NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Cricket Interview / Jagmohan Dalmiya

'The media only wants juicy stories...'

It is this subject that forms the subject matter of a conversation he had with chief feature writer Archana Masih in Calcutta last week. Excerpts:

It's a year since your becoming president of the ICC, so how would you assess your tenure thus far?

My tenure is for a period of three years. The first year has been very successful, I would say. I always believed that if cricket has to survive as a major global sport, it cannot be restricted to just a few countries. Cricket has taken 90 years to reach nine playing countries, and that is not good. The game has to spread.

Another important aspect is development. I am not saying that Test-playing countries can be produced overnight, but whoever is at ten per cent playing level now has to be brought to 20 per cent, those at 20 per cent have to be raised to 30 per cent, and so on.

Everywhere, improvement has to take place. Cricket has to be introduced to new areas where it is not played now. It is unique in that it is the only game that is played within the spirit of the game, that is why everyone calls it a gentleman's game. In cricket, if one is not fair to the other person, they say it is not cricket. That is what cricket is all about, it is a game where there are traditional values and where the spirit of the game is always kept intact.

If this kind of an excellent product is taken to the rest of the world, it may create complications because it has so many rules. It is even longer than other games like football, hockey etc. So someone has to go and explain the game, and I thought time had come for that.

In 1997, there was a sea change in the governance structure. We created the development committee. If the game has to improve, then everybody has a role and everybody has to come together -- committees, players, associations -- all have to sit together, discuss each other's problems. It is also important that all Test playing countries come forward and extend help to associate countries.

So far ICC had left this to the different countries, I found there there was no unity of purpose in the ICC. During the past one year, though, associates and full members sat together and have worked out a lot of things.

If cricket has to be globalised, then the concept of the Cricket Week, which was first promulgated by me, has to be promoted. I am glad that the ICC agreed with my idea that every year, there should be one week when all cricket playing countries should only play cricket or talk about cricket, it should be widely covered by television and on the Internet. That is also a scheme in the offing.

Another important thing is that the real treasure, the real cricket, is Test cricket. When people ask me what's the difference between Test cricket and one day cricket, I say it is like classical music and pop or modern music. I am not saying that pop/modern music is bad. These are two different forms, but if you speak about the quality, heritage, richness, then of course classical music is better.

Similarly, Test cricket is real cricket. For my part, I prefer to watch Tests rather than ODIs. Test cricket must be rejuvenated. For this, it is necessary that some kind of competition, like the one day World Cup, should be introduced for Test cricket as well. Of course, it should be a short version, over in three or four months. In principle, this idea has been accepted, but it is very difficult to find a slot. All countries already have their schedules planned for the next five, six, seven years.

Isn't the organisation of such a mammoth event going to be a nightmare? Any ideas how you are going to do it?

It is a mammoth task, yes, but not impossible. If you think that way, many a seemingly mammoth task would have been left undone. We are sure we can have such a tournament, taking a maximum of two and a half to three months.

But let us find a slot first, find some clear time for scheduling the tournament. Otherwise, what is the point of coming out and discussing if we are not able to find a slot? We are working towards that, though we can't say when we will crack the problem. I think we are not too far off, may be two years, three years, four years maximum, but I am sure we will find a slot soon.

Does that mean there will be no one day matches during that period?

I personally feel there should not be any during the Test tournament, yes, but it is the prerogative of the ICC, the Cricket Committee, to decide the details. If it comes to me, I will propose that when we are having Test cricket, a tournament, we must only focus on that.

You have said that your aim is to popularise cricket -- now how can this be done without compromising the quality of the game?

There are two ways. You don't compromise on Tests, you don't compromise on World Cup one day matches.

But when you are introducing the game to a new territory, I'm prepared to compromise at least during the introductory stage. At that point, even if it is six a side, eight a side, single wicket, double wicket, anything goes.

Once you are organised, once you have managed to get the people in the area used to the game and interested in it, you should then see what the proper form for that region is, what should be done to increase its popularity. We have to first bring people to cricket, once they have tasted blood they will themselves come forward for more.

What schemes have been put in place to enable this?

One is Cricket Week. But to do anything at all, we need money, and our financial health was not particularly sound. We need a lot of money, and to raise this money, we are having this tournament in Dhaka, the mini-World Cup. The entire money from the tournament will be ploughed back into the development of the game.

Development, how? What kind of development will this be?

We have already divided the world into five regions. We already have five development officers, a development manager for each region. We are thinking in many different directions -- detailed plans are being chalked out, and once they are finalised, they will be implemented, regionwise, by the development officers and overseen by the development manager. They all are in place, and work in fact has already started.

The last time international cricket captains met, they asked for some sanity in the scheduling of matches. Have you had a chance to look into this problem?

There were two captains meeting in the last year. We discussed various with the captains. I read in the papers that excess cricket is being played, and that the players are being burnt out, that they are being used as machines.

