Currently, world cricket has become bipolar in standard. One nation's cricket system has evolved an infrastructure that has taken them to a higher level. The rest of the countries do not have that kind of a scientific approach to the game and there is a wide variation in standards.

There is too much cricket being played without considering player fatigue, performance decline and proper planning. Cricket boards are mostly run by officials who do not have management skills. They see huge money and do not take enough measures to ensure that the game does not suffer in the bargain. The recent World Cup in the West Indies is one example. The game will suffer if this trend continues.

In my opinion, the most important element that is missing is competition. It is competition that brings out the quality. Having one cricket system in the whole world tends to push it towards monopoly. The ICC has been there a long time and its member cricket boards and associations are absolute monopolies in their respective territories. Many boards, other than the Australian one, seem to have no vision for the future. They did not even know that Twenty20 would be such a success. They failed to see that the one-day World Cup would be a disaster.

‘Cricket boards are mostly run by officials who do not have management skills. They see huge money and do not take enough measures to ensure that the game does not suffer in the bargain.’


The Australian system did not become great by itself. It faced competition in the form of Kerry Packer. Most of the new aspects in today's cricket can be traced back to the Packer era – day-night matches, coloured clothing, match reviews, third umpire and so on.

The Indian Cricket League should not be discouraged. In fact, they should think of starting a parallel system across the world – International Cricket Association or Cricket International, or something of that kind. It should have its own system of teams, member nations and players. Players should have the right to choose which system they want to play and sign contracts accordingly.

These systems should be able to lure class players from each other. Some players might choose money and others might choose both money and quality. The spectator will get his money's worth. He will have the choice to buy tickets or subscribe to TV coverage for one of the two systems or both. In addition, more players will get a chance to participate and gain experience at the highest level.

If a new system comes, it should look at the weaknesses of the existing set-up and go after it – set up infrastructure to draw talent from a very early stage, have international tournaments, scholarships from high school level, train players in various conditions and so on. More cricket stadia will spring up and more scientific research will go into developing lively pitches. No one seems to care in the current climate about the slowing pitches worldwide. Universities will get involved in researching physiology and enhancing human performance. Better protective gear will be developed. New rules will be developed.

Only competition will bring out the best. The ICL should not stop with Twenty20 and confine itself to the Indian soil. It should expand into a global system. Governments should intervene and prevent cricket boards from acting as monopolies. True competition will make the boards work hard and work on ways to attract spectators, sponsorship and players.

It is pathetic to see players like Phil Jacques, Mitchell Johnson and others having to wait out for someone to fall or retire, in order for them to show their talents. If there was a parallel system, the boards would be chasing them and not the other way around.

There is a lot to be gained if competition is set up. The current international cricket system acts like an oligarchy. In the long run, for cricket to be attractive and sustain its quality, competition is the only way out. Just the arrival of the ICL has made the Indian cricket board wake up and set up an IPL. But their efforts are only reactionary.

They do not seem to have a vision or creativity. And their efforts are focussed on stamping out competition by using their weight and money. The modern world of cricket cannot afford that. There is nothing wrong in having two or more international systems existing at the same time. It will benefit players, spectators and sponsors in the long run.

Is international cricket ready for a revolution? Post your comment below or write your own Sportingo article.