Time for ECB to wake up and smell the coffee

Once upon a time world cricket was run by the Imperial Cricket Committee housed at the Marylebone Cricket Club's premises at Lord's in the heart of London.

Even though MCC has still been bestowed the honour of "framing" rules of the game, the power shift in international cricket administration has been most remarkable. ICC is no longer based in London but moved its headquarters the more tax-friendly environs of Dubai. And it was a step in the right direction since the game had indeed become a money-spinner in more ways than one.

The recent spat between the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India is yet another example of ever-decreasing influence of the birthplace of the game on the global horizon.

ECB has appealed to ICC for resolution of the dispute regarding the five-Test series against India after BCCI questioned the home administration's claims of a "forfeiture" rather than a simple "cancellation". 

Of course, the reasons for the difference of opinion is way beyond mere financial. The ECB would have hardly faced any significant losses despite a cancellation as all international cricket is played under the ICC rules which clearly stipulate that safety of the players and those involved directly with the running of the game is paramount. Plus insurance payouts more than cover expenses.

Hence Team India's reluctance to take the field at Manchester has plenty of plausible reasons, least of it being the fear of missing out on the cash-rich Indian Premier League due to start September 21 in the United Arab Emirates.

It now transpires that while BCCI had indeed requested ECB to wrap up the India series by September 5 in order to give players enough of a gap before the IPL, England preferred to delay the start till August 4. 

That put Team India in a quandary as returning home was not practical given the tough restrictions on international travel. Indian players were twiddling their thumbs post June 24 when the World Test Championship final ended against New Zealand. England went through ODI and T20 contests against Sri Lanka and Pakistan through this period. Even these games ended by July 20, a full fortnight before the start of first Test against India.

ECB's seemingly rigid stance as to their summer schedule seems to backfired badly when Team India pulled out of the fifth and final Test while leading 2-1. More than the result of the series, its the ignominy of a cancellation that seems to have left rather bruised egos within ECB.

Now with BCCI adopting a "take it or leave it" stance ECB has been left with no option but to seek a resolution through the ICC.

BCCI's offer of extra game(s) as compensation seems to have done little to smooth the ruffled feathers and ECB has gone ahead with its demand of a forfeiture of the Manchester Test, quite understandably unacceptable to India.

A forfeiture means several things. England will draw the Test series 2-2, avoiding a home loss to India since 1974. Plus the series would have been technically completed, forcing the broadcast rights holders to pay up, something that is bound to go into re-negotiation in case of a cancelled game.

It would appear ECB may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Going by its own procedures and safety protocols for the prevailing Covid19 pandemic, ICC may have very wriggle room on the subject given the positive test result of Team India's assistant physiotherapist Yogesh Parmar. Coupled with the earlier positive result and isolation of chief coach Ravi Shastri along with bowling coach Bharat Arun and chief physio Nitin Patel gives the players more than sufficient reason to fear for their well-being.

That ECB did not provide a "bio-secure bubble" and instead chose a "controlled environment" may go against it too. After all ensuring safety and security of all concerned is the primary responsibility of the hosts.

Given the scenario, it hardly appears that ECB's appeal may not cut much ice with ICC. No longer does ECB enjoy the pride of place on the ICC board as it did several decades ago. And neither does its diktat run beyond the borders of the United Kingdom.

Welcome to the new world cricket order!

Yet another classic case of tail wagging the dog

The cancellation of the Manchester Test between England and India has yet again thrown up the big question facing world cricket - who actually runs the game?

And, believe it or not, there are no easy answers.

International Cricket Council may be the authorised world governing body but it would well appear that its diktat hardly runs outside of its swank Dubai office building.

How else can Board of Control for Cricket in India make the England and Wales Cricket Board agree to "cancel" the fifth Test match of the series instead of the "forfeit" as demanded by the hosts. 

After it was not merely a question of the $ 18 million in revenue losses but also precious World Test Championship points at stake. Besides there was the small question of a home series loss at the hand of visiting Indians, something that had not happened in over a decade.

