Mr. Mani, your reaction is laughable

Wasim Akram
By ICF Staff
December 14 2005

ICC President Ehsan Mani, widely seen in the subcontinent as a powerless figurehead in the ICC with no influence on the workings of the ICC, sputters indignantly but unconvincingly in response to comments from Wasim Akram.

Media such as Cricinfo (which hosts the ICC's official site) and the like were quick to publish Ehsan Mani's stuffy reaction to Wasim Akram's comments in India on the imbalance in the ranks of the ICC.

Amusingly but predictably, the same media had failed to publish the supposedly offensive comments from Wasim in the first place, likely because of the uncomfortable truth exposed by those comments.

Even in their belated publishing of the background behind Mani's statement, they have repeated only a selected part of what Wasim said, and blown it out of proportion. In this article we repeat several of Wasim's comments in their entirety, in the interest of allowing readers to judge for themselves.

It is a well-known fact that the Indian subcontinent, consisting of Test-playing countries India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and their diaspora, generate more than 80% of revenue for cricket worldwide, flushing the ICC coffers with cash to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- far more money than they could have dreamed of earning only a few years back.

Yet, the administrative body is dominated heavily by English and Australian ex-cricketers. Both the ICC referee and umpire panels are dominated by them, as well as the bulk of ICC employees. Australian Malcolm Speed is the influential CEO, and Mani the putative president but in reality little more than a symolic figurehead. The few in the leadership selected carefully from other countries are only too anxious to prove their loyalty, maintaining the status quo of their historical grip on the running of the game.

These days, the on-field actions of the umpires and referees of the ICC are increasingly seen as astonishingly biased, and often unashamedly so.

Over rates

Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq, along with his entire team, was fined last month for being two overs late in the first Test match against England. TWO OVERS, you ask? Punished for being 10 minutes behind in a five-day match? Get serious.

During the Ashes, three months ago, both England and Australia were routinely behind mandated over rates. And not just by two overs for the whole match, but sometimes five to ten overs for a single day -- on several days!

Neither the Australian nor English captain was fined, and not once during their repetitive flunking of the required over rate were they hauled up by a stern referee or fined or banned. But Inzamam-ul-Haq was fined 20%, and his entire team 10%, for being two overs late over the entirety of a five-day Test match. Sourav Ganguly for his part has been penalized and banned numerous times as captain, for far less than what Vaughan and Ponting got away with over and over again during the Ashes.

Spirit of Cricket? Give me a break

After the conclusion of the Ashes, ICC had even awarded the England team the "Spirit of Cricket" award with great fanfare. But while visiting Pakistan, a zeal for the spirit of the game went missing. Steve Harmison infamously got Inzamam's wicket by throwing the ball at him, and when he flinched and lifted a foot momentarily, claimed a runout which the Australian umpires granted! A magnificent innings was cut off in mid-stream by an action that was a blatant violation of the law, and the officials went along with it.

What was perhaps more disturbing than Harmison's controversial appeal was that it was supported by the ICC umpires. What happened to enforcing the laws fairly?

Ian Bell claimed and got a wicket off a clear bump catch during the same series. Replays which clearly showed the catch was not clean were overlooked by the umpires as well as the referee. Yet Rashid Latif, who had also claimed a bump catch in an earlier series, had been banned for 5 matches, effectively ending his career. This is not cricket.

Bob Woolmer, Pakistan's English coach, has gone on record to say that during his team's recent tour of Australia, most close decisions went in Australia's favor. He even gave numbers based on video evidence: 29-5 in favor of Australia. What has Ehsan Mani, the Pakistani President of ICC, done to address these injustices against the team representing his own country? Absolutely nothing! Just how does his presence help equitable application of the law then? The reason for diversity in administration is to ensure fairness to all.

Brian Lara

There is no shortage of recent controversies. Brian Lara, the batsman Australians have said they fear most, was given out wrongly by ICC Umpires in a majority of the innings he played in the Windies' recent tour of Australia. Yet, ICC refuses to introduce technology in decision-making, influenced by loud objections from Australia and England who clearly have the most to gain from an umpiring panel heavily influenced and dominated by them.

Indian umpires Hariharan and Jayprakash, nominated by the BCCI for position on the elite umpire panel, have time and again been rejected by the ICC on the basis of "performance". Given the atrocious decision-making by their present umpires, ICC are hardly in a position to bicker about the abilities of the Indians. A rare mistake by them is highlighted by the ICC, but frequent errors by their own swept under the rug.

India supplies the vast majority of money and audience to the game worldwide, but does not have a single representative on either the umpire or referee panels of the ICC. This is utterly unacceptable.

Aggressive Appealing

Aggressive appealing designed to put umpires under pressure and get poor decisions is against the letter of ICC law. It is also enforced strictly when the team that practices it is India, or Sri Lanka, or Pakistan. But when Australia does it, action from the officials is conspicuous by its absence. Shane Warne was in fact reported by Aleem Dar last month during the Windies series, but ICC referee South African Mike Procter dismissed it immediately. The result? The Windies have borne the brunt of most poor decisions during the series, and there were numerous.

