ICC News May 6, 2013

Board games show cricket's true powerplay

The elections to the ICC cricket committee are evidence cricket is a decadarchy, not a democracy. Tim May has paid the price for taking on the establishment
  shares 99

The ICC press release on the new members of the cricket committee said: "Kumar Sangakkara and Laxman Sivaramakrishnan were recently elected by a vote of the 10 Test captains, and will serve on the cricket committee for a three-year term from 2013-15."

Sangakkara's name was written in the text of the entire email - Helvetica, size 13. Sivaramakrishnan's name was written in Georgia, size 16. It looked out of place and was very hard to miss.

Sangakkara is stately and respected, and was a natural fit. The players' choice for their last representative on this committee was between Tim May and Laxman Sivaramakrishnan.

May is the CEO of FICA, the players' union. He is more than its CEO: he was its very impetus for existing in the first place. Since 1997, he has fought for player rights with cricket boards. He has pushed for better security. He has been involved with care programmes for cricketers with emotional problems. And he has fought for better pay conditions, and even upfront pay, in haphazardly organised T20 tournaments.

Laxman Sivaramakrishnan is a BCCI-contracted commentator.

So ten Test captains had the choice of who to vote for. They chose the commentator.

Perhaps the players who voted against May were sick of having an independent voice on the committee. Maybe what they really wanted was an inside man who had the ear of the king. I doubt Tim May can chat with N Srinivasan anytime he wants to. Sivaramakrishnan can.

That is democracy at work. When given two choices, the players voted with their conscience and picked the person they wanted to represent them. Of course the basic problem with democracy is that people can be stupid, selfish and easily manipulated. Not that this is a democratic situation anyway. The international players of the world don't vote on their Test captain; their Test captains are appointed by the boards themselves.

As ESPNcricinfo understands, the four votes for May were from his home country of Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand. All have strong unions and are part of FICA.

But what of the rest of the world?

The BCCI is always cast as the ogre in situations like this. But MS Dhoni was the only person who would have possibly voted for Sivaramakrishnan regardless of May's history. The Indian players have no union and are not involved with FICA, and with Sivaramakrishnan being so heavily involved with Chennai - the city, at the very least - you would assume he and Dhoni have a relationship.

Misbah-ul-Haq may have been swayed and may have also responded badly to May suggesting international players boycott the yet-to-actually-exist Pakistan Premier League.

The Bangladesh Premier League was given an almighty smacking by May for the fact that it regularly didn't pay its players, or paid them really late. That might have concerned the Bangladesh captain.

And Angelo Mathews might not have taken well to May also making a big deal out of the fact that players in the Sri Lankan Premier League were not paid on time.

Of course, it is more likely that these three votes were not by aggrieved players, but from their boards. Boards that have been embarrassed by May regularly (as he has the nerve to point out that there may be financial or security concerns) and who probably don't want him on an ICC committee.

Zimbabwe's is always a swing vote, and talking about it in any real sense would be a waste of time. With all the other votes being fairly obvious and predictable, the casting decision ultimately came down to Darren Sammy's West Indies vote, which went to Sivaramakrishnan.

Perhaps it is a play for power by some to control the message. Tim May is independent of all boards. In his role at FICA, there is probably no board he has not annoyed

That said, if cricket boards are involved, this is not a player vote. And the entire position should be scrapped immediately. It's not even like there are no other players on the committee. The entire committee is made up of former players, apart from Sangakkara. Anil Kumble, Dave Richardson, Andrew Strauss, Mark Taylor, Ravi Shastri, Trent Johnston, Clare Connor, Gary Kirsten, Ranjan Madugalle and John Stephenson are all there. They may have many different masters these days, but they are all players.

The ICC did instruct the boards not to interfere with the process, which is similar to when the ICC wanted politics out of cricket. It's a nice idea but spectacularly unpractical.

Perhaps these players voted on conscience. Perhaps their boards pushed them that way. But why would you want to twist any arms? What is the benefit you get from replacing May with Sivaramakrishnan?

There is talk, of course, that the BCCI is trying to stack the votes of the ICC cricket committee and that is why all these votes dramatically left May. It seems odd that the BCCI would stack this committee, given that they have full control of the two committees above it; giving Sivaramakrishnan a vote hardly changes the power dynamic of the committee. And even if it did, the vote would hardly matter.

The cricket committee unanimously recommended the use of the DRS in all Tests in 2011. In 2013, we still don't have that. We may not have it for years. So why stack a board that you ignore quite easily? That already has, as its chairman, a BCCI official in Anil Kumble and another paid BCCI commentator in Ravi Shastri, as a media representative?

If it's not about votes on this fairly unimportant and easily ignored committee, what is it about?

Perhaps it is a play for power by some to control the message. May is independent of all boards. In his role at FICA, there is probably no board he has not annoyed. His job is to get the best deal for the players.

May speaks his mind at all times. His job is to call out these boards. His job is to do what is best for the players. He is no board lackey or stooge but his own man who believed so much in players having a unified voice that he created one for them.

What better way to embarrass this man, and FICA itself, than to have him ousted from his ICC role as the player's representative by the same players he works for.

With that in mind, I wonder if all international players of 2012 would have picked Sivaramakrishnan over May if they were allowed to vote in a completely anonymous fashion. Not that a vote like that would ever be allowed to happen, it's nothing more than a naïve utopian dream.

In cricket, the power is never with the people who play or pay, but always with the boards. It's not a democracy, it's a decadarchy.

Jarrod Kimber is 50% of the Two Chucks, and the mind responsible for cricketwithballs.com

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY BobFleming on | May 8, 2013, 2:39 GMT

    @TearChip - I think you might be missing the point about journalism here. Mr Kimber's role isn't just to state the dry facts, the site has other staff writers to do that. JK's role is to be an opinion writer, to spark or contribute to a wider debate. It's then up to you, the reader to form your own conclusions and oppose him if you feel you should (that's why comments are allowed). For me the best thing about this site it that it brings together a broad spectrum of opinion from across the globe. I think JK is highlighting the oddity of players not supporting someone who's day job is to support them. And question the agenda and influence of various boards. You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions, but lambasting an opinion writer for writing opinions seems churlish.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 2:38 GMT

    A very interesting article and one where there cannot be one answer or just one opinion really. From a player's perspective, it can be said that may be they didn't want their Union Rep who fights for them against the ICC and their respective boards to get involved in all the politics and keep him away from all the bureaucracy. Then one can also say that it is a political scheme from the BCCI to try & influence yet another committee in the ICC or may be even say it was because of the lack of effort from Tim May in the whole KP and Gayle issue with their respective boards. Either way, personally I am sick and tired of all the dramas with all the boards and the ICC. The game overall is doing pretty well, but I yet feel, there is a lot more that can be done by these Boards & especially the ICC to have more nations taking part in the game at a larger scale and having an effective systems in place to develop the youth & attract them towards the longer formats and towards the game as a whole

  • POSTED BY NotU on | May 13, 2013, 19:06 GMT

    @timohyj Do you even know who Tim May is?

    Tests 24 45 6577 2606 75 5/9 7/50 34.74 2.37 87.6 3 3 0

    ODIs 47 46 2504 1772 39 3/19 3/19 45.43 4.24 64.2 0 0 0

    First-class 142 35668 15721 439 7/93 35.81 2.64 81.2 19 2

    List A 83 4482 3030 82 4/9 4/9 36.95 4.05 54.6 2 0 0

  • POSTED BY timohyj on | May 10, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    The writer does make some valid points, but I think what should be looked at here is that it was an election for a spot on the committee which suggests new rules and changes for the game. Thus, I think a former player would be more qualified than a players union guy

  • POSTED BY octopus1 on | May 8, 2013, 20:45 GMT

    Get over it May. You've been voted out thorough a democratic system, stop crying like a 5 year old boy. Go and find a coaching job at a local school..... and good luck!

