Jay Shah, 35, is a year younger than India captain Rohit Sharma. We know little of his cricket skills or acumen. We do know a bit about his cricket knowledge, though. In a recent interview he said, “In Australia and England, every international player does not play domestic cricket.”

If they are not reacting in Australia and England, it is because Shah is getting ready to take over as Independent Chairman of the International Cricket Council (ICC), and it won’t do to upset the most powerful man in the game. Actually, he is already the most powerful, as secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), and son of India’s Home Minister. As caretaker, in a sense, of the game’s treasure chest, he might be the most powerful ever — no W.G. Grace, Don Bradman or Sachin Tendulkar can match his combination of political, filial and financial heft.

Shah will be anointed on December 1 before which he has to quit as the BCCI secretary. Rohan Jaitley, another from the BJP stable of sports administrators and son of a former Minister is likely to succeed him.

Of course it is an honour for India etc., as anyone, especially players who wish to remain on the right side of authority, will tell you. Even inevitable, you might say. I mean, look at the Nadellas and Pichais and Ajay Bangas. Cricket is a billion-dollar business too, and how appropriate that it should now officially be run by the ICC in India rather than India in the ICC.

Shah’s comment came a few months after stating that top Indian players would be available for the domestic tournament. Then he changed his mind, saying, “We should not insist on players like Rohit and Virat playing in the Duleep Trophy. They will risk injury…We have to treat the players with respect.”

One-man authority

The suggestion that those who play the Duleep Trophy beginning this week are not being treated with respect may be a mischievous interpretation. But will the one-man deciding authority in the BCCI (despite its various committees) see himself as the one-man deciding authority in the ICC too? Will the chairman’s voice tolerate other voices? Will he see the ICC as an extension not just of the BCCI but of the government of India, like the BCCI itself currently is?

Cricket has much on its plate. With the domestic T20 and T10 franchises getting more powerful, private ownership might decide its future direction. In 2028, cricket re-enters the Olympics. Disney Star, who hold the rights for ICC’s global events, are apparently seeking a reduction in the $3 billion deal.

Then there is the Pakistan question. There is no sign of a thaw in relationship to suggest bilateral series with India. The ICC’s interests, at least theoretically, are ruled by cricket and not by politics. What is good for India might not be good for world cricket, and vice versa. Other Indian chairmen have used the power of Indian cricket to cut through the occasional feeble objection. N. Srinivasan is a good example. Money talks in cricket with an Indian accent.

The argument that England and Australia bullied their way through when they ran world cricket and now it’s India’s turn merely acknowledges that whoever is in charge can ride roughshod over the rest. Still, the optimists will be hoping for more discussion-based decision-making, and greater attention to the smaller countries, even if international cricket seems to be heading towards a two-tier system with six teams in each tier. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Meanwhile, there is the Duleep Trophy this week. Teams known as Team A, Team B and so on sound ridiculous, and show the extent of the cricket board’s imagination. Hopefully the new ICC will not rename the teams in international cricket in similar fashion. Somehow Virat Kohli scoring a Test century for Team A doesn’t have quite the zing.

Jay Shah is unlikely to do that. Still, at 35, he can use his limited background in cricket to advantage. Disruptors can sometimes have a positive effect. But the key word in his job title — independent chairman — is the first one.

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul said she has directed state police to elevate security measures to ensure safety of the crowds.. File
| Photo Credit: AP

New York’s Nassau County will have unprecedented security arrangements in place for the T20 World Cup clash between India and Pakistan on June 9 due to the threat of a terror attack here even though state Governor Kathy Hochul insisted that it is not credible “at this time.” The Eisenhower Park Stadium at the Nassau County will host eight matches of the tournament-proper, including India’s three outings. The Indians will also play a practice game against Bangladesh here on June 1.

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul said she has directed state police to elevate security measures to ensure safety of the crowds.

“In preparation for the World Cup my team has been working with federal & local law enforcement to keep attendees safe. While there is no credible threat at this time, I’ve directed @nyspolice (NYPD) to elevate security measures & we’ll continue to monitor as the event nears,” Ms. Hochul said in a post on X.

A report on CNN said that New York officials are putting safety precautions in place “after terror group ISIS-K made a global threat earlier this year” against the World Cup.

Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder said on May 29 that the event received an ISIS-K-linked threat in April.

