USA February 4, 2008

USACA elections delayed

The USA Cricket Association elections are on hold, although this does not appear to have been conveyed to those involved in the process.

The USA Cricket Association elections are on hold, although this does not appear to have been conveyed to those involved in the process.

Chris Dehring, the independent third party appointed by the ICC to try to find a resolution to the ongoing struggle for control of the USACA, managed to get a new constitution approved but the elections that were meant to follow within 30 days have already become embroiled in controversy.

It is believed that Dehring will appoint an external independent auditor to oversee the elections and this means that they not take place until March at the earliest.

Since the announcement of the yes vote for the new constitution, the USACA has yet again not uttered a word in public. Some regions have held their elections while others appear to be uncertain how to proceed.

New York Region and Central West have already announced their regional board and their representatives to USACA.

Martin Williamson is executive editor of ESPNcricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Adam Scholem on February 5, 2008, 15:05 GMT

    Is anyone the least bit surprised by this? While there may be little money or prestige involved in running the USACA, my outsider's impression is that it gives plenty of chances to play big fish in a small pond. Blocking some kid's selection because his father once played a match with the club from the wrong side of town back in the West Indies in the 1970s seems to be a rare privilege and delightful sport. From my limited experience with those actively involved in HIGHLY competitive (for the States, anyway) cricket, petty vengeance and ethnic insularity drive cricket here more than love of the game or even a pretence of doing something for the good of the sport.

    It's a sad situation, and no amount of constitutional change is going to fix it. Breaking the game out of the ex-pats' grip (and the over-pressured performances they put their children through) might help the situation...

  • ajaya on February 4, 2008, 18:23 GMT

    i just don't get it...

    there is no money, prestige or national fame for cricket in the US. what motivates all this politics?

    the only conclusion i can get to is that the people in charge of the USACA are too old to take to the field, so now they moved the game to the boardroom. and if cricket suffers, so what? THEY are having fun!

  • Adam Scholem on February 5, 2008, 15:05 GMT

    Is anyone the least bit surprised by this? While there may be little money or prestige involved in running the USACA, my outsider's impression is that it gives plenty of chances to play big fish in a small pond. Blocking some kid's selection because his father once played a match with the club from the wrong side of town back in the West Indies in the 1970s seems to be a rare privilege and delightful sport. From my limited experience with those actively involved in HIGHLY competitive (for the States, anyway) cricket, petty vengeance and ethnic insularity drive cricket here more than love of the game or even a pretence of doing something for the good of the sport.

    It's a sad situation, and no amount of constitutional change is going to fix it. Breaking the game out of the ex-pats' grip (and the over-pressured performances they put their children through) might help the situation...

  • ajaya on February 4, 2008, 18:23 GMT

    i just don't get it...

    there is no money, prestige or national fame for cricket in the US. what motivates all this politics?

    the only conclusion i can get to is that the people in charge of the USACA are too old to take to the field, so now they moved the game to the boardroom. and if cricket suffers, so what? THEY are having fun!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • ajaya on February 4, 2008, 18:23 GMT

    i just don't get it...

    there is no money, prestige or national fame for cricket in the US. what motivates all this politics?

    the only conclusion i can get to is that the people in charge of the USACA are too old to take to the field, so now they moved the game to the boardroom. and if cricket suffers, so what? THEY are having fun!

  • Adam Scholem on February 5, 2008, 15:05 GMT

    Is anyone the least bit surprised by this? While there may be little money or prestige involved in running the USACA, my outsider's impression is that it gives plenty of chances to play big fish in a small pond. Blocking some kid's selection because his father once played a match with the club from the wrong side of town back in the West Indies in the 1970s seems to be a rare privilege and delightful sport. From my limited experience with those actively involved in HIGHLY competitive (for the States, anyway) cricket, petty vengeance and ethnic insularity drive cricket here more than love of the game or even a pretence of doing something for the good of the sport.

    It's a sad situation, and no amount of constitutional change is going to fix it. Breaking the game out of the ex-pats' grip (and the over-pressured performances they put their children through) might help the situation...