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 16:54 GMT

    This whole furore over the Cricket Committee election is ridiculous, firstly because we all know the CC has no real power anyway (look what happened to its recommendation that DRS be implemented universally, for example), secondly because anyone who fondly imagines that the international captains don't take direct orders from their boards anyway is fooling themselves, & thirdly because having *ex*-players as players' reps is absurd. Far better to have a couple of highly respected elder statesmen who are still active players instead. Sanga's an excellent choice. Personally, I'd go for Dhoni, Dan Vettori, Shakib-Al-Hasan or Graeme Smith as the second choice, but there are plenty of other excellent candidates available.

    @Meety: no point trying to debate on a rational basis with Harmony111, mate. Not to put too fine a point on it, the guy's about 35 sandwiches short of a picnic.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 8, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    @Meety:

    The whole world knew Pak was unsafe for touring, Only your Tim May did not know, no need for a crystal ball there. As FICA Head, Tim May FAILED to ensure safety of the players. That is a BIG BIG FAILURE. You want such a man on the panel? The CT got out of Pak not because of May but cos it was inevitable. And oh a big LOL for the way you attribute IPL's security to Tim May even when May has no relevance in IPL.

    I asked you what May did for Malinga's rehab & you are giving me the thing about payment. It was neither SLB nor May who did anything for Malinga. It is an IPL Franchise MI that helped Malinga at that time. You know nothing and yet talk as if you are wiki 2.0

    Both of your comments are feeble and full of attempts to misappropriate anything good for May. your reply regarding Hussey is empty and a re-post of all that you had said earlier.

    You have just now proven that May did NOTHING actually and your attempt to rip me got you ripped instead :-)

  • POSTED BY ramli on | May 8, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    Jumping to a conclusion that Siva will be ineffective is baseless ... if players wanted him, where is the objection? May may have good ideas but he has not delivered to the satisfaction of the players ... so players wanted a change ... let May continue to do the so called "good work" from outside ICC committee

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 8, 2013, 9:38 GMT

    @Meety: Typing a few words with no real sense does not quite make a rebuttal. Your attempt to rip apart my comments is a dud. Not only is it woefully inadequate it is also nothing new. Who does not know about player burnout, ppl have been talking about it since WC 96. What was novel about Tim May's so called ppt? Is that all he could do? Even a class 9th student would know about burnout. As for your so called explanation for May's role in Gayle & KP dispute what exactly did May achieve? Gayle lost out on quite a few matches and had to reach an agreement on his own. KP too had to apologize and missed that crucial 3rd test vs SA. Why did May not assert himself there as FICA Head? He ought to have said that Gayle was a pro and had the right to earn money as he felt like. Instead, Gayle had to toe WICB's line. As for KP, how can a private conv be the ground of non-selection? May was a total failure there Meety.

    I quite enjoyed your feeble attempt...hilarious. Want a 2nd try?

  • POSTED BY nvperumal on | May 8, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    The Indian cricket has been contributing more than any cricket playing nation in all forms of game. Any ICC event conducted in India has rich dividends to the game. Nowadays most of the international cricketers are playing in IPL. Many players have earned more than the fees paid by their Board. Even Boards receive a portion of players earnings from IPL. How can you expect players to go against BCCI. Even the four votes casted for May is due to the attachment and not for players welfare.

  • POSTED BY BobFleming on | May 8, 2013, 2:39 GMT

    @TearChip - I think you might be missing the point about journalism here. Mr Kimber's role isn't just to state the dry facts, the site has other staff writers to do that. JK's role is to be an opinion writer, to spark or contribute to a wider debate. It's then up to you, the reader to form your own conclusions and oppose him if you feel you should (that's why comments are allowed). For me the best thing about this site it that it brings together a broad spectrum of opinion from across the globe. I think JK is highlighting the oddity of players not supporting someone who's day job is to support them. And question the agenda and influence of various boards. You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions, but lambasting an opinion writer for writing opinions seems churlish.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 2:38 GMT

    A very interesting article and one where there cannot be one answer or just one opinion really. From a player's perspective, it can be said that may be they didn't want their Union Rep who fights for them against the ICC and their respective boards to get involved in all the politics and keep him away from all the bureaucracy. Then one can also say that it is a political scheme from the BCCI to try & influence yet another committee in the ICC or may be even say it was because of the lack of effort from Tim May in the whole KP and Gayle issue with their respective boards. Either way, personally I am sick and tired of all the dramas with all the boards and the ICC. The game overall is doing pretty well, but I yet feel, there is a lot more that can be done by these Boards & especially the ICC to have more nations taking part in the game at a larger scale and having an effective systems in place to develop the youth & attract them towards the longer formats and towards the game as a whole

  • POSTED BY NotU on | May 13, 2013, 19:06 GMT

    @timohyj Do you even know who Tim May is?

    Tests 24 45 6577 2606 75 5/9 7/50 34.74 2.37 87.6 3 3 0

    ODIs 47 46 2504 1772 39 3/19 3/19 45.43 4.24 64.2 0 0 0

    First-class 142 35668 15721 439 7/93 35.81 2.64 81.2 19 2

    List A 83 4482 3030 82 4/9 4/9 36.95 4.05 54.6 2 0 0

  • POSTED BY timohyj on | May 10, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    The writer does make some valid points, but I think what should be looked at here is that it was an election for a spot on the committee which suggests new rules and changes for the game. Thus, I think a former player would be more qualified than a players union guy

  • POSTED BY octopus1 on | May 8, 2013, 20:45 GMT

    Get over it May. You've been voted out thorough a democratic system, stop crying like a 5 year old boy. Go and find a coaching job at a local school..... and good luck!

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 16:54 GMT

    This whole furore over the Cricket Committee election is ridiculous, firstly because we all know the CC has no real power anyway (look what happened to its recommendation that DRS be implemented universally, for example), secondly because anyone who fondly imagines that the international captains don't take direct orders from their boards anyway is fooling themselves, & thirdly because having *ex*-players as players' reps is absurd. Far better to have a couple of highly respected elder statesmen who are still active players instead. Sanga's an excellent choice. Personally, I'd go for Dhoni, Dan Vettori, Shakib-Al-Hasan or Graeme Smith as the second choice, but there are plenty of other excellent candidates available.

    @Meety: no point trying to debate on a rational basis with Harmony111, mate. Not to put too fine a point on it, the guy's about 35 sandwiches short of a picnic.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 8, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    @Meety:

    The whole world knew Pak was unsafe for touring, Only your Tim May did not know, no need for a crystal ball there. As FICA Head, Tim May FAILED to ensure safety of the players. That is a BIG BIG FAILURE. You want such a man on the panel? The CT got out of Pak not because of May but cos it was inevitable. And oh a big LOL for the way you attribute IPL's security to Tim May even when May has no relevance in IPL.

    I asked you what May did for Malinga's rehab & you are giving me the thing about payment. It was neither SLB nor May who did anything for Malinga. It is an IPL Franchise MI that helped Malinga at that time. You know nothing and yet talk as if you are wiki 2.0

    Both of your comments are feeble and full of attempts to misappropriate anything good for May. your reply regarding Hussey is empty and a re-post of all that you had said earlier.

    You have just now proven that May did NOTHING actually and your attempt to rip me got you ripped instead :-)

  • POSTED BY ramli on | May 8, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    Jumping to a conclusion that Siva will be ineffective is baseless ... if players wanted him, where is the objection? May may have good ideas but he has not delivered to the satisfaction of the players ... so players wanted a change ... let May continue to do the so called "good work" from outside ICC committee

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 8, 2013, 9:38 GMT

    @Meety: Typing a few words with no real sense does not quite make a rebuttal. Your attempt to rip apart my comments is a dud. Not only is it woefully inadequate it is also nothing new. Who does not know about player burnout, ppl have been talking about it since WC 96. What was novel about Tim May's so called ppt? Is that all he could do? Even a class 9th student would know about burnout. As for your so called explanation for May's role in Gayle & KP dispute what exactly did May achieve? Gayle lost out on quite a few matches and had to reach an agreement on his own. KP too had to apologize and missed that crucial 3rd test vs SA. Why did May not assert himself there as FICA Head? He ought to have said that Gayle was a pro and had the right to earn money as he felt like. Instead, Gayle had to toe WICB's line. As for KP, how can a private conv be the ground of non-selection? May was a total failure there Meety.