So we talked to the captains. All the captains said that whatever quantum of cricket was being played at the moment, they were satisfied with it. They generally play 10 to 12 Test matches and 25 to 30 one dayers, which they said was okay.

But what they wanted -- and their demand was justified -- was a two month break in one lump, a period completely off cricket.

Secondly, they said matches should not be scheduled on successive days, as it drained the players. And thirdly, they asked that good hotel accomodation and air connections be provided, so that their energies were not further drained. The topic of excess cricket however did not come up at all.

So according to you, the topic of excess cricket is a media exaggeration?

If the nine captains say they are happy with the quantum of cricket being played, where then is the question of excess? I think that the media report is not proper, though yes, they did ask for a two month break.

Has it been granted?

The ICC does not interfere in the internal working of any board. The request has been made known to all the member boards and they are working on it, something will be worked out.

The MCC has asked for a complete review of the rule book. What changes can we expect, and when will they materialise?

The revision committee is going through the rules, let's see. Whatever they have come up with has not been forwarded to the ICC, so far. We are working closely with the MCC on this, that body has contributed a lot towards the game. It has taken a very positive approach. For now, the ball is in the MCC's court, all we can say is that once they put the thing forward to us, it will be debated at once and implemented as found fit. But we will not lose time on it, once it is forwarded.

You recently said that television commentators have been making unfair remarks about umpiring...

Umpires are under enormous pressure, we forget they are human beings. Because of the electronic media and replays, the pressure has mounte and sometimes, even the comments that are made contribute to this.

All the commentators are big time cricketers, people connected with the game and when they make unfair comments it pains me. When they played, were they perfect? Has any human ever played the best possible shot? We are all humans, and that should be kept in mind.

Of course, this is not too serious an issue, except for a few stray incidents here and there. But yes, umpires are under a lot of pressure, and they are performing admirably under that pressure, that is my opinion.

By writing it off as human error, are we putting umpires in an exalted position, at the expense of accountability?

Accountability is a relative word. Certain decisions have to be taken on the spur of the moment. What accountability are we talking about? Anyway, these are all points under discussion. Recently, we had an umpires conference, they too had made suggestions, we are looking into those as well. Things are moving. Everybody is thinking positively. What is important is that the process of thought has begun.

There was some misunderstanding recently on the revised role of the third umpire, you finally said you had been misquoted. What is the position on that?

The media quoted so many things. What I actually said was that we are front-runners as far as technology was concerned. It has been looked into from time to time, and the purview of the third umpire has been increased as needed. As to tomorrow and how things will change further, who knows? The media quoted dates, wrote that I had said changes would take place on such and such a date, that is how they put it, I don't know why.

Whether we should go ahead with further powers to the third umpire or not is a debatable question. I believe the administrators are there to administer the game. We have a very rich think tank, and we depend on them, we discuss, we debate. But the way the media was talking was as if a unilateral order was being issued, and this was what I resented. There was no controversy as such, I said something, they added a date and said that was the deadline -- and that was not true. After all, we have a democratic set up, there is a procedure, an expert committee to decide these things.

It was later clarified by the chief executive, after talking to me. I also spoke to some other members of the ICC, I wanted it to be widely clarified, because I didn't want any kind of confusion. But it is unfortunate that some sections of the media are not interested in clarifications, the media only wants juicy stories, they thought they would find one here, but that was not the case.

Has the process been set in motion?

All kind of suggestions have come. They are being referred to the respective committees. When the decisions will come is something I can't say just now, it is up to the committees.

Why was there such confusion regarding the cricket team for the Commonwealth Games?

That was a BCCI affair, I would not like to comment.

We understand that it is on the ICC's insistence that a team was finally announced...

We clarified to the BCCI that cricket was going to the Commonwealth Games for the first time. The organisers wanted the game to be more attractive for the public, and invited us.

We thought it was a good chance to develop and globalise the game, and that's why we agreed. We also agreed to assist them by telling them which countries should participate, making the code of conduct applicable and all that. Therefore, wherever there was such a communication gap, it was clarified.

But don't you think there was some ambiguity on the part of the ICC?

No, there was no ambiguity on the part of the ICC. Probably two secretaries from the two apex bodies in India were trying to score over each other, and I don't want to comment on that. Probably because cricket was coming to the Commonwealth Games for the first time, people took certain things for granted. All this was not decided between the BCCI and IOA, but between the ICC and the Commonwealth Games Federation. So the right thing to have done would have been for the BCCI and the IOA to go to their parent bodies for clarification. Why they did not do so, only they can answer for that, I won't be able to.

Recently, there were suggestions that the five-member selection committee should be replaced by a three-member team, what is your view on this?

I think you have to ask Raj Singh Dungarpur about these things, I don't want to talk out of turn on matters not concerning the ICC.

People