Mukul Kesavan’s response to my recent article is as predictable as it is impassioned. Criticism of Indian cricket by foreign commentators has become one of the great taboos of the modern game. The instant a discordant note is sounded from abroad, it is drowned out by a chorus of opprobrium – never mind that there is scarcely a cricket fan in the subcontinent who believes that the BCCI and its politicians are fit for any purpose whatsoever.

Funnily enough, not even Mukul himself believes in their abilities, which rather undermines his 1000-word polemic. Buried four-fifths of the way down the page are the killer words: “I don't think Sharad Pawar is a good candidate for the Presidency of the ICC.” You know what? Neither do I, as I think I made abundantly clear. This disagreement is not about opinions, it is about semantics.

In particular, it is about my provocative use of the phrase “old world” to describe the candidacy of David Morgan, the chairman of the England & Wales Cricket Board. For Mukul, as for many others, this was beyond the pale – a choice of words that had outrageous echoes of imperialism, apartheid and all manner of issues that are inextricably weaved into cricket’s history.

Maybe it was a bit close to the bone: there’s no question that I touched a very raw nerve. But it’s a nerve that needs to be touched if the ills engulfing world cricket are to be properly addressed. Given the unappetising choice, of course I’d prefer to see Morgan at the helm than Pawar: I am English – pro-Test cricket, anti-ODIs, and all the rest of it - and I am unapologetic about that fact. But if you re-read the article, at no stage do I put forward “old worldism” as a reason for endorsing his candidacy – it is mentioned just once in my article, compared to a splenetic seven in Mukul’s response.

As far as I’m concerned, the phrase merely illustrates the vast gulf of agendas that will all be competing to be heard at the next ICC meeting, and beyond. Cricket cannot escape its heritage, and nor should it seek to either. The colonial link between the ten Test nations is no coincidence, but in India’s case in particular, the shame of subjugation has long since been banished. These days they rule the global game, and rightly so, seeing as they have the population, the passion and the political and commercial power.

But with power comes responsibility, and that is why I abhor the prospect of Pawar at the helm of the ICC. The BCCI is the most significant national board in the game, and yet it is the most dysfunctional by a distance. It has no website, no press department, no media officials, no media releases – even Zimbabwe Cricket does better than that. And it spends more time arranging abominable offshore ODIs than attending to the needs of the lesser lights in the world game. Take Bangladesh, for instance, who have yet to be invited for a Test tour of India, despite having been a senior nation for seven years now.

It might not be apparent to Indian cricket right now, but it cannot sustain its current level of popularity without magnanimity towards the bit-part players on the world stage – one look at the parlous state of their domestic cricket tells you that India needs a strong West Indies more than they need a strong Tamil Nadu. And that is why it is important that the voices that are heard on the world stage, in the guise of the ICC, are representative of as many of the constituent nations as possible – and not just mouthpieces for the game’s powerhouse. You wouldn’t, for instance, appoint George Bush as Secretary-General of the UN.

This is, I reiterate, a parlous period for the game. The two issues of which I spoke in my original article – player unrest and the fragility of the ICC’s US$1.1billion deal with ESPN Star Sports – are the two most potent means of pricking cricket’s bubble. India might not think it matters, so long as they get biennal series against Australia and Pakistan, and the occasional dip at England when it suits them, but boredom in sports is a terrible and corrosive thing. It won’t be sustainable in the long run.

The ICC is blamed for every ill in the game, and it is true that they have made a pig’s ear of so many of the big issues of recent years – from the Zimbabwe question through to the World Cup. But given the baggage with which every meeting is weighed down, it’s remarkable that the organisation has managed to function at all. Recent meetings have often descended into shouting matches, with reports of extremely prominent individuals going hammer-and-tongs at each other. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of much of cricket politics these days. He who shouts loudest and longest tends to win the argument.

As Mukul says, the president of the ICC is largely a figurehead, but he is also an agenda-setter and, given the intractable identities on display in the game, a pacifier and conciliator. These are skills that Morgan – like Sonn’s predecessor, Ehsan Mani – seems to possess, while Pawar, by all accounts, does not. Given that he has devoted just 80 minutes to ICC business in the last 12 months, it’s clear he has other more important issues to address. And at this moment in time, a further power vacuum is the last thing this great game needs.

Awesome piece Mukul!! Right on the money again. While I am frustrated with the BCCI for cramming in too many ODIs and though I would like to see domestic cricket give more importance in India, I'm tired of these wisden school of journalists' complaining all the time. More than anything else they seem to long for the time when english and australian cricket was all that mattered. Well, we are here to stay whether they like it or not.

Take that, Andrew Miller!! That was an excellent piece that made Miller's article look silly. Mukul is right on the money with his points. And edgy too! Boy, the Brits hate to see Indians running the show...We Indians can do a far better job of running the show as Mukul pointed out. Great job, dude!

Nice Article Mukul!
Cricket is curretly in an unhealthy state and needs some one with a vision for a strong future to be at the top. Unfortunately the credentials of both the contenders are weak and the divide between the powerful asian bloc and conservative english bloc is not going to help things at all.

Beautifully expressed. It;s time the "old world' got it's comeuppance.

You go Mulkul! great posting ...I would love to see Andrew Miller's repsonse to this.
Frankly I am sick and tired of the condescending manner in which the Britt's talk about anything sub-continental. They've done a great job of boring the hell out of their own public , sticking to their 'old -world' ways and wanna inflict the same on the rest of us. cricinfo might be their only contribtuion other than inventing the game

Yet another excellent piece, Mukul.

The problem with cricket admistrators is that there is no one left with any credibility. When it comes to elections, the choice we have is not between equally competent men, but rather, between equally incompetent ones.

Left to choose between degrees of ineptness and unsuitability, one falls back on streotyping (often of the racial variety) and supporting the evil one is more familiar with. Asians wouldn't want to deal with anyone from the 'old world' because it wasnt a fair world, and neither was it commercially self-sufficient. The non-asian block feels insecure about being marginalised by a money-hungry Indian setup. Both parties have done nothing, nothing at all to ever assuage the doubts of the other.

Anyone can see (indeed, most Indians can see this too) that rampant greed by BCCI has been a crucial factor in the rise of the superfluous ODI. The players, fans, even the media is getting fed up of India's ever increasing work load and decreasing performance, and surely these two are not unrelated. Yet, has the BCCI shown any sign of listening or learning? Of course not.

Last week, one BCCI bigwig shrugged off the complaint that India was going to play only ONE warm up match on its tour to Australia, saying there just wasn't time for more. Guess what the Schoefield report (and common sense) said about the role of warm up matches in England's defeat there last winter?

And what of Morgan, what has he to show on his CV that reassures a true lover of the game from outside Morgan's constituency?

So, while the ordinary fan bemoans the ailments of the game, none of the contenders for the top job shows any signs of being capable to understand and fix these issues.

Having to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea is not democracy - it is hopelessness.

Excellent observation Mukul.And thank goodness someone finally wrote about the anti-Indian feeling that seems to be running among the 'old world' countries.Blaming the president of the ICC completely for any fiasco(WC 03,07,Zimbabwe etc) is wrong when ,like you said,its the CEO who makes the decisions.Why is no one calling for the head of Malcolm Speed?God knows he's been the CEO long enough without having achieved anything.Perhaps, he's viewed as the last keeper of the imperial order......
Having said that though, I dont feel Sharad Pawar would have been a good choice.The man doesnt have time to run the BCCI forget the ICC.Anyway the ICC has always been spineless.So appointing a weak leader seems almost natural.....

I'm not against making money (no one is, for that matter). I do believe, however, that the person who takes over as the ICC president should, first and foremost, be able to see things from the players' point of view!! Which is why I hate people like Lalit Modi and Niranjan Shah from the bottom of my heart - they have turned cricket into a circus and have utter disregard for the players. One thing they fail to understand is if you take quality players out, no amount of cheerleading will get people to pay hard-earned money to watch the game (The Afro-Asian farce should be a good example). I think Pawar and Morgan would both be horrible candidates for ICC president. The person taking over needs to strike the right balance between the commercial aspect of the game, and the players' rights and benefits. I don't really see how nationality or being part of an old or new world come into the picture at all. But then, all said, its hard to keep politics free from ... well, politics.

Well said. Very well said.

I believe Mark Nicholas, writing in today's Daily Telegraph, has suggested Richie Benaud for this position. He is perhaps the link between the old world and the new that cricket needs; or, as you put it, the Packer-esque visionary and Dhalmiya-ish man of commerce.

Excellent. Finally, some coherent comments to rebut ... articles posted by Miller. For a while now, the argument has been that somehow the imperial ownners of cricket ran a worldwide game and enhanced it. Truth is far from it. Imperial powers have had their say for over a century. Let others have a go. However, credit should go where credit is due...most of all the innovations and advances in cricket such as limited overs game and 20:20 games have come from England. But the marketing of it has been happening elsewhere and it is plain to see that the forces are pulling away from old power to new ones. It's in the acceptance of it which has proved rather difficult for the likes of Miller. We should all be rallying together and capaigning for game's improvements rather talking about where the figure head for ICC comes from.

Abhay Rao
Leeds

Brilliant ! Absolutely brilliant article !

I am an Indian fan and I wrote to cricinfo after Andrew Miller's article appeared. I got no response.
I also felt that the the sentence "...takeover of the ICC that has long been threatened by the frustrated Indians" was potentially harmful . I suggested "... takeover of the ICC that has long been threatened by the frustrated BCCI".

The indian fan does not support his/her team out of love for money or pepsi, we like the game the same way everyone around the world does. So to be portrayed as greedy moneygrabber looking to takeocer the ICC was disappointing. Martin williamson writes with equanimity and perspective; the same cannot be said of Andrew Miller or Will Luke.

For example, During ICC CT in India, will luke took every oppurtunity to point out during his commentary that the crowd turn outs were dismal and the the indian fans appreciation for cricket was questioned.

For poor turn-outs in the worldcup, we were told that it was the ICC'S fault , ticket prices are too high.

Wanna know how much an average indian fan makes a week ? 30 $ at best. The minimum Ticket prices at ICC cT at the brabourne was 10$ .

I am glad we have a voice on this website.

Sir, Thanks for a great article, hope it aids in opening the English eyes to the world of cricket outside of England and Australia.

Loved the piece! Why is everything from the Asian block bad!?

Do you always wear blinkers when you write or is it just today? You have a few issues with England and Australia. Imperial Cricket Conference. Nice way to get your point across, use a term that has been out of circulation since before you were born.

Andrew Miller's response seems more like a retailiation than a meaningful argument. Well here's mine for his and I am honest about it for a change. Sharad pawar may be a politician but he didn't get there without any sort of plan. He definitely has ways and ideas of his own atleast in making money. For all percy sonn's support, he has not added any value to cricket and has failed a world cup. The only thing he will gain is sympathy from mourning. Most importantly talking about saving the game of cricket without any monitory motivations is absolutely ridiculous. Ultimately, a money making game has got to be a good game since it comes from spectators and sponsorors. Period! As for all the dysfunctional system in BCCI, it generates 70% of cricketing revenues as compared to all the functionally sound cricketing bodies if thats what Andrew Miller thinks of them. For a comparison to zimababwe having some sort of website or medi representation, its better to have human rights first. Look at the state of their players. They are always threatened, removed at will without reason or understanding and most importantly linked very close to govt politics and ICC does not have the guts to confront them. I would rather see those issue addressed first than getting completely blinded by websites. BCCI for all its flaws gives a better game on any stadium than any organisation in the world and never pulls its team out of a tournament based on terrorism or give all kinds of lousy excuses like the western cricketing world about safety first with hidden double standard reasonings. Indian cricket players have rich endorsements. They are better taken care of in comparison. So I think Andrew miller has to be very careful making such meaningless comparisons. ICC may have functioned through all those ills in the game. But thats something one calls survivors. We don't want a survivor organisation. We want an organisation that contributes something, Monetary or spirit of the game, the two terms ICC is still not got used to. Atleast BCCI is spot on in the one of them and they have the resources to improve on the other. ICC is having a free ride on board, while BCCI pays its checks. Considering this, who would u trust, a person who generates money and pays or a person who is a freeloader.

Now that the tone has been set, with allegations of racism, incompetence, bumbling idiocy, and out and out board-room violence, perhaps I should also add a couple of cents to this.