    I quite enjoyed your feeble attempt...hilarious. Want a 2nd try?

  • POSTED BY nvperumal on | May 8, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    The Indian cricket has been contributing more than any cricket playing nation in all forms of game. Any ICC event conducted in India has rich dividends to the game. Nowadays most of the international cricketers are playing in IPL. Many players have earned more than the fees paid by their Board. Even Boards receive a portion of players earnings from IPL. How can you expect players to go against BCCI. Even the four votes casted for May is due to the attachment and not for players welfare.

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 9:05 GMT

    though i would not like to Siva to be included. reason simply that in small committee you have already 2 from india and offcourse both still BCCI employees Kumble & Ravi.

    But having said, i would also like to say that the voting system doesnt work like who is best. in voting system people vote who they want to vote. it can be personal favroutes or personal mindset.

    What i didnt liked is the thinking that democracy is good until it gets us vote but if it goes to other's way, its not good blah blah.

  • POSTED BY Sunjay007 on | May 8, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    What is the big deal here? Since Kerry Packer, the plight of the cricket players has improved tremendously, unlike some HOCKEY OLYMPIANs in India who have been spotted begging in trains or selling their GOLD MEDALs for petty amount. If anything, the players have become TOO greedy and demanding, forgetting the reason they took up the game in the first place! and if cricket is a business and players are 'professionals' then why blame ICC or BCCI?

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    Hey, its May 2012 and we are debating May, may I ask why ?

  • POSTED BY getsetgopk on | May 8, 2013, 6:44 GMT

    Anyone please tell me, why would Misbah vote for someone that says that the earth will collide with the moon if anyone entered Pakistan to play a cricket match? As far as I know, May never came to Pak to assess the security plan the PCB was offering and thus im forced to say that May's comments were one eyed and biased towards Pakistan and im not happy that a BCCI backed guy got elected but rather more glad May got out.

  • POSTED BY StevieS on | May 8, 2013, 5:29 GMT

    Doesn't May know that like politicians you should never tell it like it is and always lie to please the votes? What he should of said is the IPL is the greatest competition in the worlds, Pakistan is a safe place to visit and the BPL is a very important tournament which is just having teething problems.

  • POSTED BY farkin on | May 8, 2013, 4:55 GMT

    only time will tell on this if its good or bad . if they believe there was some thing wrong in the voting let the icc look into it

  • POSTED BY sachin_vvsfan on | May 8, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    What US is to UN , BCCI is to ICC :) Lobbying or Armtwisting depends on what others perceive. But May should have seen this coming. He was too vocal in everything (and whats the need of preparing a questionnaire about BCCI's role and publishing the results. We all know that BCCI has indirect control on ICC and there was no need to go out in public. Same with IPL franchises. He should not have gone public about the delay in payments. It is not as if the players payments were delayed for years.Surely there are better diplomatic ways??.

    Given all the indifferences he had with IPL,SPL,BPL,PAK(security), ZIM(regime)I think BCCI did not really need to do much arm twisting on other boards(Only WI??). I am just curious to know if he had been vocal against his own Aus/Eng boards for any problems related to BPL/county. And what has he done for that 10% players fee payments from IPL to resp boards. Again he was only vocal.

    That said lets wait and see how LS performs and as for May, move on.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | May 8, 2013, 4:04 GMT

    @Harmony111 on (May 7, 2013, 9:29 GMT) " I can rip apart everything what the author said for Tim May here." - having seen your comments before I knew that I was in for a laugh. Let me "rip apart" your comments. "What did he do in the KP, Gayle & Mickey's Presentation issues?" In March 2006, May was warning the ICC about player burnout & the problems with the soon to be ratified FTP. In June 2012 May represented FICA in the WICB v WIPA dispute. The KP dispute was primarily a disciplinary issue (remember the txt messages - LOL). "Remember attacks on SL Team in Pak?" - thanks, you cracked me up on this one! The attack occurred in May 2009. Pakistan was due to hold the Champ Trophy later that year, as May doesn't possess a crystal ball & is not an employee of the CIA, it is fair to say that he couldn't forsee terrorism inflicted on a SL bus in Lahore. He did get the Champ Trophy changed though. Without May's involvement - security at the IPL might be non-existent. Pls publish #2!

  • POSTED BY JohnnyRook on | May 8, 2013, 3:49 GMT

    The sense of entitlement of Tim May and his supporters is truely baffling. The fact of matter is that he is representative of players from four countries and those four voted for him. The reamaining six don't get anything from him or don't need anything from him. So they didn't vote for him. AS simple as that really.

  • POSTED BY caught_knott_bowled_old on | May 8, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    This is NOT responsible/balanced journalism from Kimber. It smacks of prejudice and partisanship against Sivaramakrishnan. We don't know what the players' real issues are, and this article has shed no further light on the subjectl. Perhaps the number one issue on most players' minds is to play in the IPL, but they can only do so if their cricket boards give them permission. Every cricket board has monopoly control over their players, which severely impacts their ability to negotiate a better wage or work condition for themselves. And when players like Gayle, KP, Malinga express their desire, they're admonished. Perhaps, players were tired of FICA's ineffectiveness and truly wanted a change. Kimber's article does no justice to the players' position. Instead, he's highlighted stupid details like the font size on an announcement!! Poor article, that's been written only to undermine and attack Sivaramakrishnan.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | May 8, 2013, 1:16 GMT

    @Harmony111 on (May 7, 2013, 9:29 GMT) (CONTINUED) "What did he do for Malinga when he was injured and felth abandoned by his home board?" For starters, there is pressure on the SL Board to enure that payments are made on time, secondly, by having the SLCA - negotiations for a better minimum standard is achieved. In countries where their player associations are involved in negotiations, contracted players have their contracts honoured even if injured. "Did Tim May do anything to help Hussey feel secure enough" - another classic - LOL! It is Hussey's individual right as to when he announces his retirement. Hussey is VERY secure with the increased piece of the pie that May negotiated with Cric Oz, he is VERY secure in the knowledge that he didn't have to tour Pakistan or Zimbabwe during security crises. He is VERY secure in the knowledge that May/FICA investigated security concerns in India & the IPL. So yes he did a lot to help Hussey feel secure!

  • POSTED BY Davo234 on | May 8, 2013, 0:46 GMT

    why do so many Indians feel compelled to stick up for the BCCI? Sure, sometimes it gets unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff, and I reckon if the MCC generated the same levels of cash flow it'd start looking a lot more like a company too in some ways. But to think they get everything right is plain ridiculous - they appointed Ravi Shastri a commentator for christsakes!!

    Agree with ChrisP here. Great choice of feature comment too - I think we can all agree on that one!

  • POSTED BY big.apple on | May 8, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    @TearChip: have you read the article before commenting, or just the title? If you dont know Tim May's contribution to the game, read the article and find out. Sivaramkrishnan is a mediocre, if not poor commentator and ex cricketer. On the objective face of the situation, I would want someone with a track record of sticking his neck up for the players to be on the committee, to make sure the players' voice is heard. I would like someone to point out what, in the article, is so biased..

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 22:04 GMT

    @venkatesh018. The person who was proposed by the BCCI is NOT the issue here. it is the process of election that is being questioned. The initial vote of the test captains voted for May, then after demanding a re vote, the captains were pressured by their boards to vote for the BCCI nominated person. Now if the captains had voted for Siva over May initially without board interference, no issue. That is democracy, that is what the players would have wanted, rightly or wrong in our eyes, but the democratic process was compromised.

