What chance for cricket?

Few tears are being shed for Jagmohan Dalmiya, who has just been ousted as India's cricket supremo. It was time he went, and typically his manner of going lacked grace. Whether the election of Sharad Pawar will hugely improve matters remains to be seen, even though he has promised to make the management of Indian cricket professional. The hard truth is that the Articles of Association of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (or BCCI) are such as to make it extremely difficult to change. These ensure a closed-shop style and, once elected, there is hardly any incentive for the new incumbent to dilute his powers, or to introduce greater transparency. This is what lies at the heart of the matter.

The fact that the game now generates huge sums of money has only made matters worse. Cricket has become big business, so attention has been focused increasingly on commercial issues, whether they are the building of new stadia or the allotment of TV rights or team sponsorship. This new focus, as well as the fact that politicians have begun to take such great interest, tells us where the real problems lie. Big money interests are fighting it out, and it is worth bearing in mind that neither Mr Dalmiya nor Mr Pawar has any real stake in cricket as a game. Cricket as a commercial enterprise is another matter altogether.

At the end of the day, only one thing matters: that the Indian team wins more matches than it loses, and that it positions itself well for a clear shot at winning the World Cup 15 months from now. This requires several changes. First, if Mr Pawar is to eliminate politics in team selection, he must eliminate the current informal quota-based system of picking players. That is where the politics originates and which has proved detrimental to India's performance. Five zones, represented by five selectors pushing their own candidates and being judged on how many of their candidates get chosen, is a recipe for politics and for deal-making: "I will support your marginal player if you vote for mine". A new system based purely on merit needs to be put in place. This brings up the second requirement, namely, that the selectors must be made to watch far more domestic games than they do. It is no excuse that they can't be everywhere. That may be true but they can certainly be present at more first-class games. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the First Eleven must play more domestic games, instead of being away for international games when Ranji and Duleep Trophy games are being played. The game must be based on a sound domestic circuit, as it is in Australia and South Africa. This may mean fewer internationals and a resulting decline in revenue, but the game is bigger than the money it attracts. Only if Mr Pawar recognises this, and acts on that recognition, can he be said to have made the right start. Mr Dalmiya was a businessman and he understood money as well as politics (otherwise Bangladesh would not have got Test status, to everyone's lasting embarrassment). Mr Pawar is a politician and it must be hoped that he will look beyond both the money and the deal-making.