Sharad Pawar is a terrible candidate for the post of ICC President. He is part of a dangerous trend for Indian cricket where more and more powerful politicians are entrenching themselves at the expense of the cricket fan and the player. If you don't believe me check out Delhi Cricket Association. Or even Bihar.

That said, the whole 'racial divide' in international cricket is hardly re-assuring. The 'white nations' as they are increasing calling themselves want to call the shots on grounds of what they believe are professionalism and competence. The rest of the 'non-white' cricketing world (a.k.a South Asia) calls it old-world racism. The rest go where the money and shots are (a.k.a. South Asia).

Let's face the facts. South Asia DOES contribute 70% of the ICC's revenue. But that is only half the story. It is the Indian fan, not BCCI or Pepsi or Nike or any of the other 'stakeholders' that drives the game today. The Indian fan is increasingly richer, has more cable connections, more internet, more spending power and loves his (and increasingly, her) cricket. Of course everyone wants to tap into this mother-lode of cash. I won't blame Niranjan Shah either.

If Sharad Pawar thinks that the BCCI has some de jure right to keep minting money, he is thoroughly mistaken. The Indian fan does not like being taken for granted. If England, Australia and New Zealand are going to spew contempt because we like our ODIs more than tests, we are not going to take it with "Sorry Sahib, we won't do it again..".

In all this fighting about TV rights, Zimbabwe, what more and what not, both 'parties' are quietly ignoring the cricket fan. The cricket fan, stays up late night, misses work, stands in the heat, shivers in the cold rain, gets abused up by the fun police and the not-so-fun police everywhere, but will still keep turning up to the grounds, still switching on the remote to see Kevin Pietersen charge to fast bowlers or Murali hypnotize batsmen out. The cricket fan can take only so much crap from these people who claim to 'ru(i)n' the game.

The sub-continent (India to be precise) has the money and the power: Well that is because they have the numbers and a passion for the game. Both of those qualities have nothing to do with the greatness of the Indians or their way of doing things - we dont have a great team or a great board.

The English are the traditional guardians of the game: Well if thats the case it is quite surprising why the only player worth mentioning in the English team is a South-African. There is a steady decline in the interest for the game in England and the English Board has no greater management record than the BCCI. Maybe being just any organisation in the developed First World will give you things like a website, media managers and high-tech systems. That has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of ECB's managerial talent.

Ultimately the only group of people who seem to have any right to make any comments are the Aussies. They have a small but intensely passionate cricketing population. Their talent and their team's performances are light years ahead of the world. Their management, training and domestic games are all as professional as something can possibly be.

How come the Aussies are not making any comments? Probably it is precisely because they are not wasting their time on meaningless commentary they are doing so well. Actions do speak louder than words.

We must not forget the ill effect of Malcom Speed being in ICC.

To name a few :
* Tournaments like Super Series, Challenger Trophy and World Cup (20/20 and ODI) are held with special consideration given not to disrupt Aussie Season Nov to Feb and English season May to September. All other countries and then left to scramble to get their tours and seasons around.

* ICC with organisation of Super Series, Challenger Trophy and World Cup have shown they get worse with every event. Super Series was boring, Champions Trophy was boring and expensive and World Cup was boring, expensive and ended in a fiasco.

Though to a layman Brit it may be insulting to be equated to an Aussie, when it comes to cricket ECB is ever ready support AC as shown time and again. The day Morgan becomes ICC President, we may have to bid adieu to cricket as we know it and re welcome a new era colonalisation. Andrew Miller's article is just an example of example of how much venom, the old cricket power (England, New Zealand and Australia) hold against other countries.

Rather than getting angry at WC being financial flop by India's early exit, Miller should acknowledge the fact Speed cannot sell the game on its own and Morgan is not going to make it happen either.

Another reason Morgan should be kept out of ICC, a few days back ECB tried to pressurize Ireland for canceling the Ind-SA series, so that they could sell Eng-WI ODI better. This shows both bullyism and lack of good marketing skills.

Forget about your false idealism of being "I am English – pro-Test cricket, anti-ODIs"... its not that ECB or English are anti-ODI, emergence of 20/20 is a great testimont to that fact, ECB too love organising ODI, the only problem is they can compete in that form, leave alone win a few. And before you come back with how well England did in last WC compared to India, let me tell India exiting early was shock, England in the same situation would have been not totally unexpected.

For all those people who are more or less jingoistic, here is the update. Indians aren't coming. They are already here and will stay.

I am going to join issue, here and now, simply because I like both the writers who are currently going at one other with a verve that can only be matched by their anxiety, their deep concern and their obvious love for this splendid game.

At the outset, let me side with Mukul Kesavan. His comments about Andrew Miller's essay are relevant in so far as the fact that the essay in question seemed to suggest that Pawar was the wrong candidate because he was a politician, an Indian, a showpiece cricket fan rather than an accomplished administrator of the game and last, but not the least, a BCCI - ian, if I may. There were other issues that Miller highlighted that are equally relevant, such as the power vacuum that has continued to haunt the ICC, the inept handling of various crises that rocked the sport (especially Zimbabwe, Doping issues and the World Cup) and the need for an able administrator capable of investing the huge amounts of time and energy required for running this game.

Let us focus for a moment on the accusation that Pawar is a "politician". I see nothing wrong with that, especially in the current context within which world cricket is governed. The ICC runs world cricket and it is an international body that ELECTS its leaders in a democratic manner through elections. Therefore, simply put, anyone that stands for elections for any post within the ICC can be loosely termed a politician. Pawar, of course, is no lightweight politician entering the fray, but rather a considerable (dinosaur) heavyweight with vast experience in the power games of Indian politics and now, of Indian cricket.

Pawar is "Indian" and as Mukul sums up in conclusion, the Indians are not coming. They are here indeed. Miller's comments about the importance of magnanimity among those vested with power, and the responsibilities that power entails towards the other stake holders are points well worth noting. One thing though; Pawar is not the wrong candidate because he is Indian. That is a poor argument. In Miller's defense, I do not believe that was the point he was trying to make anyhow. He was only reiterating the need for big power nations to accomodate the smaller stakeholders in a way that helps develop the game more equally. Miller's contention that the BCCI, with Pawar at the helm, has done nothing by way of magnanimity is a point I am more than willing to agree with.

Moving on, lets focus on Pawar's 80 minutes at the ICC in the past 12 months, making him the least interested among all administrators of the game with the exclusion of Zimbabwe (if time at the ICC meetings were the only factor). This bit of information has received tremendous exposure in the media, and for good reason. The idea is to heighten concerns about Pawar's (dis)interest in the development of cricket in general and his aloofness as regards the ICC and its diverse interests and functions. This matter is a cause for concern for sure. Pawar better spend more time discussing the game at the highest level. But, certainly, we are all intelligent enough to realize that there are far better ways of discrediting Pawar's candidature than to pull out minutes of meetings and other such tidbits.

Pawar being a BCCI head is another cause for serious concern, according to Miller, and I side with Miller on this argument. If ever there was a need to prove that poor processes create poor leaders, then the BCCI should be the best case study for future managers. Pawar is president of the BCCI. How? Through manipulating, grouping and power-broking. This process, unless questioned, can only lead to luminaries like Dalmiya/Pawar/Lalit Modi/Niranjan Shah/Ranbir Singh Mahendra fighting for the ICC PRESIDENCY candidature time and again. How does Pawar feature as an option, or even a strong contender today? Only by virtue of his presidency over the BCCI, right? So, the rot starts in Chennai (TNCA), in Bangalore (KSCA), in Mumbai (MCA), in Delhi (DDCA) and in the multiple other state associations where leaders are (s)elected on the basis of their financial standing or political clout, and these leaders of state associations then go on to form factions/groups and elect a leader for the BCCI. My point is simply this. A poor system breeds poor leaders, just as poor pitches lead to poor batsmen and bowlers. No point haggling over Pawar's candidature. He is the product of a system.

The BCCI has other petals on its rose. A horrendous style of functioning as proved by a lack of transparency in all things cricket, a disregard for media/public relations, a greed for money that rivals a few historical empires, a deep commitment to power/group politics, and a constant itch to conduct one day matches in Timbuktu and surrounding areas, especially day-night games. All these things put together makes one wonder whether it is indeed an Indian politician taking centre stage or the behemoth of a Fascist party. That’s a familiar feeling though, if you are an Indian. Its mind-numbing and rather sobering when faced with an aged politician such as sunil dutt for sports minister or Sharad Pawar for BCCI President, but to expect anything more would be wishful thinking.

In conclusion, if I were forced to make a choice rather than be sensible and preach change from the grassroots level, my vote would be for a candidate from any one of the Associate Member nations, especially from Bangladesh, Kenya, Ireland or West Indies. (Yes. West Indies. Currently, that’s the level they are playing at. So...). This wont happen. BCCI's mickey mouse one day games depend on Pawar's presidency. WIth Pawar as president, I only hope an Asian-American cup doesn't take place. Really. Thats a good chance, you know.

Post Script:

Then again, who is David Morgan? A suave English Politician with a certificate of being an able administrator from Miller? Oh please. Dalmiya with broken english doing a decent job, any day. After what Martin WIlliamson has written about Morgan's handling of the English Cricket post, I hold no hopes for him either. I could be wrong, of course. There is always a chance of that. Lets be humble enough to admit that. And Miller, you have made your point. Dont rub it in. It cramps your style. Cheers Mukul and Miller. Two wonderful writers.

Andrew Miller beleives Morgan is better. But better why? Better because he is not pawar is not good enough and no reasons can be found even in his second ranting. Glad to know Miller is anti-odi. My, My, was that two or three months that you spent at the caribbean world cup 2007, Mr. Miller? That must have torn you apart.

The English are too caught up in the `old world'. The Indians are too caught up in `money'. Who represents the golden mean? Australia, for my money (oops! see Indian => money).

Well said Mukul!!!

No thanks, I'd rather not have a politician running the ICC, things are already screwed up to begin with. Andrew Miller seems to have justified and proven his stance on the subject substantially in my opinion, I don't know what you guys are reading. Take patriotism out of it, reconsider your opinion, look at it from a neutral viewpoint.

I am Indian and I completely agree with Andrew Miller. BCCI officials are so inept, they cannot even run the BCCI properly. As long as things remain the way they are, they should not be let anywhere near the ICC.

Taking a step back, I notice that increasingly, we are becoming very sensitive to critisism. A confident nation accepts fair critisism and seeks to improve - not indulge in polemic and write a 1000 word rebuttal.

So, if Sharad Powar becomes the head of the ICC, who's up for some more offshore games...? Mukul, don't give up the day job as Sharad's media relation fella. Also, don't stop trying to please every other Indian reading this blog...

Right on!
As a Pakistani cricket fan I have no problem with those who support the game the most having a proportionate say in it's governance.
Let the BCCI nominate Mr. Sonn's successor.

Mukul...you are in fact not giving enough credit to BCCI.

BCCI has made all the right noises. Asians should be very concerned by the INCOMPETENCE of the current CEO (Speed) & co. Both in organising the WC 07 and WASTING precious resources in adminstration. BCCI is currently HELPING Irish Cricket to stand up on its own. Whilst ECB is decidedly mean about 'helping' out Scotland and Ireland. Their stance is, "do as we say or we shall stop you playing in our dometic tournament". At the same time England pinches their best players!! Unbelievable hypocrisy.

BCCI has massive financial clout: it could do the same but IT HASN'T. BCCI markets cricket very well in India. It's STARS help attract enormous funds. Its helped members where others are not willing, eg. Bangla to establish proper crickting infrastructure and to POPULARISE the game...

George W Bush contested as the Governer of Texas, with his credentials as the owner of Texas Rangers team. If he can venture into main stream politics from being an owner of a sports team, why can't Pawar contest for the President of ICC? It is not the matter of what background they came from. What is important is how well they can manage the organization. For this, I definetly think Pawar can be a perfect contender and eventually administrator of ICC.