  • POSTED BY TearChip on | May 7, 2013, 21:08 GMT

    Mr Jarrod, the views presented are you personal feelings which are biased what ever might be the reason. I do not know what did you see so great in TIM MAY (he might be a good guy i donno) being an avid cricket follower, i cant recollect the so called greater good that TIM did over the years.

    I too hate LS (Sorry to say) too but i dont see why he doesnt fit the new role. Whats wrong if he is elected, give the guy a chance and see what he can do before take the pain of writing such a big useless biased article.

    My advice for you jarrod, dont look at an event(issue) one dimensionally, think in different perspectives and then apply your knowledge on getting to a conclusion.

  • POSTED BY Srinino1 on | May 7, 2013, 19:44 GMT

    Tim May has been in the committee for long. He still represents FICA though and can continue his work. Lets see what Siva can do. How can Jarrod Kimber assume that captains did not vote for May just because he questioned their board? Clarke or Cook or Smith or their boards may have something against May too. Jarrod, learn to accept change and also learn to accept that Aus and Eng ruled ICC for long and now dont have the same power!

  • POSTED BY Sourirajan on | May 7, 2013, 19:15 GMT

    Tim May is not an elected representative of players. He ended up being appointed as a full-time CEO of FICA in 2005. It is not a position that is democratically chosen by the players or cricketing boards. People who are complaining about BCCI need to take a step back and think why BCCI is suddenly able to influence Cricket in general over the past decade. The reason is pretty simple. Economics! BCCI has the viewer base which none of the other Cricketing boards can match. 15-20 years ago the Australian and the English board had much influence and the other boards were easily influenced. Today, It doesn't take much for the other boards to line-up their thinking in line with BCCI's thought process. The other boards and players have a choice. Not saying what BCCI is doing right. But this is how ICC governance has been since their inception. As far as understanding the hardships of players, Siva is much more qualified because he played under terrible conditions than Tim May ever did.

  • POSTED BY ThunderTon on | May 7, 2013, 15:26 GMT

    By registering as a candidate for the election, May has agreed to subject himself to a political process. It is not fair now to complain that politics is unfair. It is the nature of the beast. a good politician should suck-it-up and try to comeback stronger as a more appropriate candidate. May should see what he can do to be better accepted by the asian players - i.e.: understand what issues are close to their hearts, what are the risks in their development etc.

    I think Siva is a good candidate to represent the indian players, because he was a victim - in that he could not handle the fame and money at a young age. He can be a great resource to help young indian players in understanding the importance of not letting the fame and riches to get to their head.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 15:25 GMT

    Without wishing to become entangled in the absolute, relative, real or potential merits of either candidate, and without levelling any direct criticism at the decision, it is a little disheartening to see the sheer volume of comments which assert a moral right to exploit power, in the name of "fairness". This dubious fairness seems more a balance of payments for wrongs visited, than the best interests of the game, surely? An eye for an eye, and all that?

  • POSTED BY manohard on | May 7, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Well on the flip side Mr. Kimber. May represents players from 4 countries and what about players from rest of the 6 countries. Just because May formed an association doesn't mean he gets to be in the committee forever. At the end of the day it's the majority choice that elected LS. Now you really can't prove boards influence on the process at the end of the day these votes are cast by captains and not boards and I don't think captains would really come out and say board influenced them to do it.

    Just accept the change Mr. Kimber and go with it. The whole premise of BCCI being bad boy in this is not proven fact. Please don't push your assumptions as facts.

  • POSTED BY DesiDowunder on | May 7, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    I totally agree that there was powerplay here and it has been for a long time now. But then that is life.... ICC is akin to UN & BCCI is akin to the US...., the US can veto anything annoying all of the numerous countries who might support a cause that they perceive as righteous but then does the US care....nope, it is the superpower that can override, disregard anyone at anytime just to serve its own purpose.... it is a fact of life. Please accept it and move on. These things will continue to happen.

  • POSTED BY Master_Mihil on | May 7, 2013, 12:52 GMT

    I'm very surprised Srilankan players didn't vote for it. But rather it's not surprising at all. From above article i assume vote has not been a secret one. So how could Srilanka vote for may when India is putting sivaramakrishnan? ICC should have known that the vote will be fixed by cricketing boards. I don't think mathews voted true to his conscience. It wasn't that long ago he and others had a major falling out with the cricketing board. And year ago they were not paid for a whole year. Whatever happens cash strapped SLC will always take india's side. And they will make others to go along that path.

  • POSTED BY heat-seeker on | May 7, 2013, 12:32 GMT

    Would have been nice to know some of the things May has achieved for players of the WI, Pakistan, SL, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. Why does he feel entitled to their vote? Frankly, it all seems like politics to me... from FICA as well as the boards.

  • POSTED BY Avid.Cricket.Watcher on | May 7, 2013, 12:28 GMT

    The ICC absolutely need to respond to the allegations being made by May's camp. However, Jarrod, your piece is extremely one-sided. You don't even mention in passing that Sivaramkrishnan has been an ex-international player and also a cricket coach for several years (working with young cricketers, especially spinners). You make it sound as if he's just a broadcaster like Harsha Bhogle or James Brayshaw.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    Hey, Kimber, remember the following that you wrote in a previous aritical, "If you don't like ESPNcricinfo because of Walt Disney, or you find the Guardian's cricket coverage too bleeding-heart liberal, there is always another cricket website or newspaper for you to go to." Well, I from today will choose another cricket website after reading your biased piece above in favour of your mate MAY. GOODBYE ESPNcricinfo.

  • POSTED BY loonykiwirocker on | May 7, 2013, 10:05 GMT

    @Harmony111 - spot on mate. Kimber has tried his best to write about all the perceived virtues of May, whilst referring to LS as just a commentator. A very subjective and one dimensional article. I'm no great fan of LS, but give the elected guy a chance. He might turn out to be better than May for all you know.

  • POSTED BY satishchandar on | May 7, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    Is Siva a dancer? A fighter? A actor? A politician? No.. Another cricketer.. Tim May, a cricketer is replaced by Siva, a cricketer.. As simple as that.. No reasons to mourn on it.. Just because May was in the committee for years, it will not become his birth right to be there forever.. Even that is not democracy..

    All we need to worry is, how is Siva going to make any difference to the current functioning.. As a neutral, i frankly didn't notice May anywhere apart from the SLPL and BPL payment issues which even the players are speaking of.. Was his job just to let the media know that players were not paid? The players can do it without any association..

  • POSTED BY satishchandar on | May 7, 2013, 9:31 GMT

    Players chose their committee.. Yes it is good in a 'dream' world.. Ok.. May should be a member as per England, Australia and South African players.. Is it captain alone or players? Are they asking each and every contracted player from each board to come and vote? NO.. It is just captain.. His vote echos the team or his OWN opinion? Or, the boards? If it is players, then it is the same as controlled by the board.. If it is his sole opinion, it should be a captain's association and not players association..

    Whatever it may be, even if many feel May did a wonderful job(which none knows), he did a great job and lets move to a new territory now.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 7, 2013, 9:30 GMT

    I am waiting for the day when this ridiculous rule DRS would be banned from cricket and BCCI is 'granted' a veto power for every decision icc takes. BCCI can't do worse than the previous 'masters', even if they tried.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 7, 2013, 9:29 GMT

    @Jassim Ahmed: I can rip apart everything what the author said for Tim May here.

    1. "Since 1997, he has fought for player rights with cricket boards." --- What did he do in the KP, Gayle & Mickey's Presentation issues? 2. "He has pushed for better security." --- Remember attacks on SL Team in Pak? 3. "He has been involved with care programmes for cricketers with emotional problems." --- What did he do for Malinga when he was injured and felth abandoned by his home board? Did Tim May do anything to help Hussey feel secure enough? Hussey was so insecure he chose to keep quiet about his retirement till the very end.

