Like with most things about cricket, playing a fast short-pitched ball for example, everything seems easier from a distance. A lot of us who write about the game have two things in our favour; we often sit in comfortable rooms and let the mind wander and more important, we are rarely accountable for our writing. So it is with most comments about the ICC, everybody’s favourite whipping boy. It is a broad spectrum victim, anything is game for an attack. But the ICC isn’t really an independent entity, it is made up of sharply polarised nations who respect it depending on how convenient it is to do so and is only as powerful as the nations that constitute it, allow it to be.
The fact that the ICC is made up of a very small number of nations makes the job more complex. I can see people within the ICC bristling at this suggestion but the truth is that for all the associate and other members, it is really made up of three or four countries with five or six others deriving importance from who they vote for. Even those are really satellite nations merely making up the numbers, like minority parties in a coalition. If the ICC was made up of a hundred countries, life might have been easier since no one country would have counted for much. And the game would have moved on without one or two members. And so, being head of the ICC is now a bit like heading a warring joint family.
Everyone expects the ICC to find a solution to everything. They might, if they had the power to find and enforce one. As things stand, the ICC has little power on most matters and that is something for each member nation to think about. The supposed ineptitude of the ICC is really the fault of each of the countries that make it up. It is a very tenuous bond that holds it together at the moment. Everyone wants a central governing body but nobody wants it to be strong. It’s like saying I want a mathematics teacher but will not accept the marks he or she gives me.
And so nobody is happy with the zero tolerance approach to sledging. Well, I am happy to say I am. Some cricketers are saying it will take something away from the game. Of course it will. It will take away a tumour and last I knew taking away a tumour left a person in better health. A glare on a field, a passing comment, a sarcastic remark, yes, that is part of the game because frustration and disappointment are part of the game. But abuse isn’t, and sadly, the people who speak in favour of sledging belittle abuse. It is all very well to say that racial and personal comments should not be allowed. It is a naïve statement because, as we saw in Australia, we can spend hours debating what is racist and what is offensive to a certain culture.
By complaining about a solution and not contributing to an alternate one, we take the easy way out. And if no solution is acceptable, I’m afraid you have to take what you get. And the only alternative, one that cricketers have brought onto themselves, is that there will be no sledging at all. A lot of mighty fine players scored a lot of runs, took a lot of wickets and stood close in without needing to abuse anyone. And if they could do it, everyone else should. Don’t forget too that we are breeding a generation that thinks calling people offensive and rude names is part of cricket. Aren’t we meant to be caretakers of the game? Handing it over to the next generation in a better state than the one we received it in? Well, all those who talk of the spirit of the game need to ask themselves this.
Making offensive remarks about a person, his family, his religion or his country doesn’t make the game healthier. Those that seek to justify it will leave the game poorer.