations will apply.

"In relation to an overseas cricketer (termed an “Unqualified Cricketer” under the Regulations), there has long been a requirement that a County wishing to register such a cricketer obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the Governing Body of the country for which such cricketer is qualified to play Test cricket. This is consistent with ICC policy. Without an NOC a cricketer is not entitled to registration under the Regulations. The ECB will not exercise its discretion in favour of a cricketer who has contracted with an unauthorised event, save in the most exceptional circumstances.

"The ECB has taken legal advice from Leading and Junior Counsel and Slaughter and May in respect of the above steps. The ECB is satisfied that its response is lawful, robust and proportionate in the face of the challenges presented by unauthorised events."

All clear? The response of the players' unions will be interesting as this appears to be a restraint of trade for any cricketers who play in a non ICC-sanctioned event. Whatever the ECB's legal advice, there are plenty of employment lawyers out there who think this could be thrown out by the courts should any player challenge it. The TCCB and ICC tried to do this in the 1970s over Kerry Packer and lost. The World Series players were still allowed to play in county cricket. Likewise, the apartheid rebels were not banned from playing in England (and indeed were allowed to play for England after a suitable guilt period).

This, we suspect, is all to do with the Indian Cricket League, which by coincidence starts a second tournament in barely 24 hours. The ECB hopes that this late act of defiance may make certain players think twice before playing unless they already have a no-objection certificate from their national board. However, what it really shows is the cowardice and weakness of the ECB, desperate not to get on the wrong side of the BCCI, the biggest force in world cricket. The BCCI controls the "official" Indian Premier League and does not relish the competition. Understandable because of the money tied up in the IPL, but it doesn't say much for their faith that the quality of the IPL's cricket will be more attractive to the public.

Nor does it say much for the ECB's faith that their own product - the county championship, Twenty20 Cup and so on - can win over paying punters in this country. There has been a lot of rubbish from the ECB about how this tough stance is for the good of the game because the ICL does not invest its money into the grass roots and because it does not follow the ICC anti-doping and anti-corruption policies. Ignoring the number of match-fixing scandals to have happened on the ICC's watch, the reason why the ICL has no policy is because the ICC has shown no interest in working with it to implement one. As for investing in the grass roots, if the ICL offered to channel part of its funds into the school or state system would it be allowed to by the body that already controls the funding?

The real reason, I suspect, that the ECB is so opposed to the ICL is because it fears it could expand and set up a competition in this country during our domestic season. Let's face it, if some international or England players choose to play a tournament in India during the English off-season it will have no impact on the game over here, no more than if they played state cricket in Australia or got a job selling Christmas trees. The threat comes if the ICL creates a direct competition to the ECB's products. If it did, I have every confidence that the events the ECB stages would be more attractive in the long run than some meaningless hit and giggle diversion. Clearly the ECB has less faith in what it promotes - and is not prepared to introduce the changes (such as allowing counties to sign more overseas players in the Twenty20 Cup, as advocated by Rod Bransgrove, the Hampshire chairman) that would make its product more impressive.

The ECB also seems keen on creating a top level of a very few super-rich cricketers, which does not suggest that it cares about the majority of English players. Do the maths: with eight teams in the IPL and only a maximum of eight foreign players allowed per team, the chances are that no more than a dozen English players will be involved. That means that other just as talented players will be denied the right to earn a boost to their incomes by other means. It will create a gulf between the haves and have nots.

Personally, I care not a fig about either the IPL or the ICL. Both are frivolities that matter little to me. I would like to see them allowed to fight each other into a financial stalemate, but then I have faith that watching Essex v Middlesex at Lord's is a more enjoyable way to pass the time than some padded version of the Harlem Globetrotters. Clearly the ECB does not think so.

Comments

[worldwinner]

ya this twenty 20 will change this whole situation in which we r present .lets c wat happens

[Peter McGuinness]

Agreed all 'round.

Major problem - skills.

The dilution of the skill base in world cricket is the risk. Aside from Ishant Sharma, there is not a single sub-25 y.o player in International cricket who is taking Tests by the scruff of the neck. The reason for this is a waning skill-base thanks to the pre-dominance of ODIs in most countries.

T20s are a vastly more dramatic departure from all-round cricketing skills requirements than ODIs. Whilst I agree with the contention that Test will continue to occur (less frequently) and still be considered 'the pure form' (to humour people like me and Patrick), they will certainly be less powerful or compelling because players will not have practised the requisite skills to do them justice.