    Players of T20 leagues are often accused of being mercenaries and Tim May has done nothing to remove that feeling by talking only about money and payments all the time. Union are for facilitation and not for obstruction. Tim May tends to obstruct and obscure, nothing else.

    Siva is a former cricketer, author omitted that to make him look like a straw man.

  • POSTED BY BillyBeer on | May 7, 2013, 9:21 GMT

    You know what...the BCCI decided that it does not want a union leader on this elite committee.....so goodbye Mr.May.And why is he there on the commiittee anyways....he represents some players from 5 nations.....so??what has Tim May achieved thus far??Like many nations May too feels DRS should be used...its just a view..just coz the BCCI does not agree does not make it a villain...and why is Siva a lesser individual than Tim May??Did I hear Mr.Kimber say Siva is a mere commentator hence lower in the pecking order ....and what has May achieved ..support for players with emotional problems..what a joke....and what would May achieve being on the ICC??Nothing so far..nothing in the future..

  • POSTED BY srijan_ss7 on | May 7, 2013, 8:40 GMT

    This entire hue and cry is about the shift of power..plain and simple. Yes I said it. 20 years ago sub continental power was non-existent and the same "bullying" and "arm-twisting" as they call it was being practiced by different boards. But now the tables have turned. The cricket center has changed and that is why the ex-seats of power are whining. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to see the dynamics here. The student has become the master, and the master is crying about it. So stop finding controversy in everything and focus on cricket, not board rooms.

  • POSTED BY Only_Vimal on | May 7, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    When you are representing the players, negotiations cannot just be about hitting out at the boards. Its important to understand what is your power in the negotiation and act accordingly to try and get the best out of it. This doesn't mean u have to be biased towards the boards but when you have lesser power in a negotiation, u collaborate and don't aggravate. And from what Mr. Kimber says, May seems to have failed in this. I don't know whether Sivaramakrishnan is the right choice, but just because May formed the players union is no reason for him to continue for ever. And Iam surprised that it took Mr. Kimber so long to find out that cricket is not a democracy. Its always been like that, my friend, and I don't see it changing very soon!

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | May 7, 2013, 8:16 GMT

    "Cricket and politics go hand in hand in India my friend."

    Oh, c'mon. Perhaps you forget how an Aussi ex-PM tried to get into the ICC! And how a similar article such as this one came up in cricinfo extolling the ex-PM while casting aspersions at the BCCI. Nothing changes. The bias remains in the writing and in the "old worldl cricketing establishment" that only wants to project and protect certain views to shape a certain opinion (slanted). (By the way, I didn't read the comments of this article before I posted 2 comments, of which cricinfo has put up only one thus far. This is my 3rd comment. ) *Sigh*.

  • POSTED BY TenaliRaman on | May 7, 2013, 8:12 GMT

    The author seems to be alleging that since Laxman Sivaramakrishnan is a BCCI commentator, he has no right to be in the ICC. The entire article smacks of racism and a case of Sour Grapes. Jarrod Kimber is making a big issue out of nothing.

    Mr. Kimber - Whether you like it or not, BCCI is the new power center of cricket. It is not going to change irrespective of how many times you paint them as a villian. Read the history of ICC and you will know that the English and the Australian boards exerted the same kind of influence on the ICC when they were on top. In a few years hence, there will be some other board which will become powerful. Accept it and move on....

  • POSTED BY venkatesh018 on | May 7, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    If BCCI had chosen a person of integrity and intellect like Rahul Dravid instead of Sivaramakrishnan, then Tim May's absence wouldn't have created such a furore.

  • POSTED BY muski on | May 7, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    Jarrod- As an Indian I dont like the power plays of BCCI. However, I have tried hard to understand what you were trying to say- but was not successful at it. If all the Test Captains have been told by their boards to vote for Shiva, there must be something that the boards see in Shiva which they could not seen in May- even if it means BCCI's moolah. Cricket and politics go hand in hand in India my friend. That has only gotten stronger with the big bucks which the IPL brings to the BCCI's table. This is here to stay- whether we like it or not and these power plays will only get murkier like this in the future. Next Casualty- Dave Richardson!!!

  • POSTED BY kaxhif on | May 7, 2013, 7:26 GMT

    it seems like people have taken Sivaramakrishnan appointment wrongly, the article is creating a prejudice like Tim May was "removed" from a so deserving position by some orchestrated acts, and in the repercussion the appointment itself goes in the background. So if May had been so important and useful why the players would have preferred to leave him, imo he's been making the noise and keeping himself in the limelight without actually working and making an impact on the cricketing scene. He's been a critique of the leagues but if it was so good for the players why would these leageues be flourishing and the participation of the players so overwhelming. Thought to some extent Sivaramakrishnan appointment can be termed bias, but let us welcome him aboard and do not preclude his appointment with exaggerated conspiracies. Let us give him some time and then rate him and judge him by the performance and impact he creates.

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | May 7, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    "Tim May is more than a CEO"... "Sangakkara is stately and respected"...."Laxman Sivaramakrishnan is a BCCI contracted commentator"........... I request the people reading the article to take note of the way the writer puts down Laxman while creating a stature for the others. Nowhere does the writer mention that Laxman was also a player (probably more talented than Tim May). Quite deliberately so. He also makes it appear that Laxman has a direct hot-line to the BCCI head and as if the BCCI head is given to establishing hot-lines with various people. That's a red herring argument aimed at maligning the BCCI head without cause or reason, through a baseless insinuation. This article is a show-piece of the open prejudice that gets practiced and promulgated by the "UK-Aus-NZ" establishment through such plants in the media. Congratulations for being found out!

  • POSTED BY thinkgood on | May 7, 2013, 6:57 GMT

    Jarrosd Kimber's articles are always one sided and biased against sub-continental advantages in ICC or otherwise. I am sure someday he will understand that true meaning of democracy. May be subcontinental cricket is not as organized as its in Oz or Eng or SA , but we are definitively the pay masters. May forgot that....

  • POSTED BY Mitcher on | May 7, 2013, 6:55 GMT

    @maddy20: In fairness, I think it's pretty obvious you were the only person who made the players' respective averages an issue. You quoted, test stats and people have simply pointed out the absurd irrelevance of these figures, as well as the fact you didn't do your research.

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | May 7, 2013, 6:51 GMT

    Let's understand this clearly. Tim May is a Union man. He represents unions' interests and voices in the UK, Aus, NZ, SA. The establishment in these countries typically, should have been "tired" of Tim, but they voted for him. BCCI has no axe to grind with Tim. The Indians don't have a Union. The BCCI cannot be labelled "the establishment" who wanted to throw out the "union" man. They don't have an axe to grind, whichever one sees it. So, let's stop this practice of painting BCCI a villain and demonizing it. There's nothing wrong in BCCI nominating a person whom they feel comfortable and lobbying for it. Aus, Eng, NZ have done it all these decades in cricket as well as in politics. So, let's stop this practice of crying out loud just because the other countries also do it. Time to grow up.

  • POSTED BY vishnuas on | May 7, 2013, 6:37 GMT

    First of all, there is no issues between the players and the boards. In most of the test playing nations, they are a happy couple. On what interests should the captains vote for May? The captains are zero percent concerned about who gets into the committee. Hence it gets down to board games. On the contrary, the moment the captains choose a third party(who promises to stand between the players and the boards) things will start getting dirty, and will no more will they remain a happy couple.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 6:37 GMT

    Well articulated this is, in my own subjective opinion; there are more than 10 captains doing the rounds, and test cricket one of the 3 formats of current day. This being one of the many dark sides of the game, with May paying the price. All roads lead to the BCCI...