The reason for the dismissal of the umpire's complaint, as explained by Procter: "Every side has got their own style of play.. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, to a certain extent, are aggressive in their body language and aggressive in their appealing and that's the way they play."

Can there be a more blatant differentiation in application of laws for different teams?

Technology would be too consistent - we don't like that!

Sachin Tendulkar continues to get rough LBWs from the ICC umpires -- Australian Simon Taufel has already given him a poor decision in the series just started between India and Lanka. But players such as Ponting and Langer, known for walking across the stumps and being struck in front early and often during their innings, regularly get the benefit of the doubt from the same ICC umpires.

LBW decisions in particular have been woefully inconsistent -- the same umpire in the same match will give a plumb LBW not-out in one innings, and a marginal one out in another. Why isn't Hawkeye used, for consistency in decision-making if nothing else?

The reasons are unconvincing: it isn't proven to be 100% correct at all times; it robs the game of "charm"; it disrespects the umpires, and so on.

In any other field, obviously incompetent performance is punished, but the aging ICC umpires are apparently to be left pristinely alone. Even an indirect reference to their incompetence can lead to punishment, however this is another area where the Aussie and English players have been able to make sly comments without drawing any action.

Chucking

ICC has come down heavily on chucking, a sensitive issue in cricket, but almost exclusively against subcontinental bowlers. Players such as Brett Lee, Andrew Flintoff, James Kirtley and Kyle Mills, widely regarded as chuckers, have been untouched. Kirtley was recently banned by ECB after bowling in international cricket for years. Brett Lee has been reported twice, both times by Indian umpires (Venkat and Jayprakash) but the ICC has brushed off their reports, not so much as requiring him to go through an evaluation or remedial action. However, greats such as Murali, Akhtar and Harbhajan, as well as numerous lesser compatriots of theirs, have been reported, repeatedly, by the same ICC officials even after passing their tests.

Wasim Akram's comments

Back to Wasim Akram's comments: On the subject of Pakistani bowlers Shabbir Ahmed and Shoaib Malik being called again and again, mostly by Australian umpires, Akram wondered aloud why no bowler from England, Australia or South Africa has been questioned over his bowling action even as bowlers from the Indian sub-continent continue to be singled out for corrective action.

"Take the case of Shabbir. He was cleared three times earlier and he has been called again," said Wasim who took 414 Test wickets.

"What is surprising is that most of this is happening to bowlers from our part of the world.

"Nobody from other countries - South Africa, Australia and England - has been called recently. This is because our representation at the ICC is minimal," the fast bowling legend concluded.

Wasim also pointed out that the ICC was heavily dominated by "one-Test wonders" from England and Australia, while greats from the subcontinent such as Imran Khan and Kapil Dev have yet to be invited to influential positions in the ICC.

On the subject of his compatriot, the laughable president of the ICC, Wasim had this to say, "ICC (International Cricket Council) has become a forum for white ex-cricketers. Mani may be a Pakistani but he has never played cricket and never been associated with Pakistan or India or Bangladesh.

"He has never watched a first-class game. He has never visited Bangladesh. My objection is why don't players like Imran Khan and Kapil Dev get the top job in ICC?

"But people from Australia and England – all these one-test wonders – get the job. I think if cricketers head the ICC, their opinion will be respected more. We (the subcontinent) have the passion, talent, money and the crowds. But we don't have anyone there," rued Akram in a reference to the ICC.

Akram himself might be considered a prime candidate for such jobs, but when asked whether he would be open to them, he joked, "The way I'm going after ICC, I don't think they have any offer for me. But it's not me. Other former players from India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka should get top ICC jobs."

Mani's response

Mani's response has predictably been to talk about the few subcontinental representatives in the ICC: people such as Aleem Dar, Roshan Mahanama, and Ranjan Madugalle.

Mr. Mani, stop your nonsense. Ranjan Madugalle was the referee for the Ashes; yes, this is the same man who refused to penalize either Australia or England for over rates that were routinely behind by the required number, often by a large margin. Roshan Mahanama was the referee during the England-Pakistan series, who punished Inzamam and his team for being a whole two overs behind for a five-day match. And Aleem Dar has been the culprit behind several poor decisions against the Windies and in favor of Australia, including against Brian Lara who finally was allowed to hit a double century after the series was decided and his wicket taken by the umpires most times.

Wasim Akram, as a rare outspoken member of the subcontinental cricket community, should be rewarded for his efforts to speak up on these important issues, perhaps by being elected chairman of the ACC (Asian Cricket Council) so that he can continue to highlight these issues. With Jagmohan Dalmiya resigning his position from the ACC in the wake of the changed BCCI administration, this would be especially appropriate. It is crucial that BCCI support Akram.

ICC would do well to recognize a rare open voice from the subcontinent. If Mani attempts to muzzle his compatriot Akram, rather than heed his warnings, it will not bode well for the future of cricket. Wasim Akram, one of the greatest bowlers in the history of cricket and the world's highest wicket-taker in internationals, has put his future on the line with his hard-hitting comments. His initiative must not go wasted.