Wah, Wah!!!!
Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave like a "lathoo"

Andrew, your long response to Kesavan's piece is clearly written with feathers ruffled. But you don't get it. As you didn't get it when I wrote in complaining about the English-centric coverage on Cricinfo. You are still speaking from an English perspective, which still sees itself as the center of the cricketing world. It isn't. India is. And you're going to accept this - whether in the end it means a split of the cricketing world so that England can continue to remain the center of a smaller empire. Identifying English views with "those good for the game" is asinine, and you got called out for it. Nothing in Kesavan's piece indicates any lack of concern for cricket, or a reluctance to call a BCCI spade a spade. What Kesavan reacted to, and what lots of Indians will, is this constant treatment of the Indian presence in cricket as a noveau-riche embarassment at a garden party given by the genteel English. The party continues because Indians pick up the tab. If you want to snigger about us in private, by all means do so. But the days you could get do this publicly and not get called out for it are over. Once again, deal with it.

In support of Sharad Pawar
Pawar's faults are well documented. He is a politician, not a cricket fan. He is hardly even a cricket administrator, having take up the job just 2 years ago. He is India's agricultural minister, a busy man, so it is questionable if he has time for international cricket. But there are a few qualities that the man does have, and I would like to make an argument in his favour, just to even things out in this forum.
Don't undersestimate Pawar, as numerous political opponents have learnt to their own peril. He is a backroom operator, a diplomat, not a rabble rouser like other successful Indian politicians. His forte is meeting people and forging acceptable solutions, not public speeches. He forges unusual, yet effective, alliances, and gets the job done. I thought his handling of the 'succession question' following Percy Sonn's death was masterful. While everyone feared a divisive battle, his solution was simple, let us give ourselves the additional year we had decided we needed. Let the job go to another South African. A simple, inclusive and acceptable solution. His handling of the Ponting & co. controversy at the ICC champions trophy ceremony was tactful, he brushed it aside with a 'boys will be boys'. Shows a man with little ego, a diplomat. He is also a fighter. He has been fighting tremendous odds all his life, including cancer for the past 8 years. I would like to end with a quote of his, "I work 15 hours a day. I am not a coward and never allow anything to subdue me. The only thing I know is how to fight." So don't count Pawar out so soon, the only thing he has done more than being written off, is bouncing back.

Several points should be addressed here: first, not everyone thinks that more money = better cricket. Generally, the commercialization of the last 5-6 years has led to too many games without meaning, play burnout, and a sense that the audience not longer matters, if you can stuff in commercials and make cash that way.
Second, if you really feel that Dalmiya was so good, why does no-one in Indian cricket seem to regret his departure? This has nothing to do with whether he is Indian or not - simply the fact that he played politics, failed to see the overall good of the game, and appointed a string of yes-men to support his aggression. Yes, cash came in - but what really have the millions done for cricket? Why are so many of India's grounds repulsively old and crumbling? Why are spectators feelings ignored or scorned?
As for the old "imperialism is to blame" argument - how long is it since Indian independence? If there are problems, let's ask who has been running India for the past 50 odd years. India is independent - but with independence should come the maturity to stand up and take responsibility for your actions, rather than shuffling them off onto the British.
Finally, remember that although India generates a lot of cash, that does not mean it can rely on others to comply. What happens if you can't get games against other countries? How many spectators will there be for an endless round of India v Bangladesh v Pakistan v Sri Lanka? Think about it, before you start breaking the cricket world apart in the name of money.

Like it or not, each of us is driven by our conditioning (prejudice is probably too strong a word). Most South Asians I know are extremely critical of what they percieve of as biased reporting from Wisden (type) 'old world' sources, including this website. It does not help when articles like Miller's abysmal (but sensational) piece talks about 'takeover' by 'frustrated indians'; slights are perceived where none may have been intended.

Conversely, I would think that for other 'old world' fans like Miller, the prospect of change must be a frightening thing. Conditioned to accept only a 'civilized' establishment (Ehsan Mani included) that is good at maintaining the 'heritage' of the game, the looming spectre of Sharad Pawar must be scary stuff.

While change may not be always a good thing, IMO the best thing that could happen to world cricket is the opening of the proverbial pandors's box - and let the chips fall as they may. And I do have news for Miller, if he thinks that the 'shame of subjugation for Indians has long since been banished'. For better or for worse, it is still a part of our conditioning.

To Andrew,
Let's not turn this into 'Old World' vs 'New World' of the 'Republican' vs 'Democrat' kind of slanging match.

I guess Mukul agrees(and so do I) that Pawar might not be the ideal candidate for the job.But what he is trying to argue is that you DO NOT provide any substantial arguments to justify why your beloved Morgan might be better suited for the job except that being English,he should love Test Cricket more!!(By the way,I also do) Do you really believe having a website or media releases makes the organisation more "Professional" and more efficient? At some level,all this in only hogwash and what matters are the groun realities (where I agree that BCCI has not done much).But the point is you have not been able to justify what Morgan brings to the table that Pawar doesn't except that he is an Englishman.

So your article seems stinks out of a deep-rooted prejudice against anything sub-continental.You should not have written such an article in the first place.After all,nobody writes about the step-motherly treatment given to tours of India (even now) by England. Why do 3-4 players regularly get "injured" before an Indian tour? Why doesn't the "professional" ECB do anything about it? And what about the Gowers and Bothams and Gattings who have previously refused to travel to India on outlandish reasons such as "Delhi Belly" and lack of good hotels(despite being always allocated 5 star hotels).Despite the fact that Indians suffer more due to lack of good food in England and being put up in shanties, they have never complained.
And what about tours and matches regularly abandoned for completely non-cricketing reasons? Do you seriously believe that terrorists would want to kill worthless and over-rated players Michael Vaughan and Darren Gough? So is the BCCI more politically influenced or the ECB?

My point is if the BCCI has a poor history,the ECB and English cricket has a poorer one.You can in no way claim that Morgan and the 'Old World' are lesser of an evil.Your article is typical of English hypocricy and prejudice-or should I say,"Stiff Upper Lip".

Otherwise,I enjoy reading your articles.

no stiff upper lip in previous post! got the usage wrong!

This is a pathetic piece of article.
rather than focussing on the possible resume of the best President of ICC who will take the game forward, Mukul insteads focus on age-old East vs West war.
We all in our honesty knows that Pawar will be dreadful candidate not only because he is "Indian Politician" and one with scant respect of "moral values" but also with very little or no knowledge of Cricket. add to this his busy schedule of Union Agriculture Minister of 2nd larget poulated country of world, Pawar as President of ICC game's governing body will be horrible mistake that cricket in current scenario with already so many body blows might not be able to sustain.

Miller's idea was never to digrace Indian or question Pawar's ability but instead present the facts which is missing from Mukul's article.

My suggestion is that don't get swayed by emotions, instead think with your brains and rather present the cons of selecting some one from FICA as president of ICC.

Say what you want about Andrew Miller's writing, but he is quite happy to criticise anyone or anything he feels is not in the best interests of cricket, without fear or favour or blind nationalism.

There is a simple question to ask here. Is cricket in a better state now that it has so much money involved? Has the work or people like Dalmiya made cricket stronger or better? I think the answer is quite strongly no. Cricket is in a parlous state, where money has become more important than the game and the sponsor more important than the spectator. I play the lowest level of cricket imaginable for a tiny club side in D grade synthetic. But every time I play I see more of the spirit of the game than was demonstrated at the recent "best World Cup ever". If money meant anything at all, India would be top of the Test and ODI tables. Where are they placed?

And, maybe if countries like India spent more time playing cricket than trying to use the the politics of the ICC to get revenge for colonialism they might be a bit more successful. Every second article I read by an Indian writer talks about colonialism or imperialism or whatever. Get over it! India has has independence for almost 60 years, and living in the past serves no one well.

And, I say all this as someone who supports India over Australia nayday when it comes to watching cricket.

BTW, great comment Mr Miller. There's a reason why you are my second favourite writer on Cricinfo.

Andrew Miller is a living in a fool's paradise if he beleive Morgan will be the gaurdian of test cricket. The so called knight from the "old world" has scheduled 7 odi's when India visits England ina couple of months. Sure the Indians did the same thing, when England visited. But surely,the pro-test match, anti- indian money philanthropist Morgan must know better.

I think both parties have valid points. Sports is a business and as such, it has to be run as such. What exactly does that mean? Accountability, transparency, and a customer first attitude. This is the main reason why american sports have been sucessful and are now catching on overseas. The politicization of cricket on both sides is the death of it, leading to a weak product, unsightly and unaccountable people who have ownership over the sport; and it is not just India but almost all nations- look at the product being put out by the West Indies, the English Team, India and Pakistan; all diluted substand and with unsufferable posturing, rabid media types and former stars who all want a say and no one who cares to improve or change the structure. It's like the ostrich which buries it's head in the sand while being attacked by a lion. The whole system needs to be dynamited and a corporate structure put into place with those in charge answerable and accountable for the crap that is cricket.

One other thing; no one can watch or play test cricket for all five days- as such, from a revenue generating point of view, test cricket does nothing for the sport. If all there was was test cricket, there will be NO ONE playing or watching the sport in 10-15 years (think about picking up the sport for the first time...I have to play for 5 days?? what??, or the casual athlete). Also, the proliferation of meaningless ODI's also dilutes the value of the sport. Who gives a crap about the series in Ireland? Ultimately, what matters is quality (look at the NFL- 16 games a year, yet probably one the best run sports out there).

Mr. Kesavan and Mr. Miller are only going at each other's cyber throats.By the looks of it,neither candidate is suited to run the ICC and is counting on getting the job on the basis of race and/or money.

I will refrain from commenting on Mr. Morgan as I don't know much about him,but I have nothing good to say about Mr. Pawar.He was vindictive enough to give the Aussies a green top when he lost the BCCI elections,he doesn't have any time for the game,and I suspect he thinks batsman is a plural of the superhero batman.His cronies are sailing in the same boat and epitomise the ills that come with instant wealth and fame.In that,Mr. Miller is right when he says that "With power comes responsibility".

I would urge the cricketing world and the powers-that-be in the ICC to insist upon an alternate candidate(s) as I wouldn't want Mr. Pawar to run World Cricket,and if Mr. Williamson is right,Mr. Morgan isn't too enticing a prospect either.

Well Said Alok!!
To add, the Cricket Fan can only take so much...from prejudiced and biased writers who take to criticizing each others prejudices.

Guys, enough is enough. Are we talking about the qualities and candidature of an ICC president or a bride's groom? Oh the guy should be able to do it the old way. Oh no wait, the guy should be able to present the lady with all the riches of the world. Did anyone ever said "Oh the guy should have played sufficient amount of cricket himself to understand what is right or wrong for the game?". Did anyone ever say, "This guy should know how it feels to play for his country and how to live-up to the expectations of his fans", did we?

Are we living in the era where a king/queen has the say and everybody else, irrespective of the benefits or losses in terms of the actual moto, follow what has been called out?

Everyone is talking about the pathetic situation in Zim, but has anyone (this includes Andrew) realized that we, in the context of these arguments, are being much more pathetic in calling out people based on race? People should help themselves out before trying to help others. That is common-sense.

For me, an ideal man for the position would be one who has played the game, knows what it takes from a player's perspective and understands what is good for the game. Additional qualities like being a commerce guy would only add to the credibility. But if the right guy does not have it, no problem, get one financial advisor to him.

To conclude, it is someone who knows the game well and understands how to make it more entertaining at the same time retains the glory of the game rather than someone selected based on the race/color/religion. It would be foolish to think that someone who is from England or Australia would be better candidate than someone from Asia and vice-versa. All such comments or arguments are baseless.

Hey Mukul,
Perhaps "distance brings perspective" can be applied to things other than spectator sports too. But I understand that this is not so much about cricket.

Andrew my man,
You slipped up a bit on that piece and subsequent comment in this forum. "shame of subjugation has long since been banished" - seriously? Is that the impression you get from these posts? Wake and smell the kulfi.

It is nice to note that an inconsequential article...can goad a social historian (who is obviously writing for pleasure) into a rebuttal. Aside from the usual apologists (who have a reason for the opinions they espouse, I am sure) it is very heartening to read the vigorous criticism of the Miller article by (evidently) Indian posters.