As it transpires, the Indian Premier League was scheduled to hold remainder of its interrupted 2021 season in the United Arab Emirates starting September 19, exactly five days after what would have been the scheduled end of the Old Trafford Test.

A chartered flight had already been arranged to fly the players to the UAE on September 15.

But then came the twist in the plot.

India's chief coach Ravi Shastri tested positive for the dreaded Covid19 virus, leading to his immediate contacts being put in isolation. So Team India went through the Oval Test without a bowling coach Bharat Arun and chief physiotherapist Nitin Patel apart from Shastri. 

That sent jitters through the IPL franchisees who now looked at an added 10-day quarantine in England for anyone else testing positive apart from the mandatory six-day quarantine enforced by the UAE government on travellers from the United Kingdom.

With no chance of getting any concession from the UAE authorities on the issue, ECB was held responsible for allowing the tour to proceed is a "controlled" environment rather than a "bio-secure bubble" as had been the case with the India versus New Zealand WTC final at Southampton in late June.

Final nail in the Test series coffin was the positive report of India's assistant physio Yogesh Parmar, who had been treating most players in his boss' enforced absence.

Now the apprehension that in case a player contracted the infection it could very well mean the entire squad missing out on the IPL action.

This was not acceptable to either the franchisees or BCCI.

Hence the forfeit drama unfolded when ECB chose to take the high moral ground and declare the Test as "theirs" in its first statement on Septemer 10, barely hours before the captains would have been stepping out in the middle for the toss. 

Immediately BCCI started working the phone lines to UK and Dubai and finally got the Englishmen to relent and agree to "cancel" the Test, using the Covid19 related clause of the ICC which seeks that teams may not be penalised is they unable to field a team for a particular game due to the virus.

ECB was reminded in no uncertain terms that it was not penalised when they abandoned midway their tour of South Africa last year. Plus BCCI made the conciliatory offer of playing the "cancelled" Test match at a mutually convenient date in the future. That also let the insurance company off the hook since, technically at least, the Old Trafford Test had only been postponed to be held later.

Under pressure from all sides, including host broadcasters who have the mouth-watering prospect of extra five days of cricket coming their way possibly in 2022 itself when Team India is scheduled to played the white-ball series of the 50-over and T20 internationals, ECB was forced to relent.

Even though ECB officials held on to their initial argument that Team India indeed had more than enough personnel to go through the Test without a hitch, it was all settled in favour of the visitors who quickly got down to arranging the flights for players to the UAE.

IPL finally prevailed in avoiding another interruption, or even a poor turnout, in case some in the touring party indeed returned positive Covid19 test reports. 

All's well that end well. 

ICC got to keep its place of prominence as the world body even though it had no choice but to back the BCCI since the T20 World Cup follows close on the heals of the IPL at the same venues. Any hiccups and there could be another abandonment, which ICC can ill afford after having gone through the pain of the same only a year ago.

Money talks!

ICC finally relents, Tests over Series is the way forward

Common sense seems to have finally prevailed at the International Cricket Council.

The much-hyped World Test Championship, whose final was creatively labelled the Ultimate Test, ended its maiden season, after two false starts, with a much-deserved New Zealand win over India. But the competition, a beleaguered effort to shift the focus back to the red-ball game, as Test cricket has been so uncharitably called, left more questions than answers.

The foremost among them was the rather puzzling allocation of 120 points per Test series, regardless of the fact whether it featured two or five matches.

It must be remembered that Test series, unlike the limited overs white-ball contests quite often featuring more than two teams, are without exception bilateral clashes. The straightforward meaning is that the encounter features a home and an away side.

The popularity of a series is purely governed by how intense the rivalry is between the participating nations, though sometimes the hype around such meetings may become an overkill of sorts.

However, the ultimate success for any Test playing nation is winning on foreign soil. 

Whereas the revised the points format proposed by the ICC for the new WTC cycle kicking-off on the 4th of August, 2021, at Trent Bridge, Nottingham, with the first of the five-Test series between England and India seems a significant improvement on the previous one.

A Test win would now be worth 12 points while a Tie would garner six points apiece though a draw would fetch only four points for either side. 