Look at the quality of most Test Matches at present. Discounting India and Australia, the playing standard is already becoming wobbly. Improvement in the current international environment is unlikely, if not impossible.

As usual though - good points Osc. As the cricket world fills with inane debate about what wanker said what to what other wanker, this major issue deserves more focus and discussion than what it's getting.

[Oscar the Grouch]

Peter - I'd have to agree that if it remains a 'last man standing' situation between cricketing authorities such as the ECB and CA vs. the rise of 20/20, the 900-lb gorilla that is the IPL will win. It's no surprise for instance that the giants of mass marketing - such as the global fast-food franchise companies - are right behind 20/20, the spectator demographic is a good fit. Unless it actually proves to be boring cricket (or cricket-flavoured entertainment), the advertising dollars will flow and the whole 'business' will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But I didn't make that comment about trying to use the leverage of that money and mass appeal to create a new market for the longer forms of the game as a toss-away line. There have been examples of other 'iconic' sporting /cultural institutions coming under threat from more populist formats and making successful capital out of the 'upstarts'.

Take the 'Three Tenors' phenomonon - grand opera has flourished as the 'elite level' cultural event. Ocean yacht racing - and as a dead keen sailor I have to admit that sailing as a spectacle is mostly mind-numbingly boring - but it attracts significant sponsorship ( Rolex, Louis Vuitton..) Victoria's Secret shows get a huge TV audience but people still go to Shakespeare and Beckett plays. Stones' tours still make squillions in the age of pirate downloads..

Test cricket is the purest form of the game and ODI has matured into respectability. They can be nurtured by branding as the quality product, as something for spectators to wear as badges of their sophistication and real love of the game, not just something 'to take in' this evening. If treated as the pinnacle of achievement for players to aspire to as proof of their real skill set and character, I believe that there will still be a significant pool of talent in the future. 20/20 players will, by the nature of the game, be roosters one day and feather dusters the next; national team selection for Test status must become even more the glittering prize - if not financially, then certainly in terms of status.

If that leads to a certain snobbishness of distinction between 20/20 and the longer forms of the game - let it be, as long as we still get good cricket resulting. The Barmy Army et al isn't going to become the Glynebourne crowd as a result - they're just going to become even more fanatical about being cricket fans because they will be supporting a sport seen as the 'real deal'. Just being there as a Test spectator may become a badge of honour - 'you did a drunken week in Ibiza? - wanker, I went to Australia to watch Test Matches'...

The challenge I think is not to try to stifle the IPL etc. but to respond to it in a highly creative fashion. Can CA, the ECB etc. muster those skills? - one has to be pessimistic. But we can be damn sure the BCCI will be looking for ways to ensure that they don't hand over their revenue streams to the 'private sector' entrepreneurs, so it may be a case of watching that space.

[Peter McGuinness]

Alas, it's the BCCI who shall be Washing Their Spears in the entrails of cricket's exquisite skill-set Oscar.

One game will replace another in the public consciousness. Bowling in a 'box' and hitting across the line of deliveries that are certain to arrive in a specified area. Pace may be mixed, but that's about it.

To anyone who has actually, physically played the game, it is a nonsensical abbreviation of the skill range. I acknowledge that this is not the point and that perceived entertainment is. Again the point is proven. The game of T20 is fundamentally a marketing concept aimed at people who do not otherwise understand cricket. Certainly, it is was not devised to stimulate those who play it.

If T20 flourishes then so be it. However, at this point it is clear that the price for it's explosive success will be the extinction of the full range of unique skills and strategies that sets cricket apart from other 'bat and ball' sports.

Seems that every thing on this earth must be dumbed-down, commoditised and packaged into 'easy to buy' parcels which require little effort or thought on behalf of consumers to enjoy.

At last, it's cricket's turn.

Hooray.

[Oscar the Grouch]

The more this IPL / ICL thing develops the more it seems to be an Escher drawing - bits are clear and unambiguous but the whole is impossibly disarranged.

Now I personally think 20/20 is a bit of fun with bats and balls and stumps, fundamentally exhibition games with the outcome being meaningless but a good excuse to settle back with a bottle of red and while away part of an evening, or go to a match and (to quote the doyen of Australian sports commentary, the Twelth Man), scream yer tits off. The fact that huge crowds see it so is obviously causing severe incontinence amongst several cricket control boards; mass bums on seats appears to be focussing the mind wonderfully.

