Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“If India don’t win the Champions Trophy,” Bobby greeted me early on Friday morning, “it won’t be the ICC’s fault.”
“After all,” he added before I could respond, “they have certainly done all they can to hand the Indians the trophy.”
(via IndiaTV News.)
And Rohit Sharma’s side, always favourites to walk away with the title, duly proved too much for Mitchell Santner’s doughty Kiwis in Sunday’s final. Class, after all, is class. And India have it in abundance.
Ravi Ashwin had called it a day, it is true, and the old pace bowler’s scourge had temporarily sidelined Jasprit Bumrah. Additionally, Sharma and Virat Kohli no longer have the consistency of old.
But Shubman Gill and Shreyas Iyer inter alia have stepped into the breach with the bat and a handful of spinners with the ball. And Virat, master of the chase, and Rohit had come up trumps when it mattered.
First, India brushed aside Bangladesh and Pakistan and finally New Zealand in the three group games. Then, they got another Kohli master class in the semifinal chase against Australia to reach the final and claim the ICC-facilitated victory.
If, like me, you had had no discussion about the behind-the-scenes happenings in the tournament, you could easily miss Santner’s oh-so-subtle post-match interview reference to the ICC’s role.
But I had just read a story about CWI President Kishore Shallow going to Peru to talk about getting cricket into the Pan Am Games and eventually into the Olympics. And I was more than a little annoyed at his concern with “growing the game globally” rather than the apparent regression of the game in the region.
I don’t think there was ever any serious chance of India being thrown out and Daren Sammy’s side getting a late call-up to replace them in Pakistan. But was there not a point to be made about perceived irregularities in the Champions Trophy? About the manifest unfairness of it all? About everybody getting a fair shake?
And who better, it seemed to me, to raise that whole business than the elected president of the West Indies Board?
(via CWI Media.)
Hand-picked to host the ceremony, Ian Bishop was never going to broach the subject.
So, à propos of nothing, Santner told him: “We have adjusted to different wickets. So close! But it has been a great tournament.”
It was this business of having to adjust to different wickets that Bobby called out as “match-fixing in plain sight”.
Bobby: Nobody could convince me that ICC still means International Cricket Council. It brazen, it boldface, it blatant. The ICC is now the Indian Cricket Council.”
(via ICC.)
Me: “I know. We have Dave Cameron to thank for that!”
Bobby: “They’re playing in Pakistan, so Pakistan is the home team, right? That means they’re supposed to have home advantage. But where they play India? In Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore? In Karachi? In Rawalpindi?”
Me: “None of the above. In Dubai. India refused to go to Pakistan.”
Which, strictly speaking, was not accurate. The cricketers didn’t refuse to go to Pakistan. The Indian Government refused to give the BCCI permission to send the team to Pakistan.
(via Asian Times.)
India last played in Pakistan as far back as 2008. Pakistan played in India as recently as during the 2023 World Cup. Since then, I read somewhere, Indian tennis players were given official permission to play Davis Cup matches in Pakistan in 2024. Indian journalists have also been given official permission to travel to Pakistan to work.
But the cricket team? No, bhai, no way!
Bobby: “And how did the ICC punish them? By making them play all their matches in the UAE, right? Riiiiiiiiiight!”
Obviously, if India couldn’t—or wouldn’t!—go to Pakistan, organizers’ hands were tied. Asking India to sit out the tournament and replacing them with the team next in line—West Indies—was not a serious option. At best, they should have been allowed to play their games elsewhere but required to forfeit any match against the home team.
(via ICC.)
I mean, how could it possibly have been fair for one team to be guaranteed to play all of their games at the same venue? How could it possibly have been fair for the tournament hosts to have to play a match in a foreign country? How could the organizers even countenance such an arrangement?
Bobby: “You know who’s making these decisions? The ICC! Tell me, breds, what kinda shit is that? Is high-level match-fixing! In plain sight!”
Me: “You read my story on Wired868 last year? You know who’s in charge at the ICC?”
Bobby: “I don’t remember the man’s name but I know the new chairman’s father is some high-profile government minister.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi was a guest at Jay’s wedding in 2015.
Me: “Jay Shah. He is the BCCI secretary and his father is Amit, I think, the Minister of Home Affairs. Prime Minister Modi was a guest at his wedding. Who could be better placed to make a case to the Indian Government? He certainly had their ear.”
Bobby: “Make a case? They didn’t want to make any case! In fact, come to think about it, they probably did make a case: for the Government to refuse them permission!”
Me: “You say that why?”
Bobby: “The ICC’s scheduling. India played first and last in the group stage. Tuesday’s semifinal win over Australia means they will end up playing all five of their matches on the same ground in Dubai. First time ever, as far as I know, a tournament final not getting played in the host country.”
Me: “There is a first time for everything, bro. In the current cycle, almost 40% of all ICC revenue will go to one country, India. And in case you wondering, the ICC website says that the: ‘BCCI is the wealthiest cricket governing body in the world, surpassing the ICC in financial strength.’”
That discussion took place on Friday. After Sunday’s defeat, the New Zealand captain summed it all up neatly, diplomatically, in six words: “We have adjusted to different wickets.”
In plain English, that translates into this question: after India’s win on Sunday, who will dare tell the ICC they cannot get whatever the Indian Cricket Council wants?
“[…] For all he has done—not just for cricket, but for the advancement of our Caribbean civilization—Dr Keith Rowley ought Read more
As many as 15 of the 74 players selected to play for West Indies in Tests since 2000 never got Read more
“[…] The issue with players from the West Indies and any non-Big 3 cricket nation (India, Australia and England) having Read more
Ralph Gonsalves, an unconditional West Indies cricket supporter, has an important message for Cricket West Indies (CWI) president Dr Kishore Read more
“…a divided world that don’t need islands no more…” Can it be that Sir Clive Lloyd does not know fellow Read more
The Cricket West Indies (CWI) has formally declared its vice-president position as “vacant”, two weeks after the Guyana High Court Read more
Columns that say that, after Covid has done its worst, we’re grateful
to be still here and be able to get out of bed early to heed the poet’s
Carpe diem injunction and, savouring all the day’s blessings, mine
those banal, random, ordinary, routine, unspectacular, run-of-the-mill,
early-morning thoughts and conversations we often engage in.