A bit of tweaking could factor in wins at home and away, rewarding success on foreign soil with a couple of bonus points. Similarly, a loss away from home but below a certain margin could gain a touring side another bonus.

Nations hosting to a Test series, without fail, hold an upper hand. Hence a reward for success or a good fight could possibly be incorporated into the points system to help encourage more absorbing clashes.

After all, India's success in Australia in the 2020-21 season was certainly stuff of dreams. Who gave India even a sniff of a chance at the bouncy Gabba in Brisbane but the home side were indeed humbled.

Similarly, the decision to award the WTC final game to Lord's smacks of the colonial hang-over. Why not the higher placed of the two teams in the title clash host the grand finale, as is the case with most professional sport where better ranked teams have the home advantage. It will only improve the competition rather than teams merely satisfied with finishing among the top two. 

The number one spot will carry the home advantage prize. Not that New Zealand were complaining about the near-home conditions that greeted the teams at the new venue - Hampshire Bowl, Southampton.

It is finally up to the three wise men of the ICC cricket committee which has been working tirelessly to make some kind sense out of the 120-points per series even through these rudely interrupted and trying times.

Proactive decisions, without doubt, can make WTC the Holy Grail of cricket!

Guardiola has moved Manchester City out of United shadow

Three English Premier League titles in four seasons has without a shadow of doubt put Manchester City and its current manager Pep Guardiola is the top bracket of world football.

The journey that began with the 2018 Premiership crown was defended the following season with a record stockpile of a hundred points. This was also the first time that City had ever defended a title since 1880 when they were founded as St Mark's. The 2019 season saw Manchester City complete an unprecedented treble of domestic English men's titles adding the League Cup and FA Cup to the Premiership triumph.

The more famous Manchester United, founded two years earlier in 1878 as Newton Heath Lancashire Yorkshire Railway (LYR), have enjoyed better fame and fortune and led to a burgeoning ranks of fans all round the globe.

Living in the shadow of their better known cross-town rivals the Sky Blues, as the team is fondly known thanks to their jersey colours since 1894 when they were also re-christened  Manchester City from Ardwick, the name given to club in 1897, have had a rather bumpy ride until their 2014 move to the current facility at Etihad Stadium.

Early successes were more or less forgotten with the 1920 fire that destroyed most of the main stand at Hyde Park, forcing City to move to Maine Road, which remained their home through rather troubled times as ownership changed hands several times coupled with global political upheavals.

But once the present owners, Abu Dhabi United, were in place things really began to look up and Guardiola's 2016 arrival from Bayern Munich provided the icing on the cake.

Successful both as player and manager at Barcelona, Guardiola left Nou Camp in search of fresh challenges but his stint with the German giants was short-lived as he was head-hunted by Manchester City, setting tongues wagging about the unheard of high price for a manager. But the replacement for Chilean Manuel Pellegrini soon had heads turning as City emerged as serious Premiership title contenders immediately and did make it their own in 2018.

The present Premiership title has come with three league games still to be played. Plus City and Guardiola have the May 29 meeting with London rivals Chelsea for the top club prize in Europe, the UEFA Champions League. There are serious doubts about the original venue, Istanbul, for the game and it may all end up being played at London's Wembley Stadium after all.

Whatever the ground that gets the UEFA nod, Guardiola has the extra time on hands to get ready for the European summit clash ... and also possibly wrap up the small matter of signing Argentina and Barcelona striker Lionel Messi on free transfer.

It was yet another Guardiola master-stroke to lure 33-year-old Messi out of Nou Camp, his only home in Europe during his professional football career that kickoff in 2004. But finding the Spanish giants' asking price for the Argentine a bit too high, City and Guardiola, who had already enjoyed a fair degree of success at Nou Camp with Messi, chose to wait out another season.

Since Messi has not extended his Barcelona contract he leaves Nou Camp on free transfer and, even though there should be a beeline of clubs from all over Europe ready to break their banks for his signature, there hardly seems any interest in someone who without much doubt is one of best in the business.

With Messi strengthening to the squad, Guardiola can hope to continue his title-winning streak at City as his young guns have already proved more than capable of holding their own in what could be the toughest football league in the world.

