ICL, another WSC???

Almost every fortnight the news of one or the other player having signed up with Indian Cricket League (ICL) makes sports headlines. This is followed by denials, comments from BCCI officials and the players involved.

I remember the launch of ICL by the Zee head, Subhash Chandra after India’s premature exit from World Cup 2007. His launch speech revolved around it being high time and he needed to take the responsibility of molding cricket by his own hands after the country’s dismal performance in the cup. From this sentiment, my first impression was that ICL would be a domestic league and will challenge the monopoly of the BCCI.

The whole set-up reminded me of non other than Kerry Packer who had revolutionized cricket in the 70’s, by signing on players. The ACB and ICC had tried their level best to counter his efforts but eventually had to succumb. It was clear that Subhash Chandra was attempting to emulate the feats of the late Channel 9's head honcho and become the India’s Kerry Packer.

Packer had banked on certain adverse situations that existed then and had exploited them to his benefit. The most prominent being the fact that players then were payed miniscule sums and hence most international cricketers had jobs which they did off-season. The concept of a professional cricketer did not exist as incomes from the game alone could not do much towards their sustenance. The cricket boards did not have the funds and hence match fees were meager. In those days, the coverage of the sport world wide over television was also not extensive and hence endorsements were virtually non existent.
Even if players traveled overseas during the off season to play county/club cricket, they were not able to make much money. The boards, as mentioned earlier had a financial crisis of their own which reflected in the nature of the resistance they could offer Packer.

Situation today, is much different. International players get a lot of money. Revenue from endorsements is high enough to render their official match fees insignificant. The players who do not make the grade, or those who have made the grade some time in the past and are now just cricketers who at one time played international cricket, manage to earn a lot of money playing club cricket in countries like England, South Africa and Australia to name a few. Match fees for domestic cricket tournaments have also been revised quite a few times and are much more presentable. The cricket boards today also earn a lot of money from television rights and sponsorship. This puts them in a very powerful position to resist the ICL challenge.

The point I am trying to make is, in the mid 70’s, Packer could exploit the situation and get players, who were at the peak of their career to sign up, willing to forego the official leagues. Today, this seems a remote possibility, as so long as players are able to sustain themselves financially, there is no bigger dream than being a part of a team recognized by the official controllers, by that I mean the state and national teams. Earning a test cap is even today a dream parallel to none other. Sportsperson persue a sport not to make money, but to make their mark in the sport.

This is in fact what is happening. ICL has only managed to sign up ex-cricketers as board members and as players, only those cricketers who no longer make the grade for their national teams or great cricketers who have called it a day very recently.

It remains to be seen whether a cricketer who has reasonable amount of cricket left in him and is doing well for his national team joins ICL. What may happen is that the boards who are not as rich as their counterparts in India, might be looked as one of the first to endorse ICL in a big way in persuit of higher revenue.

In this entire fiasco and exercise to attract players, it is eventually the players who are to benefit. To counter the ICL, the boards are forced to re-look at their remunerations and compensate players better.

All I can say is that ICL is managing to create the hype that they had set out to create. We will hav to wait and watch if they manage to back it with the substance.

Was it the ghost of Barbados again???

A lot has been made of India’s decision to bat vis-à-vis imposing a follow-on against England which possibly would have enhanced India’s chances to win the final test and close the series 2-0.

After just about four sessions on the field, that too separated by night’s rest, the reason given that the bowlers were tired seems unbelievable.

The pick of the Indian seamers was undoubtedly Zaheer Khan. Post match reports state that he was nursing a sore thigh. Batting for some time would give him some respite and also time for the physio to work on the injury. This seems reasonable as throughout the series, Zaheer has looked like getting a wicket almost every time he has bowled.

If a devil exists in the wicket, it starts to raise its head on the fourth day and shows up completely as the last day approaches. Even though three left-armers had bowled and left a lot of foot marks outside the right-hander’s off stump for the spinners to exploit, there weren’t any alarms yet.

Under these conditions, a possibility of England scoring some runs and putting India under pressure in the fourth innings even though meek, could not have been ruled out. They had nothing to loose! One could have expected some aggressive batting from them.

Lets’ assume a hypothetical situation wherein they played four sessions and piled up a target of about 150 for India to get in the last innings. With just about two sessions to get the runs, India would surely be the favorites.

One reason why India didn’t think along these lines, I believe, is because of the ghost of Barbados, wherein India had failed to chase a small total of 120. That match still haunts the Indian batsmen. Most of the batsmen, who played here at the Oval, had played that unforgettable match in the West Indies.
I remember Rahul Dravid mentioning the game as a painful memory after our victory at Adelaide a few years back.

The Indian team has been at the receiving end of considerable flak and hence one cannot accuse them of being slightly defensive, taking the conservative approach and ensuring that the series was pocketed in the end. They took the approach of batting England out of the match.

Test series victories abroad are rare. We have looked like winning a series on several occasions but have not been able to make it.
In this series, the Rain Gods have also been more than kind to us and hence, with a stage set so favourably, the decision to play safe seems only logical to me.

Can there be a better way to celebrate 60 years of India's Indepence than beating England in England.

Well done India!