Cricket in 2004

Peter Roebuck has reviewed cricket in 2004 and decided that it was a troubled year. I can't add much to his analysis, except to emphasise that the ICC is failing. Petty politics, greed and decisions which are often nothing more than weak-willed cop-outs are doing the game tremendous harm. It is time for decision-making to be taken from the hands of national board representatives, who appear to care only for the success of their own national sides, and put into the hands of professional administrators with a clear directive to do the best for the game as a whole.

There is a wide belief that the new anti-chucking law was the result of Sri Lanka calling in favours owed to it by the other members of the sub-continental clique to ensure that Murali can keep bowling Sri Lanka to success. Whether this is true or not, the process of decision-making demonstrated by the rumour is indicative of an organisation where national self-interest holds sway over the best interests of the game at large.

It is appropriate for administrators of national boards to do the best they can to improve cricket in their country. Martin Snedden's aim should be to do all he can to lift cricket in New Zealand. And Snedden is a talented administrator with a lot to contribute to the debate about what is best for world cricket. But while he should be able to contribute to this debate, he should not be part of the final decision-making process - because there are often conflicts between what is best for New Zealand cricket and what is best for world cricket. The best thing for cricket internationally is to have a clear, unambiguous rule on chucking. The best thing for Sri Lankan cricket have Murali bowling his doosra. You cannot allow the game to be tainted by intrigue, or even the rumours in intrigue, by letting the adminstrator responsible for Sri Lankan cricket (or New Zealand cricket, or English cricket) decide how the international game should be run.