Why is this decision not surprising? Once again the ICC has chosen the most facile ground to avoid getting into a war that it cannot win. It would be fair to say that the decision was made for them rather than being made. If anything, it was a good thing that the ICC announced the date of the teleconference a week in advance, allowing member nations to have their say and their way.
The ICC was fighting another war – of pushing the IPL fallout, the Champions Twenty20 League, as far as possible from the Champions Trophy for fear that the former would steal the thunder of the latter. Unfortunately that thunder has now been usurped in a perfect case of mismanagement on the part of the ICC and the whims and fancy of the member nations.
The decision seemed straightforward. Hold the Champions Trophy at the pre-decided venue and incur seeing second strength teams taking part or even, allowing some of the associate nations into taking part and taking away the Champions Trophy tag. However, there were broadcasters involved who would not have anything less than the full show promised. Besides, there was the danger that one Asia Cup earlier this season would be repeated in the face of non Asian countries imposing their views of not wanting to tour Pakistan and finding voice in other non Asian nations as well.
Another decision seemed obvious. Shift the venue. The ICC had time enough and the broadcasters were willing to make the arrangements within a week. But there was another catch. The alternate venue happened to be another Asian country, Sri Lanka. Put on the same list as Pakistan by foreign boards, the ICC would have had to run through the same round of humiliation and in vain as it would have only meant another week of resistance.
This decision makes a dangerous case when teams decide to collectively oppose a pre decided plan. How many can decide what is ‘safe’ and what does not constitute it? If Pakistan and Sri Lanka are unhappy tourist venues, how far is India? Apart from the lure of money, not many players around the world would have perhaps agreed to tour India in light of the recent blasts and threats. How Graeme Smith, Shane Warne and Shane Watson decided to play in Jaipur during the IPL despite the blast and decide Pakistan is more dangerous leaves more room for subjective review. But how are nations touring the UK when London is constant on the terror list? It is this kind of roundabout discussion yielding no concrete viewpoint allowed for the ICC to limp out on another decision where they could have decided on a venue and said - this is how we are doing it, with or without you. It would have shown strength in at least the number of teams that did decide to show up. (The Champions Trophy may not have lived up to its name; but the way it has been treated in the past editions, it is hard to combat that this is the only time that it is facing a harsh audience.) The ICC is yet again proving to be at the mercy of the members and its arm is paralysed. Yet again they have limped out from making a more forthcoming decision, leaving the deference a matter dubious in the future.
The problem to see a middle ground was exacerbated as the Champions Trophy was causing splits and one that the ICC can ill afford. On the one hand, Australia and New Zealand kept sulking throughout the month and pushing the ICC to make a decision. England crouched under their rebellious stance. South Africa tried to duck but it decided to hook. And perhaps their decision decided that Pakistan was not feasible as a venue under the normal circumstances.
That Sri Lanka would meet with the same kind of resistance, would have tempted the ICC to find another alternate venue. But that was before India and Sri Lanka lent support to Pakistan’s cause. The ICC was in a soup. It could not accede a change of venue and any venue put up for selection hereafter would have divided the world (read eight nations playing the game at the Test level) right in the middle.
Afraid of further confrontation, the ICC’s meet would have only been a mere formality. Scrapping the Champions Trophy altogether would have only given momentum to the Twenty20 leagues springing up like mushrooms. What will this blocked out dates now mean for cricket; hardly likely that boards will allow a month in the cricket calendar to while away for a month. A luxury that money cannot afford. Will Twenty20 fill the slot and eventually fill the temp spot for a permanent post?
Postponing it means the ICC can fight this battle at another time when nations will point that the Champions Trophy, scheduled for 2009, is not that far from the World Cup and hence, perhaps quite unnecessary as individual boards will want to keep their dates for the bilateral series for obvious reasons.
Champions Trophy is perhaps not going to go out with a bow.
