Amid pessimism, there is hope that Jay Shah can change cricket for the better

Throughout his four-year reign as an international cricketer, Greg Barclay was dogged by the perception that he was a seat warmer for the all-powerful Jay Shah. He was essentially a lame duck after being called a “compromise candidate” when he first ran for the role.

After handing the role to Shah despite being able to run again, years of anguish were evident as a vocal Barclay let go immediately after stepping down as chairman of the International Cricket Council.

Barclay was an understated figure in power, pulling the strings of power broker and money spinner India, and was particularly outspoken on many issues in an interview with the Indian government. British newspaper Telegraphparticularly on the controversial Afghan women's issue and Australia's position on it.

His candor was quite refreshing, but does beg the question why he couldn't be more candid if he was actually in the role. As an administrator who did not come from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Barclay was effectively rendered ineffective.

< position="inread" progressive="" ad-id="article-0-inread" aria-hidden="true" role="presentation"/>

There has been some belief that the chairman of cricket should not come from India, or even compatriots from Australia and England, as former ICC and Pakistan boss Ehsan Mani once told me. “It would be healthier to have someone (the chairman) who is not one of the big three,” he said at the time.

But Shah is in charge and some of Barclay's answers from the interview, which have raised eyebrows among some on the ICC board, were revealing.

“I think he has a great opportunity to use his background to help India take the game to another level, but without also bringing it under India's yoke,” Barclay said of Shah.

“We're really lucky to have India, they make a huge contribution to the game in every respect, but one country with so much power and influence distorts a lot of other outcomes, which isn't necessarily helpful in terms of that global growth.”

For the first time since the maligned N. Srinivasan was ousted as ICC chairman more than a decade ago after an attempted robbery of the sport's finances from the rich countries India, England and Australia, India has effectively taken power into its hands.

There was Shashank Manohar, who took over from Srinivasan, but he tried to diminish India's power and as such became a divisive figure among his country's power brokers.

Although the role of chairman is considered 'independent', it will understandably be difficult for Shah to suppress his nationalism. After all, he is the son of Amit Shah, India's Home Minister and right-hand man of nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and has just stepped down from his all-powerful role in charge of Indian cricket, where he has further tightened the rules. the country's grip on the sport.

As the Shah era begins, there are different feelings. Some believe he will rule with an iron fist and essentially lead an administration that will be influenced by the interests of India, which of course had pulled the levers from the background during Barclay's government, but now it is out in the open.

Those who are more optimistic believe Shah can effectively be an agent of change, given his weight and clear relationships with the Indian hierarchy. Not just a sham, as Barclay was apparently reduced to and unable to negotiate properly with India.

“Jay has the ability to take India even more internationally,” Barclay said. “There are a number of things India could do to unify and grow the game, including commercially helping to pool offshore rights, using their teams to provide opportunities to smaller full members and emerging countries, and using their power to open new territories. and markets, working closely with the ICC to help members benefit, as an example.”

If Shah really wants to make a long-lasting difference, a legacy that goes far beyond his tenure, he must light a fuse under a governance overhaul that has been dragging on for years but remains nothing but hot air.

As I reported last year, a single membership proposal for the ICC was put forward as part of the constitutional discussions, but it went nowhere. It meant scrapping a seemingly archaic tiered membership led by the 12 full members, who receive more funding and have more power through coveted spots on the 17-member ICC board.

It's an issue that Barclay clearly thinks is vitally important, but can do little to get off the ground. 'Getting the board in order. Cricket is almost unique. You have a group of full members, and you have the rest,” he said. “First, let's step away and say, okay, someone is number one and someone is number 120.

“And you can go up and down, being ranked based on performance both on and off the field. The higher you go, the more money you get, the more fame you get. And if you don't perform, you go down .”

The members of the board wait with bated breath to see which direction Shah will lead them.