What's hurting Indian cricket? Star system and BCCI's electoral politics

When it comes to analysing India's T20 World Cup semi-final defeat, experts have only analysed strategic or tactical reasons, but not the structural ones

The Indian cricket team was walloped brutally by the English team at the T20 World Cup semi-final match. India bowled 15 overs, took no wickets and gave away 170 runs.

Experts from the world of cricket have all blamed India's ignominy on slow batting and poor bowling. They are right as far as immediate reasons go. They are also right as far as strategies go. But what about the structural reasons?

Like 1.4 billion other Indians, I am also a cricket expert. And I have noticed that in the perennial discourse on it, there are three topics that no one analyses with any degree of seriousness.

One is the role that sponsors play in the game. I believe it can be quite invidious. Justice Lodha, who tried to bring the BCCI to heel, didn't quite take a hard look at it.

The second is the subordination of merit to considerations of regional representation. This is nothing but good old politics. And like all politically induced outcomes, it is suboptimal. The best players don't often get a chance.

The third is the nature of the game, which is won or lost by millimetres. The room for error is infinitesimal. So chance plays a disproportionate part in both the process and the outcomes of matches. Pakistan losing to Zimbabwe, England to Ireland and South Africa to the Netherlands are just chance-induced results.

Regarding sponsorships, after 1993, when TV took over, the best or better batsmen were built up by corporates into larger-than-life superstars. Bowlers were ignored entirely. The same corporates also advertise a lot. So the BCCI has perhaps paid disproportionate attention to their preferences.

This needs closer examination because it could be a major reason why declining performers continue to be selected for important roles. After all, if you have signed a two-year contract with a player when he is doing well, you can't allow him to be dropped after three months into the contract because his form is not as good as it was when you signed him up. When this happens, a word in the right ear can be very helpful. I have always wondered why some retired cricketers loudly promote some current players.

This star system, you will recognise, is a sunk-cost thing. It was a problem with Bollywood, too, until the OTT platforms, looking to lower production costs, expanded the field from which to choose actors for particular roles. This has successfully weeded out the older actors with "star" value. They either don't get any roles now or, when they do, the film quite often bombs. The one exception, I guess, is Amitabh Bacchan.

As to the subordination of merit to regional representation issues, it's inherent in the way the state cricket associations vote at the BCCI presidential election. What we have here is good old-fashioned quid-pro-quo politics.

At the game's highest level, there is little to choose between the best players. They are all, you might say, on what economists call an indifference curve, where all combinations give the same utility.

Thus, if for past performance — plus other reasons — eight players are guaranteed a place in the side, the other seven slots are allocated by "mutual understanding". Given how many matches are played now, all regions get a fair shot at having their protégés selected. Merit is then a mere bonus.

Lastly, as I have said so often, cricket is a game of chance. The difference between hitting a six and getting out is just a millimetre. It's the same for bowling and fielding. The blanket term for it is "misjudgement". So, if luck deserts you on a given day, it can be a nightmare.

While nothing can be done about luck, the time has come to reform the star system and the election system of the BCCI. Both are harming Indian cricket.