The end of MCC's influence?

For the first time in the ICC's 99-year history, the world governing body's annual conference will not take place under the aegis of MCC at Lord's. After the British Government refused a visa to Peter Chingoka, the head of Zimbabwe Cricket, the ICC was left with no alternative but to move the June meeting to its headquarters in Dubai.

Whatever your view of Zimbabwe and Chingoka - a dodgy man from a very dodgy country, I say - the ICC can hardly hold a meeting in a country to which one of its members is banned and I understand why they have moved it. It does raise all sorts of questions about the future, though, not least the planned centenary celebrations in 2009 and the World Twenty20 over here.

It would have been better if the ICC had stood up to Chingoka and Zimbabwe and said that he was "rested" from the board until the political situation in his country has been resolved. In any case it seems wrong that a man from a country that no longer plays Test cricket should have more say on the board than, say, Ireland's representative, but while the ICC continues to pander to Zimbabwe (mass financial irregularities swept under the carpet etc) then you can't blame them for wanting Chingoka to be allowed to attend the meeting.

It is a great shame that the meeting has been moved, but not because it represents another nail in the coffin of England's declining influence over the game. That has been disappearing for almost all the ICC's existence. Australia and South Africa, when they were the only other members of what was then the Imperial Cricket Conference, were hardly subservient to Lord's; when India won the 1983 World Cup they became a huge player in the game; there are now ten Test nations all with a valid say; and the ICC moving from Lord's to first Monaco in 2001 and then Dubai in 2005 (albeit for tax reasons more than anything else) ended any physical link between cricket governance and Lord's.

The MCC's role now is similar to that of the Royal and Ancient golf club at St Andrew's or the All-England Tennis Club in Wimbledon. The game is run, rightly, by the constituent boards through the ICC but MCC remains as a reminder of the game's heritage and its soul. The laws are set here and the fabled "spirit of cricket" springs from here - although no one would pretend that MCC does anything without the rest of the world's approval. That is not setting England and MCC up as superior to elsewhere, but simply that the game - all games - needs a grounding and a reminder of where they come from.

That is why it is a shame that the ICC will not be meeting at Lord's and why the centenary celebrations should be held there. Lord's reeks of cricket. You cannot walk into any cranny of the ground - not even the gent's lavatories - without being aware that this is a place where cricket is played and has been played for centuries. It is a temple to the great god Cricket and it is right that this is where the high priests should come for the most solemn occasions, in the same way that Catholic cardinals should hold their conclaves in Rome. Dubai cannot possibly create that sense of reverence for the game, that feeling of purpose and a grounding in what it is all about.

Dubai just makes you think of corporatism and lawyers and marketing men. OK, the cynical may say that those things are the modern game but I say that cricket should never forget its roots. Hold the annual meeting in the Long Room at Lord's under the gaze of Grace and Trumper and Gavaskar, with the Ashes round the corner and Old Father Time swinging in the distance. And let there be a game going on outside - even a Twenty20 match. All these things would remind the bureaucrats why they are meeting and to what they owe their salaries.

Comments

[Abraham Thomas]

I think BCCI should move ICC headquarters to Mumbai or Calcutta. Having ICC based in Dubai is as meaningless as having it in Lords or Harare.

[Patrick Kidd]

Thanks for the praise Terry - and your criticism is noted too. Normally our writers get Saturday off as there is no paper on Sunday (the Sunday Times is a sister paper but different writers and editors) but I agree that some integration would be nice. Will pass the comment on. I try to blog on at least one day of the weekend so you'll have that.

[Terry]

In ref to my previous comment Patrick, shame it isn't updated on weekends.

[Terry]

Thanks for the 'Session-by-session' tip Patrick. A great read when I'm meant to be working on the shores of Lake Albert. A great blog too.