“That was followed by more specific threats on the India versus Pakistan game, scheduled for June 9, and references to a viral video circulating online, which calls for ‘that lone wolf to act out’,” the report said.

“I can guarantee you this. This is the largest security we’ve ever had to do in this county’s history, and I can also guarantee you this – the safest place to be in Nassau County on June 9th will be inside that stadium,” Mr. Ryder said in that report.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said described the mega-event, which is likely to draw massive crowds from among the expats, as “Super Bowl on steroids”.

“There will be teams from all over the world coming in. There will be fans from all over the world coming to Nassau County…we have been meeting for well over six months on a regular basis to talk about security concerns and health care concerns, which could potentially arise at any kind of event of this magnitude”. “We take every threat seriously. There are the same procedures for every threat,” Mr. Blakeman said.

Mr. Blakeman also noted the county’s coordinated security efforts with federal partners, including the FBI, and Department of Homeland Security among others.

“To that end, we have taken many, many precautions as well as making sure that the stadium and the surrounding Eisenhower Park are safe,” he said.

The Rohit Sharma-led side will begin its campaign by taking on Ireland on June 5, followed by the high-voltage clash against Pakistan on June 9.

The team will then face hosts USA on June 12.

The terror threat to the event was first revealed by Trinidad’s Prime Minister Keith Rowley and the ICC had responded to it by asserting that a robust security cover is in place to ensure smooth conduct of the event.

“The safety and security of everyone at the event is our number one priority and we have a comprehensive and robust security plan in place.

“We work closely with authorities in our host countries and continually monitor and evaluate the global landscape to ensure appropriate plans are in place to mitigate any risks identified to our event,” the ICC had stated.

It took an apocalyptic dust storm and a freak bout of rain for Australia to get its World Cup campaign back on track with a five-wicket win against Sri Lanka at the Bharat Ratna Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ekana Cricket Stadium here on Monday.

While it wasn’t exactly the statement win the Aussies were looking for after two successive defeats, the return of Mitchell Marsh (52, 51b, 9×4) to his characteristic best and Adam Zampa (four for 47) to his wicket-taking form were positives they would settle for.

Maxwell also found his mojo with an unbeaten 21-ball 31 as Australia rushed to the target in 35.2 overs.

After David Warner and Steve Smith were trapped by Dilshan Madushanka in the same over, Marsh and Labuschagne steadied the ship with a 57-run stand. Marsh was aggressive against pace and spin as Australia ransacked 64 runs in the first PowerPlay — 45 of them coming off the opener’s blade.

While Labuschagne picked the gaps and rotated the strike, Josh Inglis (58, 59b, 5×4, 1×6) took on the role of the aggressor after Marsh was run out. The wicketkeeper-batter punished the short stuff on his way to a 46-ball half-century. Both Labuschagne and Inglis couldn’t take Australia home but their knocks were enough to close the door on Sri Lanka.

Earlier, after being asked to bowl, Australia’s desperation was in plain sight as Mitchell Starc frittered away a review off the first ball and issued a stern warning in the same over to Kusal Perera for backing up too far. Barring Labuschagne’s spilt catch to reprieve Pathum Nissanka on 43, those two instances were as close as Australia came to picking a wicket in the first 21 overs.

Nissanka and Perera had blunted the pace trio of Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Pat Cummins during a 125-run opening stand before Warner’s brilliance in the field gave Australia its first success as Nissanka miscued a short ball from Cummins.

After Nissanka fell, Perera showcased his ability to read lengths quickly by pulling Hazlewood behind square-leg and then in front of it for consecutive fours. Cummins had his second scalp when he hit the perfect length and moved the ball into Perera.

Captain Kusal Mendis was the second victim of Warner’s acrobatics, prompting the day’s loudest cheer from a sparse crowd. Zampa, who had been flayed for 22 runs in his first three overs, redeemed himself with that dismissal.

The leg-spinner hastened the collapse with three more wickets, trapping right-handers in front with his googlies. Sri Lanka lost nine wickets for 52 runs and its capitulation almost matched the drama of an aberrant 30-minute spell of rain and winds that picked apart the tournament branding at the venue.

