Don’t blame BCCI for DRS fiasco

Around the cricket circuit Tony Greig provokes strong reaction — both pro and con. But as the cliché goes, nobody can ignore him — and not just because of his physical stature. He is larger than life in more ways than one.

Personally, I have always found Greig great fun to be with. His knowledge of the game is deep, he is up to date with modern trends and he is as entertaining in his commentary as he used to be as a player. All these make him a terrific choice to deliver the MCC Spirit of Cricket lecture, which is why I was disappointed to see him use this platform last week to launch a tirade against the BCCI rather than spell out what he thought needed to be done to make the game more engaging and rewarding for players, administrators, fans and sponsors.

Greig’s speech was like the curate’s egg: good in parts, quite rotten otherwise. His candour in explaining why he chose Packer’s World Series Cricket over playing for England was admirable. More than 35 years later, this raises a hackle or two among conservatives and for Greig to revisit this demanded courage selfbelief.

But the lecture soon digresses and then rapidly deteriorates into a barrage of criticism against the Indian cricket establishment — barely masked by some patronizing praise namely about the payments made to former India players during the recently concluded IPL — and ends up becoming a ho-hum blame-game rather than providing and/or seeking solutions.

Take for instance the DRS. While I pitch strongly for consistency — either this is used in all matches or none — to assign blame BCCI alone for it not being universally accepted is a bit of a cop out. Of course the BCCI has been recalcitrant, and perhaps caved in to player-power.

But the BCCI’s skepticism about the efficacy of available technology is not unfounded as several instances in the last season have shown. Unfortunately for Greig, in a signed piece after his lecture, former Kiwi captain Martin Crowe has not only picked holes in Hawkeye etc. but also quoted the founder of the technology as saying it is flawed and needs research. There is also the cost factor. Would India’s acceptance of DRS also mean that the BCCI has to fund the use of technology for other countries?

Greig’s plaint to preserve the sanctity — and secure the future — of Test cricket is well-founded but poorly thought out and argued. The threat to Test cricket comes not from the BCCI but from a global meltdown of spectatorship and sponsorship for the five-day game. For the record, one-day crick- et originated in England almost half a century back after fans started deserting Test cricket. Even T20, of which the IPL for some reason is seen as the most pernicious expression, began in England. Incidentally, Greig had been associated with ICL in the past.

India has been able to exploit commercially better than any other cricketing country in the past quarter century on the back of a rapidly improving economy which has provided tangible financial value to the vast following and ‘eyeballs’ it provides.

It will be agreed by all those who love the game that India — by virtue of being in the vanguard — must now be more proactive in upholding not just the financial well-being but also the ‘legacy’ of the sport. The BCCI has several shortcomings, some of them quite serious — notably to do with transparency in governance — as has been frequently mentioned.

But instead of trying to bring the Indian cricket establishment to heel, administrators and players from other countries must seek to engage it in a spirit of persuasion and compatibility rather than confrontation.

Half-truths and disingenuous arguments are hardly the counter to the BCCI’s so-called stranglehold on the game. Greig, who in the past has been an agent of massive change in cricket should know this better than most.