The Surfer

Yet before the Argus report was tabled with its evisceration of Australia's cricket management, coaching protocols and aimless selection theories, it might be that Australian players were not confident enough to play cricket in the previous disciplined manner that was the tattoo of the great teams of the 1990s and early 2000s. If 12 wickets on debut guaranteed you just 49 more overs, if two hundreds in a Test was a pre-cursor to demotion as it was with Phil Hughes, then unity of purpose within any team can evaporate with each and every incomprehensible management decision.

Rahane wasn’t worried about his shot selection. Instead, he asked a question that was begging to be asked. “What more do I have to do to make it to the Indian team?” asked a frustrated Rahane, one of domestic cricket’s most prolific scorers over the last few seasons. Having earned the reputation of being a Mumbai run-machine so early in his career, it was natural for the youngster to think of getting a national call-up. Rahane, according to Amre, was entering a phase of depression.

Throughout a fretful Sri Lankan innings, the visiting flingers forced their opponents to work for every run. Meanwhile, an alert captain set astute fields. It was a far cry from the gormless cricket observed in recent campaigns ...

Australia's bowlers contributed superbly. Already the attack looks stronger. Not that it is exactly lethal or that every day will go as smoothly. Nor will every pitch be as bone dry or the opponents as supine. But there is honesty and professionalism in this combination that has been missing.

I rarely watch T20 games. The last game I watched carefully was the 2010 IPL Final. I watched because Sachin Tendulkar played that game. Having watched that game and now Dravid's batting in this game carefully, I can identify with the macabre fascination people have with watching bad horror movies. It was like watching an idle man trying to throw crumpled paper into a dustbin while sitting on a park bench. If he threw enough balls of crumpled paper, a few of them would eventually get in.

As far as age prescriptions go, I am not clear how limiting it to below-70 would help. A sportsman spends all his youth playing and it’s only around the age of 40 he starts getting into sports administration. If we want experienced sportsmen to retire by 70, there is a huge contradiction here. Non-sportsmen get into administration much earlier. Thus, the avowed purpose of the Bill of making more sportsmen part of the top administration gets defeated by prescribing age limits.

A distinction that could be deliberated is to limit the scope of RTI in sports only to a decision or process having an economical impact, whilst leaving sporting decisions and rules outside its ambit. A similar distinction between pure sporting decisions and decisions having an economic impact has been discussed in Europe and a similar principle can be adopted in India.

The scene is changing. Money, and lots of it, is flooding in, unevenly and mostly to privately-owned clubs in Twenty20 leagues in different countries rather than to national boards.Individuals, such as Andrew Symonds, Chris Gayle and Lasith Malinga, recognise the change and are beginning to prioritise lucrative club deals over national representation.

A recent Fica survey puts this trend into numbers. Nearly a third of the players questioned said they would retire from international cricket prematurely to pursue careers with club-based leagues such as the Indian Premier League (IPL); 40 per cent said that given the higher pay in such leagues they could foresee a day where obligations to leagues could take priority over obligation to national boards.

Bringing the BCCI under the RTI might be plausible when it comes to profit-making, or conflicts of interest-related queries. However, given an unlimited licence to question each aspect of the NSF’s activities and authority, it’s more than likely that the RTI will become a national referendum on team-selection processes involving the public. The risk of frivolity is extreme, and could actually inhibit any professional progress made by those federations who actually intend to promote and develop their respective sports.

While the move to ensure more transparency and make the players come under the WADA-specified anti-doping rules should be welcomed, the government should learn from its various misadventures with the other sporting organisations around the country to realise that it just isn't equipped to handle an organisation as big as the BCCI.