I think everyone is overlooking some basic facts. Sharad Pawar is firmly entrenched at the BCCI whereas the ECB is looking for a way to get rid of David Morgan. The time honoured tradition of getting rid of someone who does not wish to leave is to promote him. The only promotion possible is to be the head (figurehead?) of the ICC. For this reason Andrew Miller was chosen to promote David Morgan for the better of cricket all round. Let us not get caught up into looking for pros and cons of the candidates and just elect Morgan as head of ICC as the ECB will be better without Morgan with Malcolm Speed anyway running ICC and Pawar raking in money into the coffers of the BCCI as usual. Everyone will be happy except probably the crickets fans, but who cares for them so long as the sponsors are still queuing up.

Re: Andrew Miller's comment on "magnanimity". I suppose England pinching players from Ireland and Scotland is magnanimity.

Miller talks of "frustrated Indians" threatening to take over ICC; yet he himself ends up sounding frustrated that David Morgan might not make it.

Miller mentions that the Indians represent 70% of the cricketing public. Thats a clear majority. Wonder what sort of democratic world he belongs to, that majority running the show should be thought taboo?

Mate, the world is a more equal place these days. No longer does anybody have to put up with snobbery and nostalgic reminiscences of the old world. If you cant take that, then its your own bad luck.

Long time a sensible post from Mukul and good to see a pro indian post. Wow. I am elated. Ideally Sharad Pawar is not good enough to be at the helm of BCCI affairs , for his failings and ineffeciencies as a minister. He represents a dangerous tribe in India, which is eyeing to engulf all sports associations and federations and make it their money growing farmlands. If the govt posts, were not enough, then this greedy tribe is set to take over the cricket and other sports. The plight of football and olympic associations is well known with 2 of the ministers and MP running it like their family business, but with no profit, all loss. Why not have a player run the BCCI or even for that case, the ICC.

Jagmohan Dalmiya set the tone for Indian dominance in the ICC and world cricket and that might have scared the English patrons of the game, who think they are the sole harbingers of the game who run it and legalise it (MCC).

Andrew Miller is obstinated with the Indian dominance and for all his arguments, his nation doesnt seem of a single world class player of his own homeland, barring few imported players from its former colonies. The only world class batsmen they have is a fugitive South African and their best bowler is an Indian. Two apart, they struggle to put up a fit XI in place and the only achievement they can boast of is the surprise Ashes win of 2005, but even thats washed out black and white, red and blue 0-5 in 2006-07.

Andrew Miller should poke his nose in the sad state of ODI cricket in his own blighty land. Despite they reaching Super 8s and we dint, every one knows how England struggled to beat Test oppositions and this is not the case only in this world cup, but since 1996. And for India, its their only 1st round exit in last 16 years.

When Indians would be there in England, late this summer, the chances are that English arrogance would be laid to rest forever with a series win in Tests and the ODIs.

There is a proof of how the world cups were organized when in India and then away. 2003, 2007 WC were sheer failures for the ICC s...handling and despite all boycotts, forfeiting of Australia and WI, 1996 edition was well managed and handled than the next 3 world cups.

Problem is the English... authors cant digest the beatings they have received from India in recent years. In 1987, they lost the world cup to India, so in 1996 and then again in 2011. That hurts them. They havent won a Test series in India in last 23 years. Havent beaten India in a test series in last 11 years. Let alone a ODI series. That frustration is getting into the head and thats showing....

Awesome article Mukul !! I actually was really upset with Andrew Miller's article .....but this is a really good repartee :)

Mukul / Andrew
I am beginning to wonder on the requirements of the role that started this debate. You both agree of the role as being that of a figurehead, so i wouldn't want to dwell more on that but i would like to believe that any candidate needs to have some background in administration and ability to lobby (thats a necessary evil) when needed to - The love for the game is essential but I don't think its entirely possible in its romantic notion any more, given the money at stake - a wish, a hope it may be.
While I am not for a moment suggesting that these make Mr Pawar the best candidate (and he has withdrawn it anyways), I think it is still important to look at his background in politics as an asset, rather than discrediting him for what has happened to BCCI during his stint. For years, he has been a successful politician, minister, chief minister of a state and a miniser in the central cabinet. Call him whatever, but he has a successful proven background on adminstration, at a level that ICC has not been run. EVER.

Mukul / Andrew, let's keep the racial tones out of cricket, they don't belong here anyways.
And Andrew, one can't stop India for its ability to control the game through the money & eyeballs that it offers - thats something no other country except maybe china in future can offer to the game. Your opinion on boredom is logical, but the tone sounds envious of what india has brought to the game. There's atleast one benefit of population and passion it has for the sport! Money.
The filpside to the quest of generating more money is excess games and if i remember it correctly, Aussie players have been talking for a long time on the same problem, its not specific to India alone - so let's separate issues of Indian cricket from the debate on the candidate.
You talk of promoting the sport, so choose your pick - if there aren't as many games, you don't make as much money. This implies that you can't promote the game as well as you can do now. Any takers?

I would go one step more - I think BCCI should simply take over all these other boards and they should own the whole league. It is Indian money that is sustaining world cricket - why should we unnecessarily fill the coffers of all these other boards? When Indian team goes and plays world cup or Champions Trophy ICC makes money from vast Indian market. When India tours England or Australia, those boards make money from Indian market. Something like $300 million goes out of Indian economy to all these boards every year just so that we can watch our own team in action! Let's put an end to this. Take over world cricket or start a new league. What could happen in the worst case? Cricket might simply die out. Fine, we will switch to Bollywood or something else as our source of entertainment. At least three hundred million dollars a year will stay within the Indian economy.

Actually its high time the Englishmen accept being led by the 'third world' and we Indians accept the mantle of leadership and be prudent about it. Let us not sound apologetic. We have the money, we rule. But yes, wish we could be more professional.

Mr.Kesavan seem to have a Major problem with a Patriotism with a blend of Indian-Bullyingnism.And he seems to suffer from Mr.Kesavan, breaking the ice on his comments on "imperialism" remeber that 50 years have lapsed since India won their independence.if the Indians are still belly-aching all their troubles over da British Imperialism, surely that shows their inability to control their own future`s turn overs and political immaturity of their top think tanks!and it`s high time da Indians stop behaving in "INDIA`S DA WORLD..WE ARE DA DUDES..THE REST OF `EM ARE AN UNCIVILISED BUNCH" attitude and show other countries some respect.`cos Indians are renoun for their "Born-Bullies" attitude.Jest look at da way they politically bully their smaller neighbours like Nepal,Shri Lanka,Bangladesh,Maldhivas,etc.quite recently i had a chat with one o my SL buds out here n the dude was fuming over some Naran(Don`t remeber da name)dude in India trying to boss SL`s military as if though he`s da appointed Colonial Governor of that country.Indians are blamed 4 probs in Nepal, in Bangaldesh for having under-da-table conspiracies to destabilize their own region.Jest look at da way Good old Chinese are behaving.they are as twice as big n powerful but they don`t have this "WE ARE DA WORLD..AND DA WORLD SPINS ON OUR PALMS" sorta attitude.serves roght for da Indians to see da backs of their team so early (cricket`s da only sport indians are atleast renoun for..how bout hitting a gold in Olympics and start bullying Australia..or even thinkbout it?..so much for one billion heads..we only gut 16 million+ which`s enough to win us lines of Gold.)

I absolutely fear Indian control of the ICC.

We have already seen what is happening with the Sub Continent bloc dominating the ICC - decisions are made on the sole basis of self interest without any concern for the future of the game worldwide. This is not a sustainable attitude.

The post by Mohan underlines this point. I hope he was joking when he wrote
'Take over world cricket or start a new league. What could happen in the worst case? Cricket might simply die out. Fine, we will switch to Bollywood ...'
This is a scary statement if it is not intended in jest.

Money/Greed/Power is the root cause of ALL EVIL.
This is the new world order controlled by media, sponsors, administrators, bookies, pleyers etc etc.

CRICKET NOW IS A SOAP OPERA. Watch it for what it's worth.

Let dog eat dog.

Nath: no, I wasn't joking. For me Indian economy is more important than the game of Cricket and if we can save $300m a year from going out of the economy, I would support such a move even if there is a chance that it results in death of cricket. Having said that, switching to Bollywood was only a worst case scenario. It is not necessary that a BCCI takeover of world cricket should result in the game's death. If we move away from this management-by-committee system and start running the game as a proper business (which is what it is at the end of the day), it is possible that it results in the game being managed better. American sports like Baseball and Football are managed that way and the quality of sports is none the worse for it. Who knows, even Cricket might move to a similar league format where the Ponting's and Pietersen's will come and play for Indian state/city teams and the popularity of game will reach even further heights.

"How come the Aussies are not making any comments?"

OK I will. Probably because most find it comical that the typical Indian cricket fan is a talking contradiction - critical of the old guard whilst blatantly practicing freemasonary in whites.

Andrew Miller has done a terrific job in highlighting an unpalatable truth for Indian cricket loyalists - you should not be allowed to administer the game, regardless of your consumer base in the same way corporate governance demands independent review and direction. A small player and fan base, such as Australia and New Zealand, simply does not want to cope with the over commercialised (and lesser quality) cricket desired by the Indian cricket juggernaught. I think it's only right for the other cricketing civilisations of the world to want to actively persuade the public into not allowing India to dominate the game.

Protect the talent or you'll lose cricket to the world. Indian cricket produces 3 champions in 2 decades from how ever many billions of candidates... not that important.

It's heartening to see that Cricinfo is encouraging a healthy debate between two fine cricket writers; open house. One has always liked reading Mukul and Andrew's pieces.
However, gentlemen don't you think both of you have over-reacted to the situation somewhat.
You are actually saying the same thing - the bad state of world cricket today - but coming from typically two different premises.
Andrew, when the MCC ruled the world on its own or in the garb of Imperial Cricket Conference, they governed the laws of cricket, yes, but what did they do about spreading the popularity & getting in more countries to play the game, dwindling crowds at the grounds (remember late 70's & 80's?), looking after the finances of itself and the cricketers of the world? As Mukul said it was Packer who did it with the ODIs and the financial side of it. Packer by all accounts loved the game as much as he loved money.
But what Packer created is today becoming a frankenstein.
On the other hand, Mukul, post circa 1983 when India hijacked the World Cup from England and then with Salve, Dalmiya, Bindra & Co. a lot of money started coming into the game. Technology boom in the 90s helped the Indians in doing so. But the thing that has constantly frustrated me is that what has been happening to the money that ICC (generally) and the BCCI (particularly) generates from the game. BCCI the richest body of World Cricket today, didn't even have a proper office. It doesn't have a website (forget it being an interactive one)! It doesn't produce a balance sheet, under the pretext of being a co-operative society or something - and if that's not blasphemy what is? Has BCCI done anything to promote the game per se? Does any of the members of the BCCI care about this great game’s heritage?
The fallout it would seem is that the step-motherly attitude towards the sub-continental teams has gone but it has been replaced by brinkmanship by BCCI and its crony boards. Illegal action has become rampant, match fixing has time and again threatened to tear away the fabric of the game, the pitches are being tailored, etc. We are behaving like teens in a streetfight.

And Andrew, the solution is neither a Morgan nor a Pawar when Speed is another disgrace.

It is paramount that ex-cricketers with bonafide interests in the game be given the executive posts in the ICC. Richie Benaud for one would be excellent since he has been the voice of cricket in the last 40 years. If he feels too old or occupied, an executive committee, on the lines of a board of directors, can be formed consisting of renowned past cricketers. But since most of them would not have much experience of dealing with finances, a financial planner can be inducted on to the committee to take care of the money but would not dictate how many odis, tournaments to be played or who will play who and when.

Will it ever happen? Sadly, taking your point forward Mukul, yes, Indians are here to stay, but what if our beloved game doesn't exist anymore in 50 years time. May be 20 men in jerseys and shorts will feature in 20:20 (ironically, a gift from the so called ‘old world’), with each team having an option to throw in a super-sub (the 11th one) which will be a woman. Cricket, like other products will need to be further sex-ed up, you see.

