Neutral venues in Ranji creating more complications
Far from the glare of the arc lights focused on India’s international engagements and the Board’s ‘intransigencies’ against the Supreme Court, a major cricketing exercise is taking place across the country.
The Ranji Trophy, which forms the backbone of talent to the national team, is being played, involving 28 teams and more than 100 matches. This time the cricket administration has decided to do away with matches being played on a home-and-away basis and decided to go neutral. As has been extensively reported and critically evaluated, the Board felt home advantage was being exploited by host teams and this had a detrimental effect on Indian cricket.
Instead of punishing the culprits or taking other corrective measures, the Board decided to go for neutral venues, where the preparation of wickets and conditions could not be manipulated by the hosts in their favour.
Let us for a moment assume that this exercise, recommended by Rahul Dravid and endorsed by a committee that included Sourav Ganguly, was driven by noble intentions.
India needs players who are bred in conditions that are not designed to exaggerate their strengths and hide their weaknesses. This exercise, which could be a logistic nightmare, it seems, has not been properly thought out and executed.
Reports emanating from some centres, where matches are being played, suggest that this grand venture is not going down well with the players as they are facing problems ranging from excessive travel to indifference of the ‘neutral’ hosts.
This has resulted in inadequate arrangements for proper food to the players, teams having to undergo harrowing travel experiences, dressing rooms not being wellequipped, the ground staff being uncooperative and wickets not always as ‘neutral’ as the Board had planned.
The Board could well argue that these are teething problems and a few examples should not be treated as symptomatic of a larger problem.
For instance, if Assam were told to eat one ‘vada and bonda’ after the day’s play or the dressing rooms were too dusty or if at one venue the groundsman had watered the wicket so much that the match had to be delayed by a couple of hours, these should not be treated as common occurrences.
Similarly if some of the teams had to travel between two distant poles, resulting in connecting flights being missed or travelling unscheduled by bus for several hours, does not mean complete failure of the new system. These are aberrations that can happen and have happened in the past, and making it the focal point of criticism against the Board may not be fair.
However, the larger point remains. That is the need to do away wit h home-and-away matches. As has been argued in an earlier column, punitive measures should have been taken against those host associations which flouted the norms of fair play.
Action should have been taken against the groundsmen and teams who doctored the wickets.
One corrects the flaws of a system that has its merits and not resorts to solutions which could further complicate the problem rather than solve it.