One of the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched reviews of the global game was released to the public last week.
Nothing like it has even been attempted before, never mind completed. It involved some big hitters in world cricket and included information extracted from 64 interviews, from former national captains, current captains, senior players, former and current administrators.
The disparity between the time and money spent and the impact the final report will have on the cricket landscape could hardly be greater. At least initially. That’s because it was not commissioned or sanctioned by the International Cricket Council (ICC) or, more pertinently, India’s Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which effectively controls everything that matters most — the international schedule and finances.
Worse, it was the initiative of the workforce, the players. As far as those nominally in charge of world cricket’s affairs are concerned, it was like being offered a report on how to run a school, or a prison, by the pupils or inmates.
But it is not a disgruntled whinge, it is a constructive assessment of the current leadership structures in place around the world and a playing schedule which is “chaotic and confusing”. There is nothing random or emotional about its forecast for the future and the likely demise of international cricket should things stay as they are. Every prediction is supported by facts and analysis.
The suggested solutions are not vague proposals. People who know and care about the game have been saying for years that “windows” need to be created for international cricket just as they are for the Indian Premier League. But they have stopped short of suggesting when, where and how they might be implemented. Understandably, the intense nitty-gritty involved led most proponents to file the realities in the “too hard” basket.
Not the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA). They provided a graphic blueprint. Four three-week windows for international cricket between February and March, May and June, the last three weeks of September and the first three of December. It suggests that every nation plays each other in their division, in each format, over the course of a two-year cycle — the India/Pakistan political situation notwithstanding. But this was about showing what is possible without pretending it’s a perfect world.
They accept that huge compromises need to be made. Fixtures between nations should be a “minimum” of one match. So, Australia and England could, if they chose to, play Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland in one-off Tests, even single ODIs and T20Is.
But with every game “counting” (no more meaningless bilaterals) would they risk doing that? Even if they did choose to “do” a minor nation in eight or nine days with one-offs in all three formats, at least they would be playing them. No point having Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland as Test nations if they’re just going to play among themselves.
And how would these games count? All 12 Test nations competing for four places in semifinals and a final in a three (or four) week festival of the best against the best. In the ODI league there would be 24 teams competing for 14 World Cup places and eight Champions Trophy spots. The T20 International league would have 32 teams competing for 20 places in the biannual World Cup.
All of this acknowledges that T20 domestic leagues pay players more in most countries than their national contracts. It also allows time and space for the “big three” to play the Ashes and Border-Gavaskar Trophy over five Tests and space for the Leagues.
National boards are still driven by the outdated concept of providing “content” during their home summers to satisfy the contracts they have with broadcasters to supply, say, 25 days of international cricket. The world has moved on and those financial returns are diminishing.
Much of the information contained in the report has been known for years but rarely stated openly for fear of angering the BCCI, worrying broadcasters or deterring sponsors. Salaries in most domestic T20 leagues are two to four times the value of national contracts and the flow of players turning freelance has increased from a trickle to a flow.
The WCA knows what to expect from the “establishment”. Disdain, disrespect, ignorance and a cold shoulder. But the hard work which they were unwilling or unable to do, has now been done. A solution to the current malaise and a vision for the future is now in a folder and freely available for all to read, discuss, amend and even implement. It will gather dust for a while the BCCI ploughs onwards making more and more money for itself and leaving everyone else behind. There will be casualties.
But one day, perhaps when India, Australia and England are running out of teams to give them a decent game, or even play against, someone might remember this report. There is always hope.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.