ANDREW MILLER AND THE JOE McCARTHY REBUTTAL
Excellent, excellent article Mukul. Reading Andrew Miller's response though reminds one of a memorable clip from the movie, "Good Night and Good luck". Andrew Miller, though an Englishman seems to be a keen follower of American politics: to win a debate, attack the credibility of your opponent, not the issues he raised. Indeed, listening to Ed Morrow and Senator Joe McCarthy's speeches one after the other in the movie, and comparing Mukul's article and Andrew's reply, one can't but be amazed at the parallels.
Now, Andrew before you jump again, I am not accusing you of a McCarthy -esque witch hunt. However, I am amazed at your reading of the article as "an impassioned and predictable reply to criticism of Indian cricket by foreign nationals." I would request you to read the article again. It is anything but. I am not sure if the same can be said about your original piece as well as your "rebuttal" here, which are full of sweeping generalizations about Indian politicians, the BCCI, and the "parlous state of domestic cricket in India". Yet, it boggles the mind why the "efficiently run, judiciously scheduled, with no pecuniary interests whatsover, pukka old world" English County Cricket system has failed to produce one decent bat one would pay money to watch since David Gower(KP learnt his cricket in South Africa) or one decent fast bowler to have had a career spanning over five years without sustaining injuries. Yes, the fault is as much of the systems' as it is of the individuals. However, this is a digression. The real issue here is Miller's McCarthy -esque defense.
01) Mukul, in his article raises the issue of a Test match dominated old world cricket that admitted its seventh test playing member (SA being banned of course) after whopping gap of 27 years, when it admitted Sri Lanka in 1983. With 6 test playing nations, two a piece from South Asia and Australia, and one from the Caribbeans and England being the representative of 'mighty' Europe, wasn't the term "world cricket" a bit of a misnomer? That is one of the points Mukul raised in the article regarding efforts by the "old world" ICC to "develop cricket" to which I find no answer.
02) The experience of Jagmohan Dalmiya at the helm of affairs raised questions, tons of them. However, there does not seem to have been much criticism outside England and Australia of course, regarding the organization of the 1987 or the 1996 World Cups, where he was a key figure. His term in office did "expand" test cricket to far reaching quarters and allowed enough funds generated from the grotesque ODI matches played and watched mostly by India, to be diverted to countries like Kenya and also Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and now Ireland to give cricket a chance to occupy a position of respect, if not the most popular game in those countries. That is the point Mukul made. Yet no peep from Mr. Miller on either the relative popularity of cricket in the afore mentioned countries during the "old world" vis - a - vis during the money grabbing, greedy, ineffectual Indians running the board.
03) This is a point well described by an earlier post by Krishna: "Mukul agrees(and so do I) that Pawar might not be the ideal candidate for the job.But what he is trying to argue is that you DO NOT provide any substantial arguments to justify why your beloved Morgan might be better suited for the job except that being English,he should love Test Cricket more!!" You have had two attempts at that, Mr. Miller. And so far, you haven't provided a suitable justification.
04)In Mr. Miller's own words, "It might not be apparent to Indian cricket right now, but it cannot sustain its current level of popularity without magnanimity towards the bit-part players on the world stage –" Um, the bit part players whose cause you profess to champion now are apparently the same ones against whose inclusion in the world cup, there were very strong voices in both England and Australia: guess who and what played the most important role in their being elevated to "bit part" status in the first place. To accuse the Indian cricket administration of neglecting the cause of Bangladesh cricket is like saying inventing the bulb was not Edison's idea!!
05)"In particular, it is about my provocative use of the phrase “old world” to describe the candidacy of David Morgan, the chairman of the England & Wales Cricket Board". That precisely is what Mukul's article is NOT about. In his own words:
"If David Morgan or the ECB's representative on the ICC were on record as having opposed the Super Tests or the idea of the match referee (that absurd sinecure for retired cricketing cronies) or having spoken out against the idiocy of the Super-Sub, the invocation of Morgan's 'old world' attachment to cricket's traditions might have made sense. But no such information is offered. We are given 'frustrated Indians', 'old world' Englishmen and the nightmare of an Indian take-over."
In other words, he talks about SPECIFIC qualities of David Morgan's which might in Mukul's eyes, make a more reasonable point for his candidature. He also makes clear why he would prefer Pawar as the lesser of the two evis : "I don't think Sharad Pawar is a good candidate for the presidency of the ICC. But I'd rather have him than someone whose candidacy is premised on thwarting an Indian 'takeover'."
Mr. Miller on the other hand fails to offer a single, coherent reason for his opposition to Mr. Pawar other than the fact that BCCI does not have website! "But with power comes responsibility, and that is why I abhor the prospect of Pawar at the helm of the ICC". I did not see the act of either great responsibility nor the exercise of great power by Mr. Morgan as head of the ECB, and I fail to see Mr. Miller highlighting a specific example!
06)"And that is why it is important that the voices that are heard on the world stage, in the guise of the ICC, are representative of as many of the constituent nations as possible – and not just mouthpieces for the game’s powerhouse. You wouldn’t, for instance, appoint George Bush as Secretary-General of the UN." And, is it because of "diversity" that you want to appoint the boss of ECB as the next chairman of ICC, Mr. Miller?
.....

It is surprising that Mukul should vent its spleen at Cricinfo, for its editors and folks like Miller have become masters of double speak. For example, for all the moaning about commercialization and corporatization of cricket, people seem to conveniently forget that Wisden has been at the helm of such actvities in buying out players like Cricinfo. When such double standards are inherent in the conduct of the website, what more do you expect ? Don't waste your time Mukul on Sahibs like Miller. No sense in casting pearls before......

Miller' fears are highly exaggerated given that cricket is already heavily commercialized and fan-unfriendly (ref. WC,2007). Unfortunately, the BCCI's ineptness (how stupid can a coach selection process be) and greed (shoving in ODIs all over the world) provide a convenient handle for the 'old' world to latch on. Overall, the management (whether it be Morgan, Pawar or Conn)of the game is sickening and turning away long standing supporters. May a hundred ICLs bloom and blow away the ICC.

Touchy lot, aren't you. How dare anybody have a go at anyone who has a connection with India. Don't bother reading what is there, just have a go regardless. The article actually says that Morgan is not better than Pawar but don't let that get in the way of some anti-western rants.

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Such vituperation! Surely this animosity between these two fine writers vindicates the fact that neither Andrew's nor Mukul's native countries should nominate candidature for the post of ICC head. If we look at their articles objectively, without deriving imaginary racial overtones and the ensuing rhetoric from them, it becomes clear that both have made valid points. The BCCI cannot organise the proverbial piss up in a brewery, nor can the ECB shed their blinkered views on how cricket should be run. One glance at both nations' domestic tournaments establishes this fact. Personally, I favour someone from Cricket Australia. They have a track record, sans any baggage.

As I see it, both the 'old' and the 'new' worlds need to set their house in order.

The fault with both the articles is that both seem to know that their 'candidate' is not ideal for the job but seem to be content not letting the 'other side' get the post. The loser could only be Cricket.

The BCCI, more than ever, has been blatantly chasing revenues all over the world, literally. It could do well by letting some of that cash improve the domestic cricket structure, the grounds, spectator facilities, build a website etc but its too busy in superficial activities like making the BCCI president the ICC head. Not going to help Indian cricket one bit, Im afraid, the next thing you know, Sonia Gandhi could become chief mentor of the ICC!

The ECB and the like, on that other hand, are the other extreme. Desperate to go back to the old world where the MCC ruled the roost. A tour to the Lords and seeing the snooty steward first habd is enough to understand why Gavaskar was so critical of a bunch of guys who still seem to think that they own the 'good old game'.

Miller is anti-ODI, pro-test? good. So am I, and I'm sure, so are millions of Indians too, but it also has to be understood that ODIs are the ones which bring the money to the game, and the BCCI is one of the primary reasons the ICC is so rich today. Not that you play ODIs all over the world making money - that devalues the game like nothing else.

Like Mukul said, opposing Pawar's candidature would have made sense if Miller were rooting for, say, Tony Grieg or someone who knows Cricket but just 'getting our person in the post' sounds too much like UP politics.

Finally, almost all the Cricket boards in the world are solving the wrong problem, except Australia! No wonder no one has even come close to beating them since two full world cups.

Time for India to manage Cricket more than the money and the rest of the World to let India take care of the money! Believe me, they will earn more than they ever dreamt of!

Andrew Miller is clearly biased in his reading of Indian cricket writers and Indian administrators. Someone ought to let the Englishmen know that rationalism in not only confined to the corridors of the "old world". Mukul raised a few points - some of which I second, and some others that I don't. I do not agree with his view that Pawar would make a bad president. In fact, I think he would make a very good president. Andrew Miller goes on to list some qualities that he feels are a must for the next president - pacifiers, conciliators, negotiators. In some circles, these jobs would be considered analogous to those of a politician's. Pawar's track record as a politician is well-documented. For someone to have survived this long in the cauldron that is Indian politics as long as Pawar has is truly commendable. Cynics might argue that debauchery may have played a role in this. To these cynics I say - name one politician in the last half-century who hasn't sought refuge of connivance to stay afloat. Pawar has been in charge of Mumbai cricket for a few years now and the domestic infrastructure in Mumbai has remained intact (meeting the expectations of demanding Mumbai fans is in itself a laurel for Pawar). Yes, I agree with the common perception that the BCCI is run like a feudal state. Improvements are in line but having/not having a website has little bearing on how the game is run in the country. As far as I am concerned, the ECB and WICB have wonderful websites, but their national teams are in shambles - Andrew Miller, the English team doesn't send the world into a tizzy. To draw parallels, look at Brazil in football. The CBF is one of the most corrupt organisations in world sport, but look what the Brazilians are capable of on the football pitch. There is a lesson to be learnt here - having/not having websites, media managers doesn't guarantee success. India claims to have an enormous talent pool. If that is true, Indian administrators must look to channelising that talent. The Ranji Trophy is too late a stage to groom players. We need to look at the junior level itself. School and universities cricket needs to get some moolah from the BCCI. Talent scouts (borrowed from the Americans' MLB) should be on the prowl at the local maidans. If they spot potential at that level, these youngsters must be initiated into BCCI-approved academies. Expectedly, these academies should be frequented by current/former players. That is how the Brazilians manage to beat the best in football. Having talent counts for nothing these days. Exposing these youngsters to the real deal when they are callow will mould them in the right vein. This also acts as a buffer against injury. They must know what is/isn't detrimental to their bodies. We now have the funds to correct these defects before they become serious. As for the ICC - forget them. Sooner or later, the BCCI will overrun the ICC - I am sorry Andrew Miller, money talks - that is how it has always been. If you have problems with that idealogy, move to a country where capitalism is looked down upon.

As a cricket lover I would never want Pawar to be associated with this beautiful game in any way whatsoever. I am waiting for a Damien Martyn to nudge Pawar once again and this time off the
grand stage where all the ICC presidential hopefuls have assembled.

Andrew Miller's piece reflects the growing concern amongst fans, from all cricket playing nations (not just Eng, Aus, NZ), that crude commercialisation would ruin the game. The truth (unpalatable for some Indians, including Mukul Kesavan it seems) is that this unfettered commercialisation is being driven by the BCCI (and by logical extension, the Indians).

It is impossible to deny that the BCCI's greed for money above the game is threatening to alienate millions of fans. Criticism of the BCCI's attitude is common amongst Indian commentators, let alone English ones. So why is it wrong for Andrew Miller to criticise the BCCI and to argue against Pawar being elected to the ICC?

Equating the BCCI with "Indians" is analagous to equating the actions of the Government with that of the people. If Indians want to distance themselves from the actions of the BCCI, then as a democratic country we are all free to set up a competitor (or even stand for elections to the BCCI).

The Mukul Kesavan (and others on this thread) seem quick to take offence at criticism, and equally quick in loudly proclaiming that Indians are responsible for 70 (or 80 or whatever) per cent of the game's revenues. ... I would rather India won cricket matches against Australia/England than be one of the suckers who pay millions to watch them beat us and then loudly crow about it to boot.

Grow up guys. There are a lot of good things about India. But there are plenty of bad ones too. The inability to tolerate criticism from anyone not Indian, particularly from the English, is a sign of weakness and insecurity rather than strength.

I am put off by Mukul Kesavan's narrow nationalism. Personally, I would rather see India win the upcoming test series in England than some old-fashioned us-versus-them commentary.