The heavy-handed and almost stunningly clodddish responses of some of the cricketing 'establishment' seem eerily reminsicent of the original response to WSC; yet that created opportunities that were eventually seen and utilised. There are some - and I am among them - who believe that ODIs may well have saved Test cricket from death by irrelevance to spectators and allowed the growth of Test cricket from an underfunded terminal case to a successful professional sport. Cricketers as much as anybody in modern society have a need for a 'reasonable' lifestyle, which means a 'reasonable' remuneration; that requires bums on seats and more impportantly (perhaps sadly), TV rights and advertising contracts etc. for their employers to be able to make those payments.

Perhaps we will see the rise of 20/20 mutant ninja cricketers, as Peter Mac fears. I am still optimistic that there will be a flow-on, even from those who enter the ranks of spectators attracted to the chips and bubbly of 20/20, to appreciation of the finer feed and drink of the longer forms of the game. Maturity is becoming a luxury item in these times and perhaps we need to look towards promoting Test cricket as the premium brand - for the connoisseurs, something to aspire to, perhaps something to 'invest' (at least your time) in.

Seems to me that the IPL development, in particular, should be looked at as an opportunity. A market created is one that can be utilised, as WSC showed. What we need from the cricketing boards is better strategies to harness the energy created by massive amounts of money, not mindless defence of the status quo.

It's Rourke's Drift or the Battle of Isandlwana, chaps.

[Peter McGuinness]

You are in an impossible position Patrick.

It is not possible to opine that the BCCI , and thus the ICC, may not be acting in the best long-term interests of cricket, or be duplicitous in it's standards and conduct, without being called a racist or somehow being reviled as implacably anti-Indian.

By making this comment, I expect to be labelled as a racist or some kind of bizarre retro-imperialist. Of course, it is absurd to conclude that holding an opinion about a sporting organisation makes you racist, but there you have it. I think CA are currently a bunch of weak-kneed cowards. Guess that makes me anti-Australian.

Your protagonist has missed the point. It is not 'professionalism' that is the inherent threat to the well-being of the game. It is the physical skill-set that is at risk of disappearing, permanently and very quickly as the game is corporatised at the expense of quality.

The football analogy is flawed.

Had football (I assume this means soccer) been changed so that the English Premier League was a weekly round-robin of penalty shoot-outs rather than of 90 minute games, the comparison would be more accurate.

'Each to their own' is fair enough. There are going to be people who see a game of fun and chance as more valuable than a pure test of skill and strategy. Bridge versus Snap. Snooker versus Pool. Skiing versus Tobogganing.

There is an inevitability to this. The money will win. It always does. The world's best players will play a zillion kiddies games utilising 1/100th of their skillset, and be 'released' to play the real thing for their countries a few times a year. Naturally, these games will be diluted thanks to the extinction of the full range of attacking and defensive nuances required of real cricket.

This is change. Like all change, there will be people opposed. That doesn't mean that they are change averse or wish to live in the past. To suggest so is utterly illogical. People who genuinely believe that the game of cricket will be damaged by the dominance of T20 are entitled to be worried. It is not change they worry about. It is about the destruction of something good to accommodate the introduction something inferior.

Make no mistake. The Indian owned T20 comps will not 'sit beside' Test Cricket and ODIs. Even now, other governing bodies are literally humiliating themselves at the feet of the BCCI lest they lose favour and riches.

In the near future, people will be wondering whether a superstar cricketer would have 'cut it' in a Test Match. Could he have figured out a way to dismiss Dravid when he was well set? Could he have survived 20 overs of Warne bowling into the rough? Could he have given the ball some air? Could he have held his own against a spell of express short pitched bowling? Fielded at 3rd slip or short leg?

Soon, the questions will be an irrelevance as the skills of the game are 'vanilla-rised' into bite-sized entertainment parcels. Answers will be impossible.

T20 would be great if the idea was to open new people to the game of cricket and to prepare them to enjoy playing and watching the actual game of cricket. But it's not. It's a different sport altogether. As different as comparing Rugby Union and a game of Rugby League Touch. It is derivative but not complimentary. As different as cricket and indoor-cricket.

Is 'World Wrestling Entertainment' credible as a sporting contest? However you answer this question, consider this.

Does anyone give a stuff about Greco-Roman (genuine) wrestling any more?

