BCCI has case to answer

Ashis Ray

London-based journalist

Who is running Indian cricket? Is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) a television channel? Who is answerable if Team India performs poorly? Indian cricket is in a state of flux, if not in a mess. It should not be judged on the basis of its deceptive bank balance. 

On July 18, 2016, the Supreme Court of India ordered the implementation of a majority of the Justice RM Lodha Committee's recommendations regarding reforming the BCCI in four to six months. Eighteen months later, the board is nowhere near fulfilling its obligations, even after a Committee of Administrators (CoA) was appointed on January 30, 2017 to supervise it. Currently, the top court's verdict is awaited on the CoA's application to disband the BCCI and its affiliates and start afresh under a new constitution and office-bearers eligible for elections. 

The BCCI conjured www .bcci.tv as its internet identity. Boards license events under their jurisdiction and leave it to the rights holders to independently arrange coverage. The BCCI, in transgression of media freedom, controls the production, hires and remunerates commentators to maintain a check on what they say.  

The paramount responsibility of a cricket board is to uphold the prestige of the country it represents. In other words, to develop its teams in such a manner that they acquit themselves respectably in international competition. 

Poor show outside continent

For 85 years, India have more often than not embarrassed themselves in Test matches outside the subcontinent, despite being increasingly flush with funds since the victory in the 1983 World Cup.

It took India 36 years to win a Test match or a series abroad. Indeed, barring brief sparkles in the 1970s, 1980s and 2000s, it's been back to square one. Even after 70 years of touring Australia, India haven't won a series Down Under. And they have just ensured they are not going to alter this dubious distinction in South Africa either, even after visiting there for 26 years. Indeed, since 2011, India has consistently suffered humiliation on the soil of England, Australia and South Africa.

The BCCI had the callousness to drop its cricketers into the cauldron of Tests in South Africa without any match practice. Was it necessary to engage in limited-overs matches with Sri Lanka when the time could have been utilised to adapt to the bounce and movement of South African pitches? Should Indian cricket have come to a standstill because the national side's captain was immersed in extended transcontinental wedding? 

Unprofessional operation

Indian cricket has never operated professionally. For the past decade, the BCCI has manipulated the International Cricket Council's Future Tours Programme to enjoy two years of home series with the tougher teams and thereby emerge as the number one ranked outfit in the supreme format. Now that the Indians are confronted with unfamiliar conditions — as is currently the case in South Africa — they are unable to hold their own. Their timing and shot selection are awry because of insufficient time in the middle against pace and bounce they are unaccustomed to.

KL Rahul's uncharacteristic lack of timing proved the point. Besides, in some cases, one can adopt a horses-for-courses strategy — in this case, playing a bowler with greater pace in Ishant Sharma instead of one with lesser velocity in Bhuvneshwar Kumar. But how can you ignore your highest wicket-taker in the previous test? Kumar is, in fact, quicker than Vernon Philander and could have been penetrative on the first morning when the South Africans got away to an opening stand of 85. Lastly, it is true that Ajinkya Rahane's recent Test record has been uninspiring. But his track record abroad is exemplary among the present lot. So, how does he not get a look in, where Rohit Sharma has scored only two half centuries in 22 innings outside the subcontinent? 

Officials of the BCCI and its affiliates are arguably in contempt of Supreme Court decrees; and the judiciary has been tardy in cracking the whip. At the same time, since its appointment, the buck stops with the CoA. Vinod Rai, who heads the CoA, may be a cricket lover with administrative experience in the civil services. But he is yet to demonstrate that he has a grasp of the finer points of the game, its heritage and culture and systems and structures that are needed to bring efficiency to the BCCI's functioning. 

The BCCI has historically taken the easy way out by indulging in moneymaking over-limit cricket where ordinary batsmen prosper on flat surfaces and ordinary bowlers thrive, because wielders of the willow are constantly courting danger in pursuit of runs. The true test that comes in metamorphosing pitches in Tests has not been treated with the priority it demands. 

Empty stands stare vacantly at TV cameras. Where licence fees from television cover costs, stadiums can afford to extend free access to students and inexpensively priced tickets to others, with food, beverages and merchandise realising revenue.

If Rai had no objection to India visiting South Africa without any warm-up games before the Test series, he needs to consider his position. Indian cricket needs a spearhead who is knowledgeable about the sport, skilful enough to deal with the rebellious officials and — most importantly — capable of securing long-term success for the country in all conditions.