Andrew Miller, if you are honest to yourself, looka t your sentences .."frustrated indians", "old world - thee all point to a subsconscious yearning for the days when England and Australia controlled cricket and others did as told. Man, why dont you admit that you are just a racist and get on with it? Its okay - we dont expect anything else from a Brit. You guys looted India and then made big postures about white mans burden. This is quite a similar posture. You want India generated money but you want stooges a la Ehsan mani who would suck up to the white man and run Cricket as white fiefdom - (ie) Fine Sehwag for intimidating umpire when the far more rotund and fearsome Warne gets away for far more intimidating appeals. When a great Eastern Cricketer appears, try to sully him through your umpires(Hair(whom we call mayiru in tamil) et al). So sad that these modus operandi might be threatened if Pawar comes to Power, right?
Andrew Miller, wake up and smell the coffee man. Brits are American stooges politically and Aussie stooges Cricket wise. This is the reality. Face up to it.

Accusing someone of racism is a huge leap from what Andrew has written. I would seriously look inwards as to why some people are reacting that way.
Politics in sports is a no no- and Pawar is a politician; not a business man or a cricket star. One of the people that Andrew Points to as a good example of a good administrator, Ehsan Mani, is of Indian origin, if I am not mistaken. Sometimes it provides a lot more validity to acknowledge the bad and the good, rather than being rabid in one's position.

I was impressed by your articulate piece especially the clarity in your rebuttal.
I along with other Indians would no doubt feel that we were as gifted as you in our expressions and writing.
Well done Mukul; you are my hero.

Its funny how people spend so much time talking about what the game does not need. No one cares about what the game needs and what kind of person would fulfil that need. Instead, it has become an issue of national pride. As a cricket fan, I feel sad that the best I can hope for the game is a bunch of losers (irrespective of where they come from) with neither focus nor motivation to lead the sport in an era of increased competition.

For all the talk about professionalism and infrastructure and website and meadia handling and marketing, how about filling stands with fans for a change? Ohh, I am sorry, who cares!!

Lets go sell TV rights for games to be held in 2025.

I can't believe anyone who's read Andrew's work over the last few years would call him biased. I can't believe Andrew doesn't have enough faith in his own abilities to let the inevitable criticism slide off his back.

very good article. almost as good as the one about the 83 world cup. the last two lines in this article were very good. it just shows how blind some of these so called "experts" are!! there was mike atherton telling that sachin should retire because he is old when the opener of his own team was making his debut at 34. and now andrew miller has gone and shot himself in the foot. when will these guys learn??

I thought Andrew Miller’s article, aside from one or two clumsy sentences, was pretty benign. I was most disappointed to see ‘reverse racism’, or whatever we should call it, amply employed in Mukul Kesavan’s response and numerous comments. Personally, I think that Miller does NOT hold David Morgan in particularly higher regard than Sharad Pawar, more that the last thing the cricket world needs right now is a BCCI-style mess replicated on the international stage. Further, I think Miller is actually quite damning, though more subtly, of Malcolm Speed’s abilities, though I think the ‘cries of racism’ seemed to miss this.

This issue shouldn’t be ‘old versus new world’ or ‘white versus non-white’, it should be about what’s best for the sport of cricket. And I for one would not trust this task to Pawar, Morgan, or Speed. I think the ICC should primarily be thinking about what’s best for cricket and then, and only then, maximize the commercial aspect. Cricket is a sport for hundreds of millions of people to watch and play, not some political toy for commercialization.

Indians have the money and power they also have the corruption and incompetence on a grand scale.

I wouldn't trust the BCCI to run the local fish and chip shop let alone cricket.

Andrew Miller's two ... pieces show (one in response to Mukul's blog) that ... England has a very functional cricket board, excellent website, but dysfunctional players who have contributed nothing to the modern game. Their journalists critique the so-called India-led commercialisation of cricket, but if they were less myopic and nostalgic they would realise that the problem is much deeper, every sport in today's neo-capitalist world is commercialised. Cricket is much less commercialised than Premiership football. How many English journalists have complained about the commercialisation of football, golf, tennis? ...

Mukul, finally an article of your I agree wholheartedly with. The center of the cricket eonomy is in India, and the power should logically follow. It's about time we got past the fears of an 'Indian takeover' of cricket. It has already hapened... if you ask me. The world has changed, and Cricket may as well be a place to start reflecting the new reality. People who cannot deal with this may consider competing on a level playing field, rather than invoking imagined privileges and opinions that are 60 years past their expiry date.

I like how quickly Andrew Miller felt the need to jump in and retort Mukul's piece - talk about the need to defend!
So long as we have people like Andrew Miller touting cricket's "old" world, this game will have spectacular debacles like the 2007 world cup. Also goes to show that the Brits still find it hard to give up control. ...

OOps....

I made 2 posts criticizing andrew miller, but a collegue made me see the light. Here's what miller said

"...frustrated Indians, who represent 70% of the game's income and whose early exit from the World Cup conveniently distanced them from most - if not all - of the tournament's myriad failings."

I still disapprove of the first part about the frustrated indians, but he's dead right in the second part. Here's how

The worldcup's problem : Too long.. Boring...

Why Too long: Only 1 match a day !

Why only 1 match: TV..Its the best deal for TV companies

WHO owns these TV companies and who bought the world cup rights : Bingo ! There you have it.

One thing I want to make clear to few guys over here and out there that the ICC chief should NOT be just a cricketer. These are my views as opposed to some people who think it should be someone like Richie Benaud. I personally have nothing against Mr. Benaud, but to choose him on the logic that he is from cricket fraternity and has played and commented about cricket for a managerial post such as chief of the ICC does not really make sense to me. I am picking on Benaud, because I read somewhere and he was touted as one to lead the ICC. But this implies to all people who have the characteristic of being 'just' a crciketer and hence 'suitable' for this job, in the view of some people. Let me make this clear - the position vacancy is for a job of a managerial kind which needs leardership skills as regards the organizational point of view, not only regarding the cricket. The guy at the helm should be an excellent leader who is able to manage the resourses at hand very well and probably should have done that all his life. It does not really matter whether he is from a cricketing background or not. Please understand that cricket administration is completely different aspect than playing cricket. Take for example the hospital administration or management - well those guys are not necessarily doctors. So we need a leader, a manager and a person with abundance of experience to handle such a huge task. I am not even remotely implying that Benaud or for that matter any other "cricketer" are not good administrators, but my point is, they being a good cricketers should not be considered as a weapon in their armory.

Regarding the fight between the "western world" and the "eastern world" viz, Andrew and Mukul, I really am not interested in adding fuel to the fire. First of all, I am not sure whether they were really fighting. So I am not going to dissect what they really said and what they should not have said. I personally like to have a clear perspective on things which is not influenced by others thoughts. Also I am not going to join the debate whether it should be Pawar or Morgan at the helm. The reason behind this is that I really do not know Morgan well. Yes, I have read a few articles here and there, but I cannot form an opinion based on others opinions. I would like to see his actions, if its needed to judge. Pawar is very capable man and I admire him, but that does not mean I am going to choose him for this job. Who am I to do so? I am not paid to choose either! Its the job of the ICC committee to choose or its through election that someone will be chosen. So I would prefer to stay away from this mess as well.

Now that we have segregated a lot of issues, we can focus on the target. The target is to get the best person for this job. It is in our hands to define the duties of the person who will lead the world of cricket. So I think all I can do is to define or sketch the person I want to be the ICC chief. Following are the points I would definetly look for in that person:

1. He should be a person with 'knowledge' of cricket, not necessarily an expert, but a 'Jack' of this trade.
2. He should have held certain managerial posts and should have been at the helm for quite a while in his career. By managerial posts, I do not mean the manager of the local club. This requirement is obvious since only someone with experience will be able to handle so much pressure at this position. Yes, he should have the practice of handling the pressure with high profile jobs.

I think these are the 'necessary' things which one should look out in the probables.

The next round is to filter out the candidates. Logical progression will help us in understanding that we should now get more specific. For example, in order to do this job the person should be presented with 'real-life' problems which he is going to deal with in his job. The best way to do this is to ask this guy what he will do if he was in the place of Sonn/Malcom. I mean, how will he handle the case of Drugs, Oval fiasco, Death of Mr. Woolmer, and such incidents that happened in the last cricketing year or in the last term of the outgoing president. I would also go one step further - I would like them to be able to answer to some made-up situations, some unreal situations and see how they answer. Satisfatory answers will reveal us a much short list of candidates. The next step is to filter it more and say reduce the to 2-3 people. The next round will be to ask the person what really went wrong in the last term of the outgoing president and what they would have done if they were in place of him. For example, if they think that the World Cup 07 was a failure then how would they have organised it and what steps they would have carried out in order to make sure that they make it a success. I am pretty sure that the race will be left to 2-3 people after so much fo filtering. In the end to decide on the final person I would prefer them to ask just one question: What changes do they think they can bring along in the ICC, so that cricket becomes the best sport in the world - financially, popularity-wise, intersting to watch, etc. This question seems really easy, but the person must have that creative corner in him apart from the other skills in order to successfully lead us to the betterment.

I think all these tests will really help us determine the best person for the job. This is a much better process than fighting among ourselves and rooting for our own individual to be the chief.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. Miller,
Even though I try and ignore the ramblings of Mr K7, I've gotta say he has a point here. I have only two questions for you: (1) Do you see an alternative candidate to Mr. Pawar who could run this dysfunctional outfit with any semblance of authority+sanity? (No need to remind you, I suppose, of the WC final & the Eng-Pak test match fiascos under the current administration); and (2) Have you ever followed any elections in India where Pawar seems to manage to get consensus amongst a crowd of folks at each others' throats most of the time? If he can provide leadership in India, hell, he can do that anywhere....

Everyone loves a controversy, huh? As Pratik pointed out, it would be best (for everyone, especially India) if Mr.Pawar got down to business and attended to his real duties as a cabinet minister. The mind boggles at the fact that in the midst of a severe crisis including in his home state in particular this joker wants to run cricket! He should be whipped in public for even entertaining such ideas. Forget the old cricket imperialists, the new imperialists are worse and what's more, they are our own.

I would also ask people to refrain from throwing out words like racism so casually. I'm as tired as anyone else of condescending Englishmen, but I've been reading Miller on Cricinfo and he did not strike me as the type.

PS: To Aussies/English or anyone else asking Indians to 'get over it', please think before you speak. We DID get over it - India is not planning to colonise and subjugate 'your' lands, are they (if we could)? Now, THAT would be what revenge would look like.

Sport has to be able to fund itself, but the reason for its existence is not to make money. It's to provide compelling viewing for fans. If making more and more money provides more compelling viewing, then I say go for it.

Unfortunately, let's face it, it doesn't. The constant over-work of the players, the meaningless neutral venue ODIs, the focus on making more and more money above the benefit of the fans has altered the game for the worse. I'm not saying this is all the BCCI's fault by any means, but I have little doubt that if the ICC became even more influenced by the BCCI, it would continue down this route. That's why I wouldn't want a current member of the BCCI administration to gain presidency.

My distaste for the level of control the BCCI has over the current game is not because they're Indian, but because they influence the game for the worse. Newsflash for you guys - the vast majority of people in Britain don't think about India in terms of 'our former colony', or wish we still had a giant empire. Most of us were born well after India gained independence, and have never known anything else. Just because we might think an Indian/BCCI administration might be bad for the international game does not mean we think you can't cope for yourselves, or that you should be subjugated, or whatever. Seriously, get over it.

This debate seems to be polarised between the Indian supporters who are coming out in support of the pro-Indian view and those who aren't. The BCCI, and the ICC are obsessed with making money above all else. The game of cricket to them is merely the method of making the money.

The level of criticism levelled at Andrew Miller is also depressing in its political correctness, and the fact that no-one seems allowed to say anything that might be against the philosophy of the Indian board. Cricket is for everyone who has an interest in it. It isn't there just to make 'loadsamoney' for the sub-continent from the ODI's and all the gambling that goes on down there on them.

Test Matches are what they say they are, a test. There is no doubt ODI's have helped improve the entertainment value of test's although that is also down to the Aussies and the style of play they decided to adopt, and which others aspire to. The two versions of the game have their place, but test matches are still extremely important, and we can't allow the Asian bloc to virtually eliminate them, just because audiences are not high there for them.

Lets also stop this criticism of people, just because they have a comment to make about the BCCI. Its not being imperialist or racist or anything else. If one side tries to stifle the debate, then we might as well abandon playing international cricket because where will the fun be.

Less wham bam thank you mam cricket, and more of the more thoughtful and strategic side of the game over more than a few hours packed into one day. Oh, and less of the boring, meaningless one day tournaments!!!

