T Chesterfield: Spinners Tales - Holding World Cup In Subcontinent (1 Feb 1996)

SPINNER`S TALES February 1996

Holding the World Cup on the sub-contintent is not a good idea

Not so long ago Sri Lanka team managers on tour were qualified for three important tasks: organise better hotel accommodation than they have at home, grounds for fielding practices and taking the blame. That`s all changed since the advent of upmarket tours and the high-powered game where more than a million spectators paid at the gates to watch the lastest World Series Cup limited-overs games in Oz. The added cash bonanza from that flying circus (if it`s Wednesday it should be Brisbane . . . er Adelaide . . ?), makes the sponsorship deal with whatever company that chanced their luck with the Sri Lankans this time, appear petty cash leftovers. But the sponsors cash does come in handy and can be splashed out on anything from the latest in disposable nappies (and not just for the babies in what is these days is an ever-growing travelling menagerie) to dartboards that clearly resemble Darrell Hair`s face (the nose is the bullseye) while the darts are known as Muttiah Muralitheran. While fielding practices have become part of the daily routine for all players (ocassionally including the manager), taking the blame has, like sorting out the daily budget, largely disappeared. Now the media get to hear the excuses for the latest defeat (or praise for a victory) from the coach and captain; and not in that batting order, either. Not all has changed. Bombs still go off in Colombo (we were well shaken - but not stirred - last August), and private fears expressed by a couple of top Sri Lanka officials about the rationale of holding the World Cup on the sub-continent resurfaced over a midnight glass of arrack and coke. As the band played on, only hours after the bomb claimed 26 lives outside a local government office in Torrington Square, Keerthi Jayasinghe and Chamikara Mendis, questioned the wisdom of the International Cricket Council to hold the event still seven months away. One of their functions is co-ordinating transport for the teams playing matches in Colombo and Kandy. Easy enough. Only now the limited-overs showpiece has become a bumpy ride for Pilcom, the alphabetic soup better known as Pak-India- Lanka- committee. Initially South Africa sought to hold the 1996 World Cup. But the United Cricket Board plans were scuppered in July 1992 by Pakistan and India, showing a rare united front as well as throwing a tantrum or two, who with Sri Lanka, felt they should stage it jointly. England also got into the act and when all the brickbats were finally collected, South Africa had magnamously stood back and agreed to the subcontinent (1996) and England (1999) holding the next two limited-overs circuses. South Africa`s turn is 2003. No doubt the ICC felt that the 1987 World Cup was well-staged and managed in India and Pakistan. Why not give it to them again. But in 1987 the Kashmir dispute was not a full-scale battle while a catalouge of various eccentric organisations had not laid claim to creating their own disturbances. Along with rocket attacks in Kashmir, explosions in a Peshawar shopping centre (South Africa don`t play there) and the Tamil Tigers, all have created a problem that make Pilcom`s claims of tight security ring a little hollow. Yet the burgers in 1899 laid down their arms and donned pads during the siege of Ladysmith and spent several hours of enjoyment with their rooinek opponents. A pity such chivalry no longer exists.