Players’ concerns over security are understandable. But where does one draw the line when players themselves are flummoxed when asked to explain how one bomb riddled country is better than other? Perhaps compensation is more important than job security. But should it not be the other way round?
It sounds almost ludicrous to hear Michael Clarke say he hopes Australia will tour Pakistan sometime during his playing career. Come again? This comes from Australia stand-in skipper and his stance clearly is an indication that Australia are not about to change their mind anytime soon. They have already postponed a Test series earlier this year and next year will not see them fit Pakistan into their schedule either if the speculation emanating from Australian circles is anything to go by.
So, would it be fair to call Australia world champions when they have not played in Pakistan since 1998? It seems the only resolution to pestering problems is to shoo them away. When the Champions Trophy was a drag in previous editions, this edition was actually going to promise a better affair with the eight best teams. But the ICC has plausibly sacrificed its money spinner (that helps its globalization efforts) but not being proactive about a situation they knew was coming to a head. But waiting until the last possible moment that gave themselves no chance of arriving a worthwhile salvage situation, they have shown they have no teeth when it comes to making decisions that affect the sport as a whole.
Instead where money is, the cricket line is towed. The ICC is not an exception to the rule which is why the tournament stands deferred, not cancelled. It is also why the tournament is going nowhere and is a non starter. Players would perhaps have not blinked an eyelid had the IPL been staged in Pakistan! A harsh statement? Apparently not. Twenty20 is turning cricketers into superstars; celebrities without effort. Tomorrow they will perhaps have to do nothing; the pay cheque will just walk home. Call it return on investment. Is that fair? Perhaps, given that sportsmen tend to have shorter career spans. But if the sport is going to be run and dominated by money and politics, perhaps it is time to speak another language (or play another sport).
Those that are burying the Champions Trophy are also endorsing the multitudes of Twenty20 leagues. Look at it this way. Players have already benefited from the lack of structure, playing for two states at one time in different countries and creating a monstrous headache with boards jostling over whether it is wiser to let players play elsewhere and make the money or keep them in state by setting up another mushroom of Twenty20 league domestically. Even when the system falls into place, players will still set the market price with the plethora of leagues and continue to endorse their policy of less work, more pay.
Everyone’s lapping it up – one Twenty20 after another. But is that not what happened to the one day internationals? They caught on like bush fire and there was plenty of money to be had. So, players complain of workload and yet they find it too dangerous a proposition to sit out for the opportunity to go to someone else. Why else were players lobbying for boards and the ICC to make the final decision on the ICC? If left to the players, they were in danger of watching more eager fringe players deciding to risk their life a little bit more. It is hard to imagine security was of the only concern on the players’ mind or rather to their life. South Africa seem quite content playing in England even though the bombs that scarred London continue to haunt with more terror threats. Are players thinking about this as they step on to the field at Lord’s or the Oval?
What were the ICC thinking postponing the tournament such that there would be two successive Champions Trophy tournaments in two successive years? Surely, they are helping it on its way to the burial ground. Players do not manage converging every six months or a year to play the same leagues or Twenty20 tournaments. But shirk away when the top eight of the world cricket come together for a tight fisted battled?
There is only one way to explain this. Players are happy to be amongst their ilk. But they will only part when money, nay, big money, is involved. So, the Jaipur blasts mattered little for the foreign players. The Champions Twenty20 League should not see much opposition.
Moreover, the ICC has yet again shown that it is a helpless governing body whose best interests continue in sitting on the fence. Countering the market for cricket by Asian dominance with western politics is proving too much for the ICC and it questions their area of jurisdiction when every apparent problem seems out of their hands. It is unfortunate but one that is becoming more apparent by the day when it cannot stand by its own decision. But by determining course of action through such lobbying, western nations are now showing their might in other undesirable ways, off the field.
Moreover, they are now determined to decide how they plan to play the game. What’s to stop these countries from making demands that Pakistan no longer be retained as co-hosts of the World Cup 2011? How likely a scenario is it that Sri Lanka will be next on the list? Can India be far behind once the Twenty20 market corrects itself? Touring for the World Cup in 2011 will be a consternation for the ICC again in due course of time. What will it do? Postpone the World Cup till world peace is achieved?