But then Guardiola has never been one to shy away from challenges, whether it was leaving Barcelona for Bayern Munich or waiting it out to land Messi for free!

Sky Blues are certainly looking good at the top!

IOC & Japan in war of attrition with eye on next summer Olympics

As days and weeks pass by, it has become increasingly clear that the 2020 summer Olympics will be given a miss! 

A majority of Japanese citizens have voiced their opposition to hosting the Games in the capital city of Tokyo despite all the attendant losses that it may entail. Emphasis is on preservation of human life, pretty much along expected lines from a nation that rose from the utter devastation and nuclear bombing of World War II to become one of the foremost industrial economies of the world.

And it is this economic clout that has the International Olympic Committee dragging its feet in taking a final call on the Tokyo Games, even though it is a foregone conclusion that the city would be compensated in the form of hosting rights for the 2032 summer Games if Japan so desires.

IOC can hardly afford to upset Japan's national Olympic committee given the financial muscle that companies with roots in the country wield world-wide. The Lausanne-based honchos that run the Olympic movement have felt it prudent to leave the final decision to the host nation, even though IOC president Thomas Bach himself had to postpone his scheduled mid-May visit to Tokyo due the pandemic by a whole month.

A decision would be welcome since Olympic sports are wary of being caught on the wrong foot and continue to press ahead with the qualification process. Similarly, sports persons that have made the grade or hope to do so soon, are not letting up on their training despite the lurking suspicion that it could all be in vain.

The hosting rights for the next two summer Olympics, 2024 Paris and 2028 Los Angeles, are already done and dusted. Hence Tokyo must wait until the 2032 Olympiad, something that the Japanese NOC is loathe to do. It is reported to be instead asking for the entire Olympic programme to be pushed back by four years, given the uncertain times, so that it can put to use at least some, if not all, the infrastructure it has created for 2020.

Therein lies the catch!

IOC feels it would be unfair on Paris and Los Angeles but Tokyo feel it was hardly their fault for not being able to host the Games as scheduled. Indeed one postponement was granted but it is almost certain that 2021 appears to be hardly an improvement on its predecessor.

So Japan feels that it needs to be compensated while IOC is reluctant to rock the boat. 

It remains to be seen who takes the FINAL call ... 

If Japan announces the cancellation then they would hardly have a case for recompense, adequate or not, while an IOC guillotine will hand the bargaining lever to Tokyo.

After all, it's several billion dollars at stake and neither side is ready nor can afford to blink!

European boycott should be a wake-up call for social media platforms

Sports in Europe have decided to switch off their social media engagements for four days starting May 1 in protest against the rampant vilification on basis of race, gender and religion. The level of "abuse" came to such a pass that the organisers, participants and all other stake-holders have decided to join hands demanding action by authorities and owners.

It is important to note how social media becomes such a huge influence among the populace when there is so much poison being bandied about in gay abandon!

Each web-page / website makes money from the traffic it generates, leading to the host platform (Twitter, Facebook, et al.) placing advertisements and generating revenue, a small part of which is indeed shared by the those that created the content in the first place.

Makes perfect sense, especially since the content creators have a right to be compensated. But that is where the line needs to be drawn.

Social media is dependent completely on the traffic / eye-balls, which are counted as "hits" or "likes" as the case may be. And what better way to generate traffic than a bit of disagreement, which more often than not leads to outright venom being spewed by both sides leaving bystanders aghast but the platform owners laughing all the way to the bank!

It is here that European sport has decided to draw the line. Players, officials, broadcasters and organisers have for once all come together to put their foot down on what they have rightly labelled as "downright abuse on the basis of skin colour, gender, race or place of birth".

Why does it happen? Social media provides a certain anonymity to the participants, making them less vulnerable to retaliation, if ever there is one barring being suspended / taken off the platform for a specified period of time. Beyond that there is nothing being done or even attempted to be done to place any kind of check on the venom spewed right across the internet.

Tough to justify that for the owners of social media platforms who have expressed their helplessness in curbing the obvious use or misuse of the tool for free speech. 

