Doubt BCCI will go the 'Argus Review' way, writes Ian Chappell

I doubt India will follow Australia's example of conducting a review. Both countries have in common, a recent thrashing by a rampant England side, but that's where their cricketing DNA's diverge

Following a comprehensive defeat by England, Cricket Australia (CA) ordered a major review of its structure. England then crushed India, so does that mean the latter's cricket system is also headed for a major overhaul?
The group who should most favour an Indian restructure is the selection panel.


Rahul Dravid (right) reacts after dropping a catch as teammates
VVS Laxman and MS Dhoni look on at Edgbaston recently.
PIC/Getty Images

They should hope a review of Indian cricket sees them lose their job and with it the daunting task of picking from the rubble, a competitive side to tour Australia. The Indian selectors have backed themselves into an alley so blind, a maze expert would have trouble negotiating a way out.

I doubt India will follow Australia's example. Both countries have in common, a recent thrashing by a rampant England, but that's where their cricketing DNA's diverge. And anyway, Australia's review appears to include a good deal of window dressing.


N Srinivasan (left) and coach Duncan Fletcher. BCCI will discuss
India's disastrousu00a0 to England in next month's AGM. Will they go
the Aussie way? PIC/AFP

The announcement that CA had ordered a review of its performance by an outside agency provided a major clue, as to where the problems lay. If CA had utilised the right balance of expert cricket knowledge and business acumen, they would have been alerted to looming problems. The shortcomings noted, they would then only require making adjustments to limit the short-term damage and far-sighted decisions to ensure an upward swing was not too far into the future.

Any review of a cricket administration needs to have as it's main priorityu00a0-- to ensure there's a system in place producing skilful, competitive young cricketers and a constant supply of proficient leaders. Then it only requires an efficient selection panel with the nous to choose the right combination.


Don Argus, who led a seven-month review into the state of
Australian cricket. Selectors Andrew Hilditch and Greg Chappell
lost their jobs. PIC/AFP

With those pieces of the puzzle in place the National team will win regularly and the rest pretty much takes care of itself. If the Argus review is saying -- in a long-winded, jargon filled document -- that the right structure wasn't in place, then they have failed to address the main issue.

The people who oversaw the crumbling structure are basically the same ones now charged with the responsibility of implementing the changes to the system. Nevertheless, CA didn't draw up the blueprint for a stumbling cricket administration.

Sure, CA named their major money-spinning tournament The Big Bash; that's a name that conjures up visions of lunchtime cricket in the schoolyard. They then further trivialised the competition by milking cricketers on the field and allowing a celebrity player to represent an interstate team.

These moves suggested a not so serious competition at a time when cricket was busily trying to stamp out player corruption. Now the revamped Big Bash is encouraging players to cast aside loyalty and follow the dollar wherever it leads.

While CA has unwittingly diminished a valuable commodity, the rest of the cricket world lavishly rewards players competing in the shortest form of the game. Maximum pay for minimum exertion could well be the theme for the T20 pay structure.

There are exceptions but in general, human nature will gravitate towards the least demanding option. Not surprisingly, outlandish rewards in T20 cricket (that in many cases don't match ability or effort) are leading to self-interest among the players.

Twenty20 cricket will not stand alone; this is not purely a business enterprise we're talking about, it's a game. If T20 is eventually the only form of the game played, you'll have cricket without artists or artistry. There's already growing evidence that T20 cricket is eroding batting skills.

It's a general rule that cricket administrations fail to fully think matters through before implementing new ideas. There's another generality that you can bet on as surely as a short-priced favourite; cricket doesn't have a grand plan to provide a cohesive and prosperous future for all three forms of the game.u00a0If there is a mood for restructuring cricket, then first rebuild the system that's really failing, the international governance of the game.

To think all this upheaval has been brought about by a rampant England. Why, it was only last decade that the best cricket blueprint was to note what England did, and do the opposite. Now, everyone wants to copy the English system. If only the structure of the international game could be turned around so quickly and successfully.