  • POSTED BY Harlequin. on | May 7, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    @ChrisP, right there with you mate - just cant be bothered arguing! Except to say that the point of the article seems to have been missed, which is that because boards rather than the players are choosing the members of this committee, its not really a democracy. And we have all seen how easily boards can be swayed...

  • POSTED BY Harlequin. on | May 7, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    @ChrisP, right there with you mate - just cant be bothered arguing! Except to say that the point of the article seems to have been missed, which is that because boards rather than the players are choosing the members of this committee, its not really a democracy. And we have all seen how easily boards can be swayed...

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    Crying after loosing is nothing new. I cant believe cricinfo allowes such writings in which so much assumption are present.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 6:09 GMT

    @ Shankar Somayajula. It;s obvious you're not a player, because the real players that is, the people you like to watch PREFER Tim May. What does that say to you, seriously? You think you know what the players prefer better than themselves?

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 6:05 GMT

    For those who who still think this was all above board, perhaps you would like to read the article from FICA on the cricinfo website. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/634439.html. If the professional cricketers cannot be properly represented, what chance that our great game will continue to grow. Almost makes me want to stop playing, although I won't.

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | May 7, 2013, 6:01 GMT

    @ GD Barleycorn The likes of you have conveniently ignored his Limited overs stats and his FC credentials as an allrounder. Real sad!

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 5:50 GMT

    @Michael Langley. At the risk of repeating myself, again, Tony Irish, The head of South Africa's players' union who is also on the Federation of International Cricketers Associations, said "initial voting for the post by the 10 Test captains had overwhelmingly chosen former Australian Test spinner May, who has been a long-term senior players' advocate. However a re-vote was called and, after lobbying by Indian interests". So, apparently, the people who matter, i.e. the cricketers, don't get to exercise their votes at all. If the test captains voted for whoever without board interference, fine, but this was not the case. That is my perspective, not whether it is May, Siva, Gooch, Murali, Akram or whoever, the basic democratic right of the players was compromised by other interests.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 7, 2013, 5:36 GMT

    It's a shame that cricinfo which moderates even remotely biased comments has allowed this highly partial and unbelievably biased article to be published. I don't know if the author has conveniently failed to mention that Siva has been a former international cricketer and respected domestic player in India. What has Tim May done for sub-continent teams? What has he done to solve Gayle-saga with WICB when west Indies team was in dire straits? He may have represented Eng, Aus, NZ and SA well and hence he received votes from them. The remaining 6 might have felt the need for a fresh face and voted for Siva. It's as fair as it can get. "There is talk, of course that BCCI blah blah..." is such a hogwash it makes me laugh. It's no better than PCB chairman foolishly commenting "There is talk in betting circles that eng may have been involved..." during spot-fixing scandal. Did the author ask every captain who voted for Siva if BCCI asked them to do it? BlameBCCI articles have become too boring

  • POSTED BY Halfspinner on | May 7, 2013, 5:36 GMT

    Jarrod, I admire May for his work establishing FICA; but at stake here is the Cricket Committee. I just counted. There are still 11 members from the Old Boys Network (OBN), and only 5 from the rest of the world, amongst whom are Sanga and Siva. Would you rather have a distribution of 12-4, especially given the state of international cricket? I am sure we both wish it were different, but the fact is that for all the BCCI bashing, there is a heck of lot of dirty politics played by the OBN too, not to mention snide underhand comments about Indians and the BCCI. I'd say that the real tragedy is that neither you nor some of the others who started this controversy lament the fact that we have a 11-5 asymmetry in the composition of the committee today, in the 21st Century! Fairness and democracy are not just about where you stand in respect to BCCI or the IPL or the DRS. Please show a willingness to accept differences in point of view, and negotiate with respect.

  • POSTED BY sandy_bangalore on | May 7, 2013, 5:26 GMT

    As an Indian cricket viewer, I am very very happy about this decision. For the simple ethat I dont have to endure Sivaramakrishnan for long in commentary booth. Now if they can make Ravi shastri, morison and rameez raja some honorary members of the ICC, it would be great as well. Not to forget Mbangwa(bowling average : 70 plus!)

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 5:17 GMT

    That's the beauty of democracy. You are an elite who thinks May is better than LS. But the only people who matter are the ones who exercised their votes.

    This article simply proves that you don't like democracy when the results don't go the way you want it to go.

  • POSTED BY vswami on | May 7, 2013, 5:14 GMT

    Where is this notion coming from that all players want May ? May is not liked by all Asian boards due to well documented run ins. Democracy means Australia and England get exactly one vote like India and Pakistan. Siva is a commentator now. He was a test player, like many of the ex-players on the committee and he was the biggest prodigy produced by Indian cricket before Sachin. Just that his career tapered off after a few years.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 5:09 GMT

    @the_blue_android, Further to that statement, it was also reported, "Irish claims some of the smaller Test nations were pressured into changing their vote and FICA would lodge a written protest with the ICC about the intervention. ''It's a sad day for the governance of cricket when players aren't allowed to freely elect their representatives,'' he said. ''Cricket is a global game and the decisions that are made should be global decisions for the benefit of the global game, not for the benefit of one country, whichever country that is.'' So let me repeat again, the majority of test captains, representing their players preferred Tim May who was there as the players representative, not serving any board. Kimber's article is spot on!

  • POSTED BY the_blue_android on | May 7, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    @ Chris_P - Repeating a false statement 10 times does not make it correct. Why do you keep saying majority of test captains wanted May? There are 10 test playing nations. 4 selected May and other 6 chose LS. Aus,NZ,SA and England DO NOT get 2 votes each. Each country gets only 1 vote and 6 is a larger number than 4. Case closed. Stop this whinging and go on with the way the real world works. This isn't 1950s anymore where the entire sport runs as per 2 teams whims and fancies.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:19 GMT

    Democracy is a always a facade . You are directly assuming that each member nation has the same amount of resources and hence can exert the same influence. Has never been in the case in politics. This is no different to politics in any other walk of life, its the dark side of democracy. However, the author explicitly implies that there is a conflict of interest with the appointment of Siva. Thats a very strong statement to make without having any proof. His article eulogises May and empathises with him on losing his post. So shouldnt the article be titled "Tim May's achievements " or something along those lines ? Thats why I believe there are plenty of negative comments about this article

    I expect Jrod to be a better writer than this, as I have a lot respect for him as a journalist.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:12 GMT

    I wrote my comment without reading the previous ones as my system was taking too long to load & was not showing any comments. Just went through all of them. No disrespect meant to anyone, but this is one of the things that i have noticed in the past few years & seen it rising quite a bit in cricket which i cannot stand. Yes i am talking about the whole racial perspective. In regards to the convo going on right now, it was a sad attempt to slash out like that on ECB taking players from other countries. It is a player's choice and if meets the criteria and is good enough to play for the nation I do not see anything wrong. All teams have had such cases, with Robin Singh, who was from the West Indies, Gudjohnson, Aussie who played for Zimbabwe, etc. Asian VS Non Asian, Indian VS Australian and so on,it is fine to support your team, hell I support my team, but i find it ridiculous just slashing out in public going against other nations when you speak about a fine game which is CRICKET

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    So again...what is the point of this article? If you were a Misbah or a Dhoni or an Angle Mathews...you'd have voted for some unknown Tim May who has not been in your good books? Seriously? Democracy has its merits and pitfalls...this certainly isn't a drawback unless you are whinging about an Asian guy getting elected over an Aussie or an English. Wise man...think over again.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 3:04 GMT

    OK Harmony111 , you accuse Kimber of stereotyping and not giving enough respect to Siva but what has he done to be a nominee in the first place ? Tim May appears to have a done job in that role so if he is going to be in a an election race it should be with someone with equal achievements , no ?. I dont care if he is indian or swedish his credentials are what matters . How best is he suited for the role , what does his CV look like and Kimber merely points out that. Siva is a commentator!