Scoreboard

SRI LANKA: Pathum Nissanka c Warner b Cummins 61 (67b, 8×4), Kusal Perera b Cummins 78 (82b, 12×4), Kusal Mendis c Warner b Zampa 9 (13b), Sadeera Samarawickrama lbw b Zampa 8 (8b, 1×4), Charith Asalanka c Labuschagne b Maxwell 25 (39b, 1×6), Dhananjaya de Silva b Starc 7 (13b, 1×4), Dunith Wellalage run out 2 (9b), Chamika Karunaratne lbw b Zampa 2 (11b), Maheesh Theekshana lbw b Zampa 0 (5b), Lahiru Kumara b Starc 4 (8b, 1×4), Dilshan Madushanka (not out) 0 (6b); Extras (b-2, lb-2, w-9): 13; Total (in 43.3 overs): 209.

FALL OF WICKETS: 1-125 (Nissanka, 21.4 overs), 2-157 (Perera, 26.2), 3-165 (Mendis, 27.6), 4-166 (Samarawickrama, 29.1), 5-178 (Dhananjaya, 32.3), 6-184 (Wellalage, 34.5), 7-196 (Karunaratne, 37.6), 8-199 (Theekshana, 39.2), 9-204 (Kumara, 40.5).

AUSTRALIA BOWLING: Starc 10-0-43-2, Hazlewood 7-1-36-0, Cummins 7-0-32-2, Maxwell 9.3-0-36-1, Zampa 8-1-47-4, Stoinis 2-0-11-0.

AUSTRALIA: Mitchell Marsh run out 52 (51b, 9×4), David Warner lbw b Madushanka 11 (6b, 1×6), Steve Smith lbw b Madushanka 0 (5b), Marnus Labuschagne c Karunaratne b Madushanka 40 (60b, 2×4), Josh Inglis c Theekshana b Wellalage 58 (59b, 5×4, 1×6), Glenn Maxwell (not out) 31 (21b, 4×4, 2×6), Marcus Stoinis (not out) 20 (10b, 2×4, 1×6); Extras (w-3): 3; Total (for five wkts. in 35.2 overs): 215.

FALL OF WICKETS: 1-24 (Warner, 3.1), 2-24 (Smith, 3.6), 3-81 (Marsh, 14.3), 4-158 (Labuschagne, 28.5), 5-192 (Inglis, 33.1).

SRI LANKA BOWLING: Kumara 4-0-47-0, Madushanka 9-2-38-3, Theekshana 7-0-49-0, Wellalage 9.2-0-53-1, Karunaratne 3-0-15-0, Dhananjaya 3-0-13-0.

Toss: Sri Lanka; PoM: Zampa.

Australia won by five wickets with 14.4 overs to spare.

For the average cricket fan, the news that the sport will be featured at the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028 is welcome, even inspiring. Modern players from Steve Smith and Trent Boult to Ravichandran Ashwin and Shubhman Gill have said they are all for it. An Olympic gold is the most coveted honour in international sport even if world championships are sometimes seen to be on a plane of their own.

But administrators seldom think like the average fan – their pulls and pressures are different.

For long the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was opposed to Olympics participation for a variety of reasons, as were the players themselves. The International Cricket Council (ICC) was not too keen either, seeing the quadrennial event cutting into their already crowded calendar.

Unique and independent

The BCCI was unhappy to be dealing with the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), and coming under its remit which included following the rules under which the national sports federations function. Cricket’s governing body sees itself as unique and independent, raising its own funds without any recourse to handouts from the government.

It is comfortable in the knowledge that cricket is the most popular sport in the country with more sponsors, keener battles over television rights and in effect control over the international game. The BCCI made it clear that the cricket team would participate only if there was no interference from the IOA.

The players were unhappy about the random dope testing which the World Ant-Doping Agency might subject them to. The argument was one of privacy being breached if the players were forced to inform the anti-doping agencies, either national or the world body, about their whereabouts.

A few months ago, the BCCI secretary Jay Shah had said, “Once cricket is added in the Olympics, India will be participating,” adding, “The BCCI and the ICC are on the same page as far as participation in the Olympics is concerned.” This is good news for the globalisation of a sport too few countries play at the highest level.

Commercial bonanza

The International Olympic Committee is fully aware of the draw cricket has for the Asian countries, especially in the subcontinent. Its motivation is as much sporting as commercial. The Guardian newspaper has calculated that the current Olympic broadcast rights in India worth around $20 million (for the Paris Olympics in 2024) would rise to ten times that figure with cricket added.

For lesser cricketing countries whose coffers aren’t overflowing, the Olympics will come as a boon because of the support they would receive from their governments, and from the IOC itself.

