BCCI vs cricketers: co-existential angst
It was supposed to be annus memorabilis, the year in which cricket completed 75 years in a country that defines cricketing passion. And yet, the year hasn't quite turned out to be that way. India's first round exit from a World Cup nearly all expected to at least reach the semifinals, the Board of Control for Cricket in India's problems with finding a coach for the senior team, have made introspection, rather than celebration, the flavour of the season.
The two groups that need the most introspection are the players and the administrators.
The great contract trick
The BCCI introduced central contracts in 2004 after nearly three years of deliberations. Not such a bad thing, considering England also introduced centralised contracts only in 2000. The ambition of centralised contracts during their inception was to provide players with a financial back-up in case of injuries, and to act as a support system. It has instead ended up becoming contentious.A poor performance in the World Cup saw the introduction of performance-based contracts rather than the previous seniority-based model. Add to that, the problem that the BCCI was keen on introducing endorsement caps and checks in the players contracts. This became an issue for both sides, which appears to have been sorted out, for the time being.
One thing is certain though. Both parties involved may have lost out on a chance to effect a positive change in Indian cricket. When centralised contracts were introduced in England, the English Cricket Board made use of their control over players to effect their quality rehabilitation, give their fast bowlers adequate rest by taking charge of their county schedule.
The Australian Board makes it mandatory for international players to play for their state sides in the off-season, and as any cricketer will tell you, the higher the level of competition you face at that level, the better you become. The BCCI has made it mandatory for cricketers to play for their respective state sides when off national duty, but the crammed schedule often doesn't allow players to do so. Scheduling matters merit another article, but it would not be wrong to say that three years into the system, centralised contracts are still facing teething problems, not least because of the doubts both parties have about their content.
In the fracas after the World Cup, Sachin Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh were issued show cause notices for speaking about the World Cup and Greg Chappell. It was a move that underlined the tough stance that the BCCI had decided to take post the first round exit, but left a lot of people wondering if the BCCI was being draconian.
After all, the Australian and South African cricket boards have let their players get away with nothing more than a warning, for comments which were harsher than the Indian players's. Yet, the BCCI's action found many backers. Former cricketer Anshuman Gaekwad had this to say.
"When you are a part of an organisation, you cannot criticise it in public. So in that sense the action that the Board took was right. But the problem lies deeper. Players need to be trained to deal with the media, and need to be trained on what topics to speak on and what to avoid. It should be made a part of their grooming." But then what about speaking about grievances? Does the BCCI have an open channel of communication with its players across all levels.
The ICPA question
A gala launch apart, the Indian Cricket Players Association has been in the news only for charitable associations. An organisation with some of the senior members of the Indian team has barely been able to stand up for player rights. But Arun Lal, the working vice-president of the ICPA, says that the senior members in the side interact with the board anyhow. "They do it in their capacity as senior players, as leaders," he says.
The senior leaders have in fact taken the initiative on behalf of the players, whether it be initiating a contract system (Anil Kumble played a pivotal role in this) or interacting with the Board during the search for a coach.
The BCCI on its part too has shown consideration to the players. Their opinions (at least that of the senior members) are taken on important issues, and instances like that against Vengsarkar (see box) aren't likely to happen now.
The changes, though gradual, have happened. And as someone very wisely said, better to look at the glass half full rather than half empty.
(Do write in with suggestions to email@example.com)