| Srinivasan |
Calcutta: With eggs being directed at the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from different quarters, ordinary folks may actually have to do without them for a while.
If last Friday’s ruling by judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis wasn’t bad enough, Wednesday saw more egg on the BCCI’s face as the International Cricket Council (ICC) decided not to appeal the Australian’s verdict on the James Anderson-Ravindra Jadeja fracas.
That call was taken by the ICC’s CEO, David Richardson, who was given “complete freedom” by India’s Narayanswamy Srinivasan, the ICC chairman.
According to well-placed sources of The Telegraph, Srinivasan took a “conscious decision” to stay neutral.
Taken apart on the conflict of interest bit, in India, Srinivasan didn’t want the same issue to trip him so early in his two-year innings.
But while Srinivasan exerted no pressure on Richardson, the BCCI did just that.
Worse, the BCCI did so publicly, with secretary Sanjay Patel telling the world that he’d sent an official communication to the ICC!
Such things have to be done quietly, not in front of the TV cameras.
Indeed, on sensitive matters, the most telling moves have to be made with tact.
The BCCI got it all wrong from the beginning, playing its cards inappropriately.
Consider the following...
No.1... Instead of succumbing to pressure from the team, and charging Anderson with a level III breach of the Code, the BCCI should have prevailed upon the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to get their spearhead to apologise to Jadeja.
Anderson, one understands, would have done so. Perhaps, not to Jadeja’s principal allegation, but generally. The ECB, on its part, didn’t want an escalation.
No.2... At the hearings in Southampton, the BCCI wasn’t able to produce footage to seal/strengthen its charge. This ought to have been known from the day of the incident, at Trent Bridge.
While on the hearings, it’s baffling why the IPL’s COO, Sundar Raman, was part of India’s line-up.
No.3... Patel, of course, went public when he should have lobbied very differently.
The BCCI ought to have realised that the ICC wouldn’t leave commissioner Lewis high and dry by forming an appeal panel to review his ruling.
Had the ICC done so, it would have, in a way, undermined itself. Not only that, Srinivasan could have attracted unnecessary criticism.
To top it all, Richardson’s position may have become untenable.
A well-placed source told this Reporter: “Srinivasan’s stand, from the beginning, was that the Boards/teams should sort things out. He didn’t want the ICC to get involved.”
That didn’t happen, as India wanted an example to be made of Anderson, who has his own way of operating.
Officially, the BCCI is without a full-time president. Srinivasan is effectively suspended, while Shivlal Yadav, the Supreme Court-appointed interim president (non-IPL), dare not take any initiative.
It’s an ajeeb situation. Just who is running the BCCI? Raman? Patel?
The Sharad Pawars and the Jagmohan Dalmiyas aren’t asking. Not even Inderjit Singh Bindra and Shashank Manohar...