Another note, someone above is complaining about the alleged English-centric stance of this website... have they seen how many of the writers come from the sub-continent??? If anything, the website is more skewed towards that part of the world. Its refreshing to see that not all the Indian supporters are of the mind that they should take over the ICC and that they don't all try to talk down the English because of its Imperial past, etc. Surely those Indians ranting on about that in this article are being bigotted and racist by doing so?

I completely agree that David Morgan shouldn't automatically be the new man, but why should it be Pawar? He will overwork cricketers even more, and we can look forward to an even greater focus on money and ODI's, less test cricket, and more lousy one day tournaments.

This is in response to Raj, who wrote "Man, why don't you just admit you're a racist and get on with it? It's okay- we don't expect anything else from a Brit." When you say that, do you refer to "Brits" of Indian, Eastern European, Middle Eastern or African background? Or do you just refer to the whites? My brother (who's Australian, like me) recently went on holiday around South America where he met quite a few Englishmen who said that they were ashamed of their colonial past- quite illogically, but still ashamed. (They were probably even white, too.) Now, I'm not going to tell you to "get over it" but I will suggest that you entertain the notion that it's possible to criticise an Indian without being racist.

I believe game needs improvement from all fronts. If there is no money then 90% (or even more) can't enjoy game on TV. I too dont like to see Powar as ICC chief. There should be a better ICC constitution for even electing its president, who has capacity to understand its nuances. Dumb voting may seem democratic but may not serve the purpose. May be paid executive can bring lot of goods. Perpahs it may be necessary to elect such a person from all its member countries turn-by-turn to satify all, ofcourse political front is also important for stability.

Good and bad is everywhere, you have to open your eyes to see it, then only you can do cleanup. Ofcourse it takes time to cleanup mess. Perhaps India may need more time to cleanup mess created in more than 3 centuries. Every dog has its own day.

Lets try to look at results in an objective manner. For all the criticism leveled on Pawar and Dalmiya, under their stewardship the interest for the game in india has not diminished, and the board has become richer.

From all indications Dalmiya's presence at the helm of ICC only enhanced the game in the 90's. The worlcups were interesting and the ICC was no more in the red financially.

Then others took over and look how the ICC has behaved ever since. It makes perfect sense in my opinion to have Pawar as the ICC president when the 2011 WC is going to be held in the subcontinent. The nonsense they paraded as a worldcup in 2007 will hopefully be avoided since ICC and BCCI will be better co-ordinated with pawar at the helm.

To all,

Let's not bring race or nationality into it.

To my Indian friends,

Let's be honest with ourselves and consider Pawar's candidature in isolation.How many of us believe he's done a good job at handling Indian cricket?

To my foreign friends,

Consider David Morgan's candidature in isolation. How many of us think he's done a good job with the ECB?

To everyone,

Let's not support or oppose candidates based on their roots.While money doesn't necessarily bring good to the game,it doesn't do the game any hard provided the administrators can use it judiciously.American sport involves more money than we can imagine,and yet you have stadia with 50,000 capacity packed to the rafters for 81 games a year.But you don't see a drop in the standards of the sport,or total domination on the part of a franchise.

It does not really matter what Andrew, Mukul, you or I think or write; the BCCI and hence Indians are the paymasters of world cricket and hence will control it regardless of it regardless of who is at the helm. So the choice is not really between Pawar or Morgan. The choice is between Pawar and a puppet.

Sharad pawar is a politician. Politicians shouldn't be managing sports. If everything is so good under him, why has Indian cricket declined?
I can't understand why India with apopulation of 1.2 billion cannot produce cricketers who can compete with Australia with a population of 20 million? Do you see something wrong here?

Good luck to India in its future rule of cricket, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies, as the least marketable teams, look forward to their next test series in India against India when India has venues that are small enough and economically viable enough for the BCCI to consider granting them the privilege of playing agianst the Indian cricket team in India.

PS: Could Mukul please apologise to the following players that he has labelled as 'white' because of the countries they play for: Monty Panesar, Darryl Tuffey, Andrew Symonds and Jeetan Patel. There are others but I just haven't got the time to list them all.

Dear Andrew,

You have written two pieces explaining why you thing Sharad Pawar should not be the next President of the ICC. Fair enough.

Could you please write one more explaining why you think David Morgan should be the President.

Considering that Australia is the cricketing powerhouse of world cricket (both test and ODI) perhaps an Australian should be the permanent President till such time as they are dethroned.

Surprisingly, the Chief Executive of the ICC (also an Australian) has not proved very successful in running the organisation.

I dont agree with Mukul's comments this time. I feel Indian fans have to be less hypocritical and more honest with themselves. What is so great about Sharad Pawar and his cronies? With their penchant for manipulation and politics, Pawar team have made a mess of the indian cricket affairs.

The indian team performance in World Cup and ICC Cup since Pawar has taken over reflect poorly on his overall effectiveness as a leader. Rest of world has watched this downslide of Indian cricket after Pawar took over. This is why Miller opposes Pawar appointed as ICC chairman.

Pawar should first show visible results in improving performance of Indian cricket team at ICC trophy and 2011 World Cup. Only then he will be a credible choice for ICC chairman in the eyes of non-partisan cricket lovers.

I think cricket can survive as a game only if all countries learn to respect each other. Today India under Pawar often want to impose their writ on other boards.

The issue is not about politics, money or even who makes a better president.
It is about values and a belief held by many westerners that all said and done, their values are morally superior to the values held by other cricketing nations.
Mr Millers comments also reflect the fear many feel over the coming of a new order, wherein people from Asia are not afriad to stand up for what they believe in or seek office in order to achieve their objectives.
A president from Asia would no doubt be tolerated if he alligned himself with the views and aims held dear by the western order that believes itself to be morally and I suspect intellectually, superior. But if he brings his own vision to the job, one that reflects his background and and the interests of his region,he is immediately deemed to have an 'agenda' and is considered unsuitable.
Truth is, this is not about what is best for the ICC, but what is best for a small faction within who believe themselves to be it's rightfull caretakers.

the site has done good by publishing this controversy. Lot of hidden feelings amongst all of us surface by seemingly innocuous words like furstrated, indian, brit, old world, new world. At the end of it the professors of cricket blogs can do just that; allow emotional catharsis in the readership. Cricket is a beautiful game, and it needs money to support it. Look at Indian hockey, or english cricket. They are both beautiful games but indians are not watching hockey and the English are watching premier league. Clever marketing is there to stay and it needs money. Blatter is not a politician but he need all the skills that make a successful politician. And politicians have no race, they are ubiquitous. Is there a successful game without corruption scandals? The difference seems to be that some polticians appear tobe more correct than others. The aims of Pawar or Morgan can not be vastly different. The means will also be more or less the same. Pawar apparently may not do it with finess. Those who watch the game watch it for it's beauty, not for Pawar or Morgan.Those who play it play because they love the game, at least in the initial few years. I think that creates a sound base for continuing love of cricket. Rest is incidental, vastly commentable and worth an emotional catharsis.

Those accusing Andrew Miller of being racist are all hypocrites. Deep down inside we are all racists. Face it. Caste wars are happening in India at the moment. Isn't that racism? What about the reservations for OBCs? How racist is that! Kolkata fans booing Rahul Dravid on his dismissal (because he happens to belong to another state).. the list goes on.
So all you people living in glass houses.. think before stoning somebody else.

To those who cry hoarse about BCCI being the root of all "lets-earn-money-at-the-expse-of-theholy-game-of-cricket" initiatives, especially Mr Marcus-whose-surname-is-not-known-from-this-page and Mr Miller:
1) Is Malcolm Speed Indian
2) How much of the ICC's get-rich-quick schemes were proposed by BCCI recently?
3) If BCCI is this bad influence who de-pollinates the pristine ACB and ECB, why dont you guys just get out and play your 'pure' Cricket between yourselves, maybe you can take NZ along with you because I am not sure SA would join you guys - why are you guys dealing with BCCI still? I know the answer - the money. You need the money, dont you? So, you want to have the money cake and eat it too by reducing BCCI influence on ICC affairs. Not done, old chaps, not done.
3. Why is it that Miller doesnt have time toe xamine the anti-asian prejudice of ICC when it comes to decisions on players(clearly seen in the last few years -afterall, in which sport would an umpire sledge a player, an outstandingly correct one at that as Steve Bucknor did to Rahul Dravid. To date, Bucknor hasnt been so much as condemned by a single Western Cricket writer(including, presumbaly, Miller) for that despicable behaviour.
Just imagine, if Venkatraghavan had made similar gestures to Atherton after the dirt in the pocket incident, would he have survived a day as umpire?
And Hair, he went only after he committed one misdemeanour too many...

Whoever is the President of the ICC. it's difficult to see the ICC improving .......... as simple as that !

i just happned to hit this article by accident and am not a huge cricket fan; but cant hel but feel that everybody seems to be overreacting here(although it makes an interesting reading). But i strongy contempt miller's demeaning comments about all things indian. miller if u want t be known and respected as a cricket writer, first get your prejudices out.

Sick as ever. That's the way i see it. Finely clothed in erudite english all i see is base nationalism and misplaced defense of anything seen remotely against my state. Sorry state of mind from one who teaches social history.

Btw, John Emburey is not your part time off spinner incapable of making into the strongest Ranji squad. Remember 1987 semi final in Bombay. All the great spinners of spin collapsed as nine pins chasing 55 from 11 overs with 5 wickets in hand. Read the cricinfo score card for this match before passing opinions left, right and center.

K M Krishna
India

yess...indians are good at diplomacies in cricket..politics in cricket...braggings in cricket..but not in cricket itself....
cheers to all

Mr Miller, if you can re-elect Tony Blair to the office, I woudn't trust your judgement in electing the right candidate.

And by the way, BCCI has not been managing the world cricket. If we are not happy with the direction in which cricket is moving, don't blame BCCI for it. The only unilateral decision they can make is when India A plays India B.

England has been a terrible one-day team for long. May be that is what has contributed to the fact that many English people don't like ODIs. But that is not our problem. ODIs are here to stay and they are legitimate and entertaining.

I see, Mr.Miller, all your arguments can be summed up as:

1) The BCCI ruins cricket with the offshore ODIs formula. Yet you fail to address the multiple failings of the ICC with its Super series, Champions Trophies, flop World Cups and Twenty20 World Cups when headed by a *gasp* Aussie CEO. Hypocritical or was it a bout of amnesia?

2) You pride yourself and the ECB on being anti-ODI. Yet you fail to explain the English craze for Twenty20 cricket, which has been taken so far that you have arm twisted the ICC into holding a premature Twenty20 World Cup, a form of the game that is followed with any level of enthusiasm only in England, SA and Australia. What was the saying about people living in glass houses and them being cautioned about not projecting hard objects at others ?

3) You fail to address the issues of the ICC not organising its events during the English and Australian seasons. May we know why other nations are expected to sacrifice prime cricketing season to accomodate these two 'special' nations ?

I agree with the sentiments expressed by some of the participants in the blog.
1. It is NOT India vs England and absolutely no racist overtones.
2. It is a discussion about the candidatures of the ECB chief and BCCI chief.
3. While BCCI is not sparkling white itself, it is neither charcoal black.
There is no denying the fact that it had helped the game. While all of us would love to be in a utopian world, alas, it is a real world. Money is needed to improve the game. What the hell, there are no saints in today's world anyway.
4. Mr. Pawar may be new to the game but he is known to be astute. He is smart enough to realize that 'let's make money and to hell with the game' attiude will be akin to killing the golden goose.
5. I don't know much about Mr. Morgan and hence can not comment.

Well said Mukul. It is time fot India to show the world that we can dominate the proceedings.

With each article that you write, my respect & admiration for you increases.Not only do I admire your erudition,I also like the way you raise very important issues.Moreover I also completely agree with most of the stands you take.
For example,Even I was appalled to see A genuine & proven match winner like VVS Laxman dropped for an average test batsman like Ganguly and loved to see you raising the issue which enraged me a lot in your blog.
Kudos MK!! Your blog rocks!!

Ofcourse - but ofcourse - Andrew Miller doesnt want to face the inconvenient questions posed here and has run away without bothering to respond.The last anony has some beautiful questions which I am sure Andrew Miller has no coherent answers to. That, Andrew Miller, sums up what you are. You just make some biasd statements and when posed with pertinent questions, you will pretend that you didnt check this blog at all, right?
Thanks for letting us know your character.

