The Surfer

The Future Tours Program was emasculated; countries were told to make their own bilateral arrangements. Grandiosely, England and Australia promised to play the other countries regularly, the same way Australia promised at the casting of the Chappell-Hadlee trophy to play New Zealand every year. In 2014, Australia had not met the Kiwis in Test cricket for more than two years and in a one-day series for nearly three years.

The Test championship was scrapped. Instead, two divisions of Test-playing nations were created, but with the stipulation that none of India, Australia or England ever could be relegated from the top tier. The Big Three said this was necessary for the financial viability of the game. Then they awarded nearly all the extra billions to themselves anyway, on an escalating scale, tearing up a previous arrangement for equal distribution.

''The Cantabrians had practised on firm wickets at Hagley Park and were ill-prepared for the quagmire awaiting them after they had battled south by sea against gale-force winds. Although the Oval had been recently turfed as a gesture to the visiting Englishmen, recent rain and the fact that cattle had wandered over the ground the night before the match made for atrocious conditions.''

This art of getting big scores consistently was passed on to Mumbai batsmen over the years by a senior batting stalwart in the team at any given point of time. During my formative Ranji years, it was Sandeep Patil. So, more than a good coach, what Mumbai really needs is to reestablish that chain link where a senior accomplished batsman passes on his learnings to the next generation while on the field.

Profit by itself is not wrong though. Sport is played, and followed, on emotion but it must be run as an enterprise to have a sustainable future. Interestingly, even charitable institutions are learning that you cannot just be a group of well-meaning people bumbling along. But in sport, as in charity, funds have to be generated for common good. And it is in the distribution of funds that this document seeks to create a group of haves.

I understand that financial clout means power. However, it's the way that power is utilised that eventually decides whether a body has been effective or otherwise. The ICC hasn't been an effective body for a long time and yet 'the big three' have essentially been wielding the power. In that period, financial interests have held sway in the decision making process and the new proposals seem to concentrate heavily on that aspect of the operation.

Sixteen countries will be split into two groups of eight, the top tier playing Test matches and the bottom in the so-called Inter-Continental Cup. The winner of the bottom group in an eight-year cycle could be promoted to the top group, which would be less rather than more structured, but India, Australia and England could never be relegated. The impression among England's administrators is that there was no other option. One might have been to tell India to that the other nine nations would cast India adrift but it was a financial risk. That would have left England as the richest nation but the truth is that without India the international game is virtually worthless.

Yes, the vast majority of bilateral arrangements are unprofitable on their face: there is so much cricket being played, supranational as well as international, that the market for content is flooded, and television's values predominate. But it's also true that a continuity of contact matters for other reasons, contributing to an on-going epic story, longer and bigger than any individual, however famous, and any administrator, however enduring. It's even truer that the decline in the value of bilateral series is due in part to their neglect. Who can get fussed about two-Test series? How is it possible that India has not played Pakistan in a Test in six years, and not hosted Bangladesh for a Test in thirteen? Increasingly, bilateral series have become about back scratching among the mutually interested and the pursuit of administrative vendettas.

I asked Misbah that isn't it strange that some former players, who understood the pressures of captaining a team like Pakistan, have continued to criticise him, considering the circumstances he was given the captaincy in? "I always welcome criticism. I'm not afraid of being criticised. But sometimes when it becomes criticism for the sake of criticism, I begin to ignore it," he explained.

Impossible to replace, you would think? But here we are, with Tendulkar the last, and greatest of the sextet, having barely taken his leave and the Indians are off and running again with another group who, certainly in the ODI game, are making their reputations as an exhilarating group in their own right.

Vanessa and I were both what we call tomboys; that is, we played cricket, scrambled over rocks, climbed trees, were said not to care for clothes and so on.

Resumed at the Yarras yesterday, and had to do something unusual - a panting, sliding save chasing back at fine leg. 'Bloody hell,' I thought as I approached the boundary and realised I wasn't going to make it. 'I'm going to have to do one of those things they do on TV.' So I dived, and turned back the ball with a sweep of my arm to the teammate who was running behind me.

As we ran in, I confided this in my teammate. 'That's funny,' he said. 'As I was running behind you, I thought: bloody hell, he's going to have to do one of those things they do on TV.'