Improving ICC's financial position was his main gain

JAGMOHAN DALMIYA'S tenure at the helm of the International Cricket Council has ended. Did he lead in the right direction?

Perhaps the answer is best left to posterity. Ten or twenty years hence, the cricket aficionado or historian may take a different view of Dalmiya's innings than he is apt to do now. But one thing is certain: Dalmiya was a pioneer - the very first to occupy the post of president in the evolutionary process world cricket's governing body is undergoing.

This process is fairly new in the ICC, even though the body's origins date back to 1909. At that time, and for a long time afterwards, the Imperial Cricket Conference (the original ICC) was just that - an annual meeting of the handful of Test-playing teams, chaired by whoever happened to be head of the authoritative Marylebone Cricket Club, be he former England captain ``Gubby'' Allen (1964) or HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (1975).

The change from Imperial to International was a delayed admission of the departure of the days of empire. In 1989 the Conference became Council, another step in the ICC's development.

By the time Dalmiya got to take guard, taking over as ICC chief from Sir Clyde Walcott, the last chairman, the organisation had been re- structured as an incorporated body, with an executive board in place.

After India won the series in England in 1986, this correspondent has been away from the cricket beat: save for answering calls to do interviews of Dalmiya, one just before he became ICC president, and another a month before he handed over charge to Malcolm Gray. So it becomes possible, here, to look at some of Dalmiya's own views as in 1997 - and again in A.D. 2000.

Improving the ICC's financial position seems to be one of the plus-points of Dalmiya's term. When he came in, the ICC had only about œ 20,000 in the kitty. ``Finance is necessary for development,'' Dalmiya had said then, ``Money we make can be ploughed back. But if there's not enough money, ICC becomes a talk-shop only.''

He went out leaving the Council's overall funds position at something like 11 million dollars. Thus: ``Earlier, development was left to individual countries. But, without money, there could be no programmes. Equally, all this money now is of no use if there are no development programmes.'' `Globalisation' was a key item on Dalmiya's agenda. Three years ago, he said he would like to see more countries play at the highest levels, but ``we cannot compromise the standard - to come to the top level, countries would have to prove their strength.

It's a different situation from spreading the game: I'd like to see it spread to as many places as possible.

``I've long been for globalisation,'' Dalmiya affirmed recently, ``cricket can't be restricted to a few Test-playing nations ... looking ahead, I see use of portable pitches prepared in greenhouses. I see play in covered stadiums - doesn't matter if it's 6-a-side, 8-a-side, single- wicket, or double-wicket, so long as cricket is being promoted and spread.''

Allegations of match-fixing and bribery were possibly rife even before Sir Clyde took over from Sir Colin Cowdrey. But Dalmiya, in 1997, could afford to be potential. ``The ICC would definitely investigate any such matter,'' he had said, sternly, ``and administer effectively.''

Now, all he could offer was a weak defence: ``I don't believe any permanent damage has been done ... with the spread of the game - over- exposure, to an extent - there are bound to be some side- effects.'' He still argues, ``It's not fair to say the ICC moved slowly.''

Regarding politics within the ICC, when taking over Dalmiya had hoped ``the entire cricket fraternity should realise the time has come for unanimity and better co-ordination. If the ICC is to march ahead as a united house, it is time we put our heads together, democratically draw up programmes - and implement them with seriousness.

``I just needed a long time to convince the Executive Board of many things,'' he conceded now, ``Otherwise, the Cricket Week - which the United Nations co-ordinated with us - would have been in my first year of office, rather than near the end.''

In 1997, he had felt ``a world championship of Test cricket is certainly an idea that needs following up.'' Against that, he now regrets his own proposal for such a championship, to be played over just 75 days, could not be implemented. ``I'm disappointed my term could not be effectively used,'' he lamented, having said, when taking charge, ``Three years is not a small period, if someone is capable.''

``Test cricket should in no way occupy a position secondary to one-dayers,'' he had said three years back, ``so it has to be made more attractive.'' Now, he maintains: ``I am a conservative in protecting the traditions of Test cricket: all I advocate is a points system that might discourage meaningless play.'' Here he feels the British media misunderstood his intentions, deliberately or otherwise.

In 1997, Dalmiya had made an interesting technical point about day-night matches, about the need to study how ground conditions and pitch behaviour changed for a team batting second. Into 2000, he is concerned about ``a negative aspect of technology ... not only is everything re-run in slow motion, bowlers' actions really come under the microscope. If someone raises a cry, your action can be analysed frame-by-frame. Then it's easy to say, there's a bend there!''

When Jagmohan Dalmiya took over the reins from Sir Clyde Walcott - apprehensive about stepping into the ``too big'' shoes of a cricketing giant - the former West Indies batsman had re-assured him he was ``available for anything''. In turn, Dalmiya intended to tell Gray that being ICC president had given him a lot of recognition and, without wishing to impose himself on the Australian, his experience could be drawn upon.

Dalmiya agrees, now, that the present ICC system of a country's representative taking over the presidency for two years may not be a perfect solution. Yes it is pertinent to recall his 1997 comment: ``It is always better if cricket bodies can be headed by former cricketers of repute, provided he is a good administrator. But if he is not, he can in no way succeed.''

SUBROTO SIRKAR

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Walsh, Ambrose breath fire and brimstone
Next     : Making them play better