"Perhaps the Indians knew, in their sly Oriental way" who r you...a redneck cowboy!!

"Andrew Miller has done a terrific job in highlighting an unpalatable truth for Indian cricket loyalists - "

And Mukul Kesavan has done a terrific job in highlighting some unpalatable truths about Andrew Miller's article and the tone of it. Most of us can take criticism - it's the hangover-empire smarminess and the condescending white-man's-burden "with power comes responsibility" blah blah blah speech that's off-putting (whether intended or not), as if speaking down to dumb children or something. It reminds me of the condescending foreign policy wonks going on about how India/Pakistan are too immature to have nuclear weapons. You know, us hotheaded natives with itchy fingers. We had the brains to build nuclear weapons but apparently have no clue about what they actually do to people. Meanwhile the only country to have ever used them and murdered tens of thousands of people is????

As an aside, since everyone's telling us to get over colonialism: The British weren't exactly that responsible whilst they had a lot of power around the world. Read "Late Victorian Holocausts" by historian Mike Davis. The legacy of colonialism is still present in most of the colonies, whether you admit it or not. Yes, India's politicians bear most of the blame but you can't wish away centuries of mismanagement by a foreign power either. I know that's not relevant to the discussion here but since so many seem to have brought in all of India's other ills when talking about colonialism and asking Indians to get over colonialism, when Mukul was clearly only talking about the legacy in cricket and not in the running of the subcontinent as a whole. Colonialism should not be the scapegoat for many of India's problems, I agree, but to pretend that its legacy hasn't had an effect in many subtle and not so subtle ways is also hugely misleading. We are told to get over colonialism, yet why do British soldiers still seek compensation from the Japanese for something that happened in WWII. I mean that was years ago, today's Japanese have nothing to answer for and were not responsible for the suffering of those soldiers. So should we callously tell the old Brit soldiers "Get over it? Your own government has let you down."

Likewise, in cricket, there will be a conflict between old ideas and new ones, for better and worse.

"A small player and fan base, such as Australia and New Zealand, simply does not want to cope with the over commercialised (and lesser quality) cricket desired by the Indian cricket juggernaught. I think it's only right for the other cricketing civilisations of the world to want to actively persuade the public into not allowing India to dominate the game."

Fair enough, But then have the decency and the courage not to take any Indian money or partake of its "riches." Back up all this talk of "honour" and "purity" of the game and saving it from the clutches of the "heathen (in cricket heritage terms)" money-minded Indians with some backbone and honour of your own:) Refuse tours to India and don't host India until it learns that money is not what the game is all about :) What's annoying is all this complaining about Indian money corrupting the game, yet the so-called old guard administrators and cricket boards and fan base don't mind benefitting from it all the same whilst mealy-mouthing the very hand that's doling it out to them at the time. One would think some wanted a return to the days when the "restless" natives (the BCCI and India) were expected to be compliantly milked for all their riches and natural resources without having any rights to complain about it or without any input (good and bad) into how the game is run. In fact, they were expected to be grateful for it all and the "good" and so-called "civilizing' effect that the milkers (here, the so-called traditional guardians of the game) were having on them - you know, improving their morals and all that (here, maintaining the virginal "purity" and "integrity" of the game, if it ever was pure or had integrity).

This is not an exoneration of Indian cricket or the BCCI or Sharad Pawar by any means, but about the patronizing tone of Miller's article. There's criticism and then there's criticism. By the way, in what way was the Indian team conveniently distanced from the failures of this world cup by their early exit? How were they responsible for any of those failings? Why not just come right out and say in what way the Indian team influenced the failings of the world cup from which they were "conveniently distanced" instead of making sly, veiled references without any substantiation? Or is it because their unceremoious and deserved early elimination took away the opportunity from journalists to carp about how the BCCI was responsible for the supposed "fiasco" that this world cup was in some areas? Is it because you were deprived of a potential scapegoat that resulted in that sentence borne of frustration? Is it because for once you didn't have a chief Indian cardboard villain a la Dalmiya upon whom to heap all your opprobrium and had to instead singlehandedly heap it on Malcolm Speed, more one of your own than a Dalmiya?

I don't usually agree with some of what Mukul Kesavan writes, but in this regard, he is spot on and had every right to call out Miller on it. If Miller says Indians are too sensitive to criticism, then his response shows that he too is sensitive to criticism. It's a human trait. Everyone should have the democratic right to respond to criticism, not just Miller. If he is looking out for English interests, why can't Mukul look out for Indian ones in criticising what he sees as a deficient article? I mean Miller does realize that with the power to write in the media comes great responsibility, right?:)

The only racist comments i find here are from Indians~! Either they were treated badly once and are having hard time to get over it or they are still stuck in British Colonial era! Not all white are racists!

Andrew miller's post was incoherent but i dont find anything racist in it. He is right about Pawar but should have mind his words before criticizing Indians. You can criticize a person but you grouped the whole nation with him...

I have to agree with Mukul on the fact that there wasnt much that the English or Australian cricket boards did to develop the game. Dalmiya brought money into the game and where lies money there lies interest!

Pawar on top of ICC will do no good to cricket. I think even Indians agree on that one! And David Morgan isnt a leader enough to lead a chaotic body like ICC. There are no leaders from Caribbean and there is no Cricket board in Zimbabwe. But what about Australia or NewZealand or South Africa? Are there no cricket lovers from these countries who are capable enough to lead ICC ?

And not ignore the commercial side of the game, Lalit Modi can be appointed as the chief's vice!

There is really no point trying to debate good or bad here. We know that the English and the Australians will back each other no matter what. In the name of compromise between Pawar and Morgan, they will come up with an Australian or a Kiwi, some "old guard", All this talk is useless. They don't care about what is good for the world or what is good for cricket. It is just a nice thing to say. It's all about what is good for them.

Just get the votes and get Pawar elected. Enough is enough.

Nadz, there you go again. Remove your coolers. Most Indians who commented here have trasher Andrew Miller not Britain per se. OTOH, you admitted yourself that it was AM who brought in "frustrated indians". If you cant see that as racist, good lukc to you

I just read the debates on this issue and thought I would put in my own two cents-
1. Why does everyone have to look at cricketing issues in a racial way? Both Miller and Mukul made some very interesting points.
2. Mr. Miller, please be careful about how you refer to Indians. It is not clear whether you were criticizing only the BCCI or Indians as a people. I think that caused all the furore initiated by Mukul's rebuttal. I have read Miller's articles before but never has he written words like 'frustrated Indians" etc. which protray an entire country in a bad light. Yes, we have our problems but is England in an absolutely ideal state? If it wasn't for the money of "frustrated" Indians, the game would not have survived till now.
3. I agree with Mr. Miller that Pawar should not be ICC president for all the reasons outlined above. But when he says that he wants Morgan since he is also English, well, how can you expect the rest of the article to have credibility? The skills which Morgans seemingly possesses must be also possessed by other capable people who may/ not be from England. This is not to say that there are no good people in English cricket. You could have, say, campaigned for Tony Greig or someone who is liked, if not respected by many non-Englishmen in various spheres. It would have been even better if you talked about other well-meaning candidates from other countries like Ian Chappell, Gavaskar etc. who understand the business AND the logistics of the game.But I guess the powers-that-be only want a political figure or a stooge, not straight talking, honest guys who really desire the long-term good of the great game.
4.Miller is right in the sense that India needs a strong WI. But in the larger sense, we also need a strong India, Pakistan, NZ, SA and England too. No one who seriously desires the game's good wants one team dominating others all the time while the otheres languish at the same mediocre level, making the same mistakes and learning little from them.
5. The BCCI seriously needs to cut down on cricket. Even as an Indian in the US, I am getting bored of these innumerable matches which hardly test the true skills of so-called "great" players. True, England's colonialist selfishness screwed up the game in early times- I have always thought they were by far the most boring team to watch, with their Boycotts, Illingworths and whats-he-doing-in-an-international-team Chris Tavare etc. But the BCCI is going the other way- overhyping talented players in the guise of popularizing the game. Believe me, if these guys do not win against the best teams consistently, the money will soon decrease. Ex- Champions Trophy 2006.
6. A lot has rightly been said about the greed of the various cricket boards, not just the BCCI which is the most obvious example. By not allotting enought warm-up matches to the Indian team, they have already given a huge advantage to the Aussies (not that they need that in the first place). But who cares- as long as Sachin gets to century number 40 and Rahul and Saurav hit a couple of good knocks, it will be still a good trip and a great 'learning experience for young Indian hopefuls". But the ECB will do business with the greedy BCCI and then accuse it of being high-handed! If people have that much of a problem with them, DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM.
7. No one seems to blame the players. Why? If they are being forced to play too much, they can definitely unite against such behavior. But if the lure of money is too much, do not only blame the board. This pertains to any country, not just India, the worst example of such an opportunistic approach.

I had the opportunity to read Miller's article, Mukul's blog and then again, Miller's 'rebuttal'. It seems pretty clear that Miller like some English people who yearn for the 'old world' suffers from a sense of entitlement. Get over it, Miller & Co. The Indians are here and we do not come with colonial aspirations. They can't have it both ways ... where cricket is 'old world' and doggedly linked to traditions and also commercially lucrative deriving most of it's currency in the 'new world'. It appears to me that if a game is losing favor in the country of it's roots where most people prefer other sports to cricket, it must have something to do with the administration of the game in a way that is flawed and does not connect with the masses. So, Mr. Miller if you are asking us to transfer those same administrators and their failings to the world game which is thriving, I say 'No thanks!'. Keep your ... daft, pompous and over-stuffed bureaucrats at home. And 'No Thanks' to Pawar too but lets not make it about India! We saw the World Cup pretty much receive a death blow when India and indian fans were out of the party. So when you make it about INDIA, you do a dis-service to the mass of people who actually keep the game running and possibly put the money in your pocket for the sub-standard fare you dish out!

the title can now be changed to "the americans are coming"

Miller, love your writing.

Much as I admire Mukul's take on the "fear of the Indians coming", I tend to agree with Andrew Miller on his views as to why an Indian should not be the next ICC President. Firstly, the BCCI has to set its own house in order. The recent coach appointment fiasco was just one more embarassment in a growing list. Secondly, BCCI, as Miller points out, is extremely unprofessional. The emphasis of the BCCI is only on money and they care two hoots for the game. There is no attempt from the board to improve the standard of the game in India. Nor are they in a position to instill discipline in an extremely fractious team. It is time the ICC returns cricket to its glory days of making cricket an interesting game between the bat and the ball. The emphasis on ODIs and Twenty20, something that the BCCI would love, will only kill the already dying game. We need an ICC that is strong, represents all playing nations and has the will to improve the game which includes helping nations like the West Indies to find its way back while not implicitly or explicitly condoning the activities of the Zimbabwe Cricket board.

The ICC also needs to look at the futures program and also implement it in such a way that it reduces the load on the cricketers.

I do not think Pawar or any person from the current BCCI will be in a position to lead the ICC out of the current morass it finds itself in.

Ok.
nice articles by both the writers,
I must confess-i am a indian,but not afraid to admit our faults..
Miller was correct about stating about our weak domestic structure..He was dead-straight when he stated the ill state of Tamil Nadu.i am a man enough to applaud that.

>>
It might not be apparent to Indian cricket right now, but it cannot sustain its current level of popularity without magnanimity towards the bit-part players on the world stage – one look at the parlous state of their domestic cricket tells you that India needs a strong West Indies more than they need a strong Tamil Nadu.>>>
its good that the truth is stated.If indians can accept critics like this,then india is a great nation.WE know that some states like Tamil nadu are spreading violence and not cricket,,but dont meassure whole of india throught one state...
And Pawar is no kid-he can handle money and can call a spade a spade.and that's why he's still there with all these bad times...
So all the best to Pawar.

Miller, why dont you stick to English Cricket and the poor form that they are in, in One Day matches. People like you constantly put countries such as the sub-continent teams down, is that your primary job Miller? Example: "India's tour of England,
Jelly beans - the real threat" - Cricinfo.com - 07/31/07 was an audio bit of you pretty much taking cheap shots at the Indian team.

It's a pity that you (Miller) are an Editor for Cricinfo.