That was a thoughtful and thought provoking piece Patrick. Thank you.

[Patrick Kidd]

Hi Rohit,
First things first, I'm sorry if it appears I have been bashing Indian cricket in general. Regular readers will know that I hold some India players in the highest regard, particularly Dravid but also Tendulkar, Kumble, Laxman, Ganguly, and Dhoni, who are among the all-time greats of the sport. If I criticise certain Indians for their misbehaviour or ridiculous actions, that is not to criticise about Indians in general.

Playing India at Test cricket remains one of the great attractions for me, and I can only apologise in advance if England don't give you much of a game next winter. At least last summer's battle was good fun.

It is true that I am opposed to the IPL and ICL. My point at the end of the last post was to stress that my defence of the ICL as far as player bans go is not because I favour the ICL over the IPL. You talk about the sums involved being part of the free market and I accept that - but for a free market to work there must be few restrictions on competition. I find the BCCI and other national boards are stamping down on competition.

You say that the IPL will "give cricket what it deserves". I don't take that as praise, although no doubt you intend it as such. Yes, it is good that players are paid better and some valuable innovations will come out of this, but I am struggling to see what fascination, beyond the academic, there will be for city cricket from people who do not live in those cities. What is the point of watching sport if you do not care who wins? If people chose who they favour purely based on the individual players involved, rather than the combined team, then the wealthiest will prosper, which takes something away from the true meaning of sport.

Twenty20 is fun and fast - I agree with you on that - but it is not real cricket and while there are undoubtedly some players who have turned out to be brilliantly skilled at the form, I fear that it will make it harder to distinguish between true greats of the game and the rest of the pack. Take Tendulkar, for example. He may well turn out to be as skilled a Twenty20 player as he is a Test and 50-over player but I suggest the visible gap in class over the majority of players will be less apparent and I think this is a shame.

Yes, few people may take much interest in the county cricket but I personally believe two-innings cricket remains the most enjoyable form of the game - in England and elsewhere. I thought one of the saddest sights was the fact that barely two dozen people were watching the Duleep Trophy final in the Wanbkhede Stadium at the same time that the IPL auction was going on.

[Rohit]

"Personally, I care not a fig about either the IPL or the ICL. Both are frivolities that matter little to me". You got be joking Patrick. Given that you have been bashing the IPL and Indian Cricket on an almost daily basis, I have to say that you think about very little else. `

"but then I have faith that watching Essex v Middlesex at Lord's is a more enjoyable way to pass the time than some padded version of the Harlem Globetrotters". Yes you and about a dozen pensioners and their dogs. Nobody else really cares much about county cricket. IPL will give Cricket what it deserves. Filled arenas and top players of the day performing in those arenas. It will also let cricketers make money comparable to other spectator sports of the day. Your argument about "silly money", it not being Test Cricket, etc, etc does not really hold water. There is no such thing as silly or free money in this world. If the economics of a sport determines that a certain format of the sport attracts the most money then you and I will have to respect that. Its called free market. Happened to football a long time ago and now its happening to Cricket. Its also called "change". But then I guess you are one of those who don't like change. I guess you still pine for the times when it was called the MCC as against the ICC.

[Jeet]

Bang on Pat. It's really sad that so many cricketers are being denied the right to ply their trade. Is this not restraint of trade in some way? It's utterly depressing.

The irony regarding the ICL not putting back into grass roots is that it's actually the reverse. I was hugely sceptical of the ICL, but having seen it, I was really impressed. Granted, I lost interest quickly and didn't care a fig for who won, but I was stunned at how good these supposed Indian rejects were. Most surprising was the fielding, which was as good as anything I've ever seen, up there with the Aussies.

So the ICL gave a platform to about 6 or 7 Indian cricketers to showcase their skills. The IPL is giving a platform to established stars who are obviously going to plough their earnings into the game's roots.

Praveer Kumar, the unlikely hero and man of the match in the second CB series final, was a whisker away from joining the ICL, and possibly lost to world cricket. He is going to be a star so watch out for him.

Unfortunately, I think it's only going to get worse, partly due to two words that should make you want to vomit - Lalit Modi.

Do the ECB really need the BCCI's money? Aren't we loaded? I can understand the other nations bowing to their demands, but I keep hearing how we're rolling it. We should be - £60 for my ticket at the Oval last summer and 20 odd quid for the cheapest bottle of wine. Loved every second, but can only do that once a summer. Show us yer balls ECB!