Cricket was last played at the Olympics in its second edition in 1900. One match was played where England beat France for the gold medal. The T20 format, so successful at the Asian Games, is most likely to be used at the Olympics (men and women).

England, another country initially reluctant to field a team at the Olympics, might push for the Hundred format which is played in that country. The lack of an international competition and rankings in the Hundred or the T10 might give the nod to T20 which has a World Cup.

No dilution

And that could be an issue too, for the ICC might not want their own World Cups to be diluted or replaced by the Olympics as the top tournament in the sport. Perhaps it could do what FIFA, the governing body of football did, setting the age limit at 23 and allowing only three players older in a team.

The call to have cricket at LA will be officially ratified at the 141st IOC session which begins on Sunday. That it will be held in Mumbai might be indication that ratification is a mere formality. Especially now that the BCCI is on board.

Cricket’s re-entry into the Olympics is fitting for the second most popular sport in the world behind football, and with a fan base of nearly three billion people.

By the 2028 Olympics, Rohit Sharma would have turned 40, Virat Kohli would be heading there and K.L. Rahul would have blown out 36 candles on his large birthday cake. Shubhman Gill will still be only 29. Five years is not such a long time to wait, after all.

Yesterday it was the West Indies. Today it is South Africa, tomorrow it could be New Zealand or anybody else. The Big Three, India, Australia, England, look safe for the moment, but how often can they play five-day Tests and five-Test series against one another till television executives decide enough is enough?

Cricket is being attacked from so many directions that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the good guys from the bad. Maybe that is because the bad guys seen from a different angle look like good guys. Are the good guys those who still believe Tests need to be focused on, or simply those who think that for cricket in any format to survive, greater attention should be paid to the grassroots? And since that requires money and the best way for a cricket board to make it in significant amounts is to concentrate on franchise T20 cricket, then is that the direction to take?

Beholden to India

The International Cricket Council, traditionally a governing body at the beck and call of the powerful teams — in the days leading up to the end of the veto power enjoyed by England and Australia, it was these two — is now beholden to India, now the sole super power in the game with its enormous television audiences, huge bank balance and rich tournaments like the IPL. The ICC can do little about the decline of Test cricket, or indeed cricket itself across its member-countries.

The fear that the ICC will soon abdicate its responsibility to owners of T20 franchises around the world, especially those from India who own teams in three or four countries is very real. Pushed into a corner with diminishing public interest and weakening finances, South Africa have already shown they realise which side their bread is buttered on. They hope their domestic T20 tournament, the SA20 — with six teams, all owned by IPL franchises from India — will solve both these issues. SA20 turned a profit in its opening year last season.

Compromise

But this involves a compromise. The by-product is the likely decision to send a second or third string team to New Zealand for a two-Test series in February next year. Those who will make the team are not nearly as significant as those who won’t: Skipper Temba Bavuma, Aiden Markram, Keshav Maharaj, Kagiso Rabada, Anrich Nortje, Lungi Ngidi and Marco Jansen and other top players involved with the SA20 will be missing as things stand.

South Africa, often the No. 1 Test-playing country in the past, will be playing only two-Test series in the current World Test Championship cycle, till 2025. “It’s tough to take,” says Dean Elgar, former captain, speaking of South Africa’s changed priorities, which hints at cricket’s changed priorities to come.

If franchise cricket is set to take over the game, it might already be carrying the seeds of its own demise — too much of it, across too many time zones, involving the same players and same owners might be a threat.

Already it is becoming difficult for the average fan to tell one tournament from the other, to follow the same players doing the same things day after day, and to remember everything when a good percentage of games is quite forgettable.

Losing interest in other formats

But that might be for the future. And by then it could be too late. In the meantime, interest in the other formats might have been sucked dry. Often success, if not handled well, leads to its own destruction.

The national and international governing bodies of the game have at least a theoretical interest in keeping the formats alive, in looking after the grassroots, and in keeping the bigger picture in sight. Private owners, with their obsession with the bottom line to the exclusion of most other things cannot be expected to run the game the same way.

In a decade or two, cricket will be unrecognisable from the sport it is today, when it is in transition. Cricket South Africa (CSA) might have shown the way for other cricket boards who pay lip service to Test cricket but are happy to ignore it if the other formats generate more money. In fact, the CSA might have knocked out the hypocrisy inherent in cricket administration.