But why is it important for those at the helm to remain on social media despite the poison arrows? The answer is very simple ... its about information dissemination and fan engagement which allows them to prove to those putting in the money about the volume and level of traffic. Indeed this has become rather for sports to have a presence on social media in order to keep their fans satisfied and feeling engaged and empowered.

But with the poison crossing bearable limits, action was demanded from the platform owners but when none was forthcoming, the limited boycott was the only option. The four-day absence is to prove how much of traffic these sports alone can command and owners better take note and devise ways to curb infringements before it's too late.

Social media owners so far have been sitting smug in their ivory towers hiding behind the belief that they have no control over what transpires on their platform, barring the odd intervention when they "feel" limits have been breached. But tolerance levels may vary and its about time there was a standard policy against direct abuse.

Quite unlike the traditional media (newspapers and television) the internet has grown mostly unbridled, But time has come to tame the monster before it drowns in its own vomit.

English football clubs' sense of entitlement could hurt them

The announcement that a 20-member group of football clubs is all set to launch a breakaway competition in Europe seems to have taken greed to unimaginable levels.

Of the 20 clubs expected to join the "rebels", six are from England! 

And the reason for the English resentment with the European football administration, UEFA, is that not enough of the Premier League sides feature in the competitions in the continent. The logic behind the argument is that these are some of the most widely followed and supported clubs world-wide and hence should be first choice rather than some poor, unknown entities from obscure parts of Europe itself.

True that the likes of Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur do enjoy a mammoth fan following globally, the reason behind it is their success in various competitions that are run by the same official governing bodies they seek to oppose.

Drawn by the lure of the proverbial pot of gold are Spanish giants Real Madrid, their city-mates Atletico and perennial rivals Barcelona along with Italian clubs Juventus, Inter Milan and AC Milan.

German giants Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund have so far held off as have France's Paris Saint Germain. 

The proposed competition parallel to the cash-rich UEFA Champions League puts the "dirty dozen" on a direct collision course with UEFA, and consequently FIFA.

In the likelihood of the world governing body coming down heavily on the rebel clubs, which might even include a world-wide ban on their players from all levels of competition, suddenly the money may not be pouring in as expected.

After all the idea is to showcase the very best on prime-time television.

The flip side, however, is fraught with danger. A ban on players would mean exclusion from FIFA World Cups and everything under the umbrella of the world body. Tough call for young players to throw in their lot when future is on the line.

Remember how the World Series Cricket launched with such fanfare by late Australian tycoon Kerry Packer, backed with a home-grown TV network to boot, fared against the Australia versus India Test series. The official contest, where Bobby Simpson came out of retirement to deny Kapil Dev's Indians a series victory, posted far superior viewer numbers than the "exhibition" games between the best talents drawn from across the world.

Agreed that Packer's attempt was in protest against the Cricket Australia denying an open bid for the telecast rights of the home series. Hence once the monopoly of a particular channel had been dented, the WSC died a quiet death. 

Despite the coloured uniforms and late afternoon starts, the matches were deemed nothing more than a "circus".

But what it did was give world cricket a direction where marketing the game was seen going hand in hand with innovations and, lo behold, these came to stay and even evolve into the 20-over contests, et al. But everything is under the official umbrella of the International Cricket Council and its affiliated national units.

No denying that even the football establishment needs a wake-up call, given that the people running the game have paid scant attention to the several aspects of the "glorious game". But all said and done they are still the establishment and hold all the aces.

The American dream, powered by the Glazers and financed by a US bank, may yet be a non-starter since TV companies may not exactly be falling over each other for the rights for fear of being barred from the "real" stuff.

After all, the rebels have been able to get only a dozen clubs on board even though their plan is to have 20, of which 15 would be "permanent founding members" not subject to relegation. Sounds pretty exciting on paper but, challenging the establishment may not be the way to go and nor would the idea of "permanence" in place of a level playing field, go down with the lovers of football.

And if the fans turn up their nose, clubs will have little option but to fall in line. Its the fan-power that is driving the clubs to extreme steps though it appears, more likely than not, to backfire!