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 2:30 GMT

    @Harmony111 . Try looking at this without your blinkers. The majority, that is most, of the test captains wanted May. Why? Maybe due to the fact they & their players felt that May represents them to satisfaction. Now when boards get involved for their own interests (sometimes against players) and coerce decision making where does that leave the democratic right of the players? A shameful episode overall. Players, again, get the rough end of the pineapple. Agree with jmcilhinney, these players were mature individuals who had every right to elect to choose their own destiny. Not one occasion, not once, has England or any other country "took players form other nations". What kind of post without any thought was that?

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 1:19 GMT

    @maddy20 . Wow, what an argument from the logically challenged. Going on player test stats while failing to even look at the other player's efforts!. That was gold, had the best laugh for a long time!

  • POSTED BY Lees_Legends on | May 7, 2013, 0:52 GMT

    A lot of people turning this into a Asian v Non-Asian argument, when it really should be a Player's Union Boss v Commentator argument.

  • POSTED BY NBZ1 on | May 6, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    Jarrod, does FICA represent all the players in the world, or just players from a few select countries? May's role in FICA might certainly benefit players who are from FICA, but does he have a track record of representing non-FICA players as well? And if not, why do captains from non-FICA countries have any moral obligation to vote for him?

  • POSTED BY Trickstar on | May 6, 2013, 23:06 GMT

    @ThyrSaadam Wrong, FICA represents Eng, Aus, SA, NZ, SL, WI & Bangladesh players. It has Jimmy Adams, the former WI player as it's president along with representatives of all the other nations involved. India & Pakistan choose to not even recognize it for their own reasons. So to address the underlying issue, check you're facts before making comments. Maybe some people should have a read of one of the FICA's mission statements, it's very good.

    'FICA aims to bring together all of the world's cricketers, regardless of nationality, religion, political persuasion or race under an international body which focuses on matters that directly or indirectly affect players.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 23:05 GMT

    good stand taken by Asian block imo

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 22:26 GMT

    Tim May should continue working for the 4 countries he has been always working for because here we are looking at someone who can also care about the other 6.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 21:25 GMT

    This has been an election by all the top 10 international team captains. Im sure they are in a better position to choose who they want to as they are the players at present. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think whats been said about BCCI about its influence and domination of ICC is very right. I agree it has to be stopped. But saying electing someone other than Tim May is wrong is rubbish and simply shows nothing but an Aussie supporting his fellow countrymen. Tim May has been managing the FICA since 2005 and why cant he be changed for a good reasons. And for reasons known to players (or captains) and not directly to us. I have been an ardent fan of Jarrod Kimber, i love his wittiness and quirky news-feeds. This one has disappointed me thoroughly. It doesn't portray an impartial argument.

  • POSTED BY CaptainKool on | May 6, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    LS is a team guy. He will take all decisions by consulting committee members and that's good. Guys wake up from slumber and cheer this guy! He is an honest person.

  • POSTED BY UglyIndian on | May 6, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    Expect more arbitrary nature of decision making, and ugly arm twisting. I am so glad I switched to football. Goodbye cricket -I'll remember you. It was great while it lasted. Its incredible to have a country that still runs like a banana republic rule the roost of international cricket. Cricket shall die, a painful death.

  • POSTED BY Homer2007 on | May 6, 2013, 21:19 GMT

    Neil Manthrop's article, which got the ball rolling on this controversy, suggested that May won the vote by a margin of 9-1, which then got the BCCI involved. His article further suggested that following the BCCI's involvement, the vote was deadlocked at 5 apiece. Elsewhere on this website, it has been suggested that Siva beat May by a count of 6-4. This begs the question - how does an apparently secret ballot cease being a secret? And why are voting patterns made public in what is a secret vote? And why arent the worthies at the ICC asked this question - surely Dave Richardson and Allan Issac should have the answers, right? Also, regarding FICA, its remit extends only to those players associations that are affiliated to it. So, in case of a player or player association not affiliated with FICA, the FICA takes no sides, or positions on the matter. So much for player representation then!

  • POSTED BY infotech4 on | May 6, 2013, 21:17 GMT

    I dont understand where is the concern. If he is the CEO of FICA he can still fight for the players right in his position as CEO. It seems that he lost his position in the democratic process & should accept that and move on. Was it not the same process that elected his prior to this? why there was no cry when he wins & all other issues are brought out when someone else wins?

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    Looks like if a representation comes from an Asian nation irks the author. It also keeps me to believe if the representation had came from non-Asian country, then there is no point to have this article. I am not here to anything about May, who done a wonderful job. Instead of keeping a person for a long, its better to give a chance to others. One way the above author tells that the captains doesn't have a say, but the boards - so it's of no point blaming (that too only asian captains, BCCI and its chairman) at this scenario. Also the author talks about paid commentator and paid captains, then in the same line the above looks like paid article to me!! You can put your points, but in a constructive and effective way instead of blaming or satisfy someone!!

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 6, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    I see so many fallacies in this article that I am confused where to start. Does the author know that Siva is a former Intl cricketer? He ought to.

    The author took 8 lines to describe Tim May and finished Siva's desc in one line flat by saying that he is contracted by BCCI. Ah the double fallacy of using guilt by association fallacy over the fallacy of stereotyping.

    Not only is this article heavily biased (that in itself is ok-ish) but it seems to make several baseless assumptions about both May and Siva. The condescending attitude against Siva is clear here. The author is guilty of walking on a slippery slope while writing this article and unashamedly suggests that things done by one side are always Honest, Unbiased, Fair and for the benefit of the game while the things done by members of the other side are short sighted, harmful & vacuous.

    Expectedly, somehow BCCI was painted as the villain, the mandatory mention of DRS was also made & the author missed the W4W thing :-p

  • POSTED BY Mr_Anonymous on | May 6, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    Jarrod,

    I don't think anything will be gained by casting aspersions on the democratic process after the results are declared. As a correspondent for Cricinfo, I question what you were doing before the election and why you did not write this article before the voting. It would be easy to conclude that you had no issues with the process before the results were announced and are now raising these issues because your preferred candidate lost. I have a lot of respect for both candidates: Tim and Siva. There are different ways of looking at the result. The way I prefer to look at it is the following: Tim was very passionate and formed the FICA in 1997. It has been nearly 16 years and it is time to give a new person who may have a different outlook a chance to re-invent the scope of the FICA. Siva will have to work more closely with respective board(s). A good stretch goal would be to help setup players' associations in all the Asian countries (much needed BTW). Welcome Siva!

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    Maddy20. Sivaramakrishnan averaged 43 as a bowler in his 9 tests, May 34 in his 24 tests. There may be good reasons for voting Siva vs May, but cricketing ability is not one of them.

  • POSTED BY SpizenFire on | May 6, 2013, 20:25 GMT

    Ah ... Here we go again ... Another sour grapes article from the brigade ... Wake up ... Look around ... Embrace change ... Sympathies to you and ur candidate for losing a election .... Morality and ethics doesn't suit you either!!!

  • POSTED BY bored_iam on | May 6, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    Honestly, a disappointing case of sour grapes. What exactly has Tim May done? He's been on the committee, he's been a players representative. He hasnt really achieved much. Time to give another man a chance. Also, I am almost appalled at the suggestion that Kumble and Sangakarra are mere puppets. I personally belive this is a huge insult to these two very fine gentlemen. Besides, apart from Kumble, Shastri, Sangakarra (& now Siva), you have 7 non subcontinental people on the board. Honestly, is the BCCI so powerful that it can influence votes even in a minority. Thoroughly disappointed with Jarrod's article.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    @maddy20: thats hilarous. From when bowling/batting averages indicate the good understanding of game? i guess you must have played 100 test with so deep knowledge. for a moment lets assume your comment is valid... Sivaramakrishnan loses in average comparison too!;-)

  • POSTED BY ThyrSaadam on | May 6, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    As much as this election is politically motivated, to suggest the credibility of Kumar, Anil who have represented their countries with much distinction is as disturbing as the election results itself. In any case to address the underlying issue how can FICA call itself a players association body when it has been established in only 4/10 ICC member's nations? Then how will a representative from just 4 out of the 10 countries justify a fair representation?

  • POSTED BY CricFin on | May 6, 2013, 20:17 GMT

    what role FICA played in KP saga ?

  • POSTED BY GreenDeviln on | May 6, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    I don't know whether Tim May deserved it or not because I don't know him that properly, but what I know is Sivaramakrishnan certainly not good selection. Obviously Sivaramakrishnan is well connected with BCCI and is certainly going to take BCCI's side in decisions of ICC irrespective of whether BCCI is fair or not. I would say (IMO) Dravid or Waugh or Wasim would have been really best suited for the post. But whatever Sivaramakrishnan isn't suited for the job.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    Who cares... As the article points out what logical reason is there for having a committee of ex-players whose opinions/decisions/recommendations carry no weight whatsoever. It's just another talking shop which achieves nothing.

  • POSTED BY skchoubey on | May 6, 2013, 20:04 GMT

    An Interesting response to the voting, when Tim May lost out in Election. I was not sure, who Tim May was representing apart from 4 countries of Good old times. Why don't Jarrod writes about Tim's accomplishment in last 4-5 years. He was beaten fair and square by Siva. I am surprised to note the presence of so many unknown/ lesser known Players in the committee from ANZ, England and SA. Jarrod and people like him should understand that, "Good Old Days of cricket domination" are over now, as most of your comments are "Rants of a loosing side", reality was, Tim was only representing 4 countries and their interests, which was not enough.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on | May 6, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    No one would be worried about the process had Tim May got the nomination. Everything would have been smooth and sound and commentators and writers would have praised the democratic traditions and all. Because Tim May lost in the voting of Captains , everybody has started pointing fingers on how democratic process is rigged.

    BTW, Shiva is not just a contracted BCCI commentator, he is also an ex-India test player. Jarrod knowingly omits that part - not fair. Tim May has been associated with some test playing nations , they all voted for him duly except for West Indians. Sammy chose Shiva. Matter ends there. Move on and accept democracy. You are not going to have your way all the time.

  • POSTED BY khanofcricket on | May 6, 2013, 19:39 GMT

    The system of captains picking the representatives seems to be flawed. Captains are usually the proxies of their boards and hence, whether we like it or not the politics of the board plays a role. This is players' committee and hence, it should be picked up by a broader group of currently playing cricketers - that should include T20 leagues of various countries, besides Test and ODI players.

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | May 6, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    Tim May , was never in the picture except when he was griping about the likes of BPL, SLPL etc., What was he doing when WIPA was toe-to-toe with WICB. As such he cannot expect them to vote for him. The other boards have voted for someone with whom enjoy a better relationship than with some one who paid no heed to them when they wanted some help and hence the voting. If you are not a diplomat, then you can't win elections. Thats how the world works and it seems these Aussies and Englishmen always seem to have issues when an Indian is in power. Honestly, we really don't care any more! Besides with a batting average of 10 and bowling avg of 34(in those days when bowlers with averages exceeding mid20's were chucked out if they couldn't bat) means that he does not have good understanding of the game as Siva Ramakrishnan(who was a very good spinner in his time) does . That in addition to the above mentioned facts did you honestly expect him to win?

  • POSTED BY maddy20 on | May 6, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    Tim May , was never in the picture except when he was griping about the likes of BPL, SLPL etc., What was he doing when WIPA was toe-to-toe with WICB. As such he cannot expect them to vote for him. The other boards have voted for someone with whom enjoy a better relationship than with some one who paid no heed to them when they wanted some help and hence the voting. If you are not a diplomat, then you can't win elections. Thats how the world works and it seems these Aussies and Englishmen always seem to have issues when an Indian is in power. Honestly, we really don't care any more! Besides with a batting average of 10 and bowling avg of 34(in those days when bowlers with averages exceeding mid20's were chucked out if they couldn't bat) means that he does not have good understanding of the game as Siva Ramakrishnan(who was a very good spinner in his time) does . That in addition to the above mentioned facts did you honestly expect him to win?

  • POSTED BY khanofcricket on | May 6, 2013, 19:39 GMT

    The system of captains picking the representatives seems to be flawed. Captains are usually the proxies of their boards and hence, whether we like it or not the politics of the board plays a role. This is players' committee and hence, it should be picked up by a broader group of currently playing cricketers - that should include T20 leagues of various countries, besides Test and ODI players.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Fan_And_Analyst on | May 6, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    No one would be worried about the process had Tim May got the nomination. Everything would have been smooth and sound and commentators and writers would have praised the democratic traditions and all. Because Tim May lost in the voting of Captains , everybody has started pointing fingers on how democratic process is rigged.

    BTW, Shiva is not just a contracted BCCI commentator, he is also an ex-India test player. Jarrod knowingly omits that part - not fair. Tim May has been associated with some test playing nations , they all voted for him duly except for West Indians. Sammy chose Shiva. Matter ends there. Move on and accept democracy. You are not going to have your way all the time.

  • POSTED BY skchoubey on | May 6, 2013, 20:04 GMT

    An Interesting response to the voting, when Tim May lost out in Election. I was not sure, who Tim May was representing apart from 4 countries of Good old times. Why don't Jarrod writes about Tim's accomplishment in last 4-5 years. He was beaten fair and square by Siva. I am surprised to note the presence of so many unknown/ lesser known Players in the committee from ANZ, England and SA. Jarrod and people like him should understand that, "Good Old Days of cricket domination" are over now, as most of your comments are "Rants of a loosing side", reality was, Tim was only representing 4 countries and their interests, which was not enough.

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:07 GMT

    Who cares... As the article points out what logical reason is there for having a committee of ex-players whose opinions/decisions/recommendations carry no weight whatsoever. It's just another talking shop which achieves nothing.

  • POSTED BY GreenDeviln on | May 6, 2013, 20:14 GMT

    I don't know whether Tim May deserved it or not because I don't know him that properly, but what I know is Sivaramakrishnan certainly not good selection. Obviously Sivaramakrishnan is well connected with BCCI and is certainly going to take BCCI's side in decisions of ICC irrespective of whether BCCI is fair or not. I would say (IMO) Dravid or Waugh or Wasim would have been really best suited for the post. But whatever Sivaramakrishnan isn't suited for the job.

  • POSTED BY CricFin on | May 6, 2013, 20:17 GMT

    what role FICA played in KP saga ?

  • POSTED BY ThyrSaadam on | May 6, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    As much as this election is politically motivated, to suggest the credibility of Kumar, Anil who have represented their countries with much distinction is as disturbing as the election results itself. In any case to address the underlying issue how can FICA call itself a players association body when it has been established in only 4/10 ICC member's nations? Then how will a representative from just 4 out of the 10 countries justify a fair representation?

  • POSTED BY on | May 6, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    @maddy20: thats hilarous. From when bowling/batting averages indicate the good understanding of game? i guess you must have played 100 test with so deep knowledge. for a moment lets assume your comment is valid... Sivaramakrishnan loses in average comparison too!;-)

  • POSTED BY bored_iam on | May 6, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    Honestly, a disappointing case of sour grapes. What exactly has Tim May done? He's been on the committee, he's been a players representative. He hasnt really achieved much. Time to give another man a chance. Also, I am almost appalled at the suggestion that Kumble and Sangakarra are mere puppets. I personally belive this is a huge insult to these two very fine gentlemen. Besides, apart from Kumble, Shastri, Sangakarra (& now Siva), you have 7 non subcontinental people on the board. Honestly, is the BCCI so powerful that it can influence votes even in a minority. Thoroughly disappointed with Jarrod's article.