In his superb analysis of Pakistan cricket’s troubles on and off the field, Osman Samiuddin writing in Cricinfo uses the phrase “governmentalisation of the board.” It might be an awkward construction, but you can’t argue with its relevance in the subcontinent.

Governmentalisation of the cricket board has a long and hoary history here. A large section of fans thinks it’s part of the game. Success on the sports field is compensation for lack of success in other fields, and is therefore venerated and given a significance beyond its intrinsic merit. If Bangladesh beat Australia in a Test (as they did recently), it does not alter the lives of their citizens in any marked way. But it might cause them to walk a little taller for a brief while, and that’s reward enough.

Politicians (and the military, in Pakistan’s case) love the boost to their image an international win brings with it, the glow of reflected glory. There is a feel-good factor in countries that have little to feel good about.

In Asia, the government take-over is hardly commented on; many barely notice it. If sport is seen as a substitute for war, then that is certainly the better alternative. There is too the power, the money, the influence, the polishing of the public image that politicians find irresistible.

Sri Lanka have lost the right to host International Cricket Council (ICC) tournaments — most recently the inaugural Women’s Champions Trophy — because of “government interference” in their cricket board. The government-appointed Transformation Committee which oversees the game is only the latest in a list of similar committees appointed in recent years.

Blame it on the players

Bangladesh, peeved at the withdrawal of their bowler Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL this year — as instructed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, a proxy for the Indian government — refused to send a team for the World T20 in India. This was on the instruction of Asif Nazrul, adviser in Bangladesh’s interim government then. Later he blamed the players for refusing to travel. Players are useful as excuses and punching bags.

Pakistan’s cricket board chairman Mohsin Naqvi’s day job is as Interior Minister of the country. He has now ordered seven players currently in the team trailing 0-2 in England to return to the country with one Test remaining in the series. When your team doesn’t win, make an example of the players. It’s a modern version of ancient myths where losing athletes were executed.

It ensures that the real culprits — a rotten system kept alive by the self-seeking — remain untouched, and what’s more, are seen to be doing something positive. Change is not always progress, but gives the illusion of being so.

Other occasions when Naqvi made himself a laughing stock include the time he took the Asia Cup back to Pakistan after the Indian players refused to accept it from him on winning the tournament. Churlishness begat churlishness then, and no one won.

In India, the ruling BJP has its men in key positions, and is enjoying the advantages of having the son of the Home Minister as the most powerful man in the game as Chairman of the ICC. Indian players’ boorish refusal to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts at the Asia Cup was — in the finest traditions of the region (see Bangladesh, above) — passed off as a move by the players alone. Skipper Suryakumar Yadav dedicated the win to victims of the Pahalgam attack while the Prime Minister equated the Asia Cup win with their showing in battle, pointing out how Pakistan had lost in both cases.

Silly and dangerous

To equate sporting responses with national pride as Asian countries do is both silly and dangerous.

Yet, despite everything, India have the best system of the lot. The home season runs smoothly, players come through regularly and world class performers emerge in every generation. After India won their second successive series in Australia, the No. 1 Test team, their commentators were urging that country to follow the Indian system.

Politicians using sport and athletes to further their own agenda is not unusual. Cricket’s political power in Asia reflects the game’s extraordinary place in society. Whatever serves as the opium of the masses is always in danger of governmentalisation.

When Mahendra Singh Dhoni was starting out as an India player, he had a favour to ask of the media. Please don’t rush to my parents’ house every time I score some runs, he pleaded. It is difficult to say which comes first, the public’s obsessive interest in a player or the media’s creation of that obsession. To remain a public figure and yet retain privacy is a delicate balancing act.

Sachin Tendulkar managed it well. Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, younger when making his international debut, should steel himself (as his family must too) for the invasions that will surely follow. Yes, the public has a right to know (the usual argument), and yes the media only give the public what it wants. But at 15, Sooryavanshi is hardly in a position to resist even if he had the tools or knew the tricks.

He has made his point, winning the player-of-the-series award after India’s victory in Zimbabwe. Turns out he is what everyone had expected, a potentially great white ball player, a six-hitter in a game that is judged by six-hitting abilities, a match-winner, a bowling-killer. He is yet to shed his puppy fat, yet seems to know his game with a thoroughness that is almost frightening in someone so young. Where does he go from here?

He has made his point, letting the nay-sayers know that he is not too young for international cricket; he is at home in its atmosphere. Now we have an obligation — let’s leave him alone, and sit back to watch his progress over the next couple of decades. Fans are rarely given an opportunity to watch a player grow from his teens to his thirties on a live stage. A front row seat, too, that should not be abused by reaching out to touch the actor performing.

Break all records

“He will break all the records at international level,” said India’s coach in Zimbabwe V.V.S. Laxman, who has broken a few himself and watched Tendulkar do so too, so he knows a thing or two. And when he says he is impressed by the boy’s maturity and ability to handle pressure we are doubly assured.

Given the manner in which the white ball game grew out of the rib of red ball cricket, it is not surprising that the great players in one format, the top scorers, the bowlers with most wickets are the all-format champions. The game is yet to see an exclusively white ball great, although some may be emerging from the West Indies and Afghanistan.

It’s too early for Sooryavanshi to have to make the choice now, but will he be satisfied to finish as a white ball great or extend his grasp to include Test cricket too? Cricket is at a stage when format-specialisation (however inelegant the term) is not just a possibility but one likely to be encouraged.

Sooryavanshi might not be ready for Test cricket just yet, but such is his talent that the possibility is ever present.

When Tendulkar, at 16, made his Test debut in Pakistan, the prevailing wisdom was that you didn’t play a green Test player in a one-day match because the latter was bad company to keep for one so young. Then Tendulkar set the Peshawar stadium afire striking leg spinner Abdul Qadir for sixes at will (he scored 28 runs in one over) in an exhibition game, and there was no holding him back.

Sooryavanshi might have to do the reverse — keep his six-hitting in check and demonstrate how good his defence is!

Increased pressure

The cricket world is in for a treat, however you look at it. The pressures on a young Sooryavanshi will be far greater than on a young Tendulkar was, simply because of social media and instant criticism without cause.

Dealing with trolls, making the right choices, handling sponsors and advertisers are some of the off-field challenges ahead. The Board of Control for Cricket in India does not have a mentoring system, nor is there a proper players’ association which can bring its experience to bear upon these issues.

It was good of the cricket board to let his parents travel for matches with Sooryavanshi. All of us have a responsibility. After all, it takes a village…

The irony of international cricket is that while the motivation for lower-ranked teams is to improve by playing against top teams, that of two of the stakeholders, television and the International Cricket Council, is money. The interests of the sport therefore often take a backseat.

The last 50-over World Cup (in 2023) had only 10 teams, and was criticised for this. Fine, said the International Cricket Council, we will have 14 in 2027. The teams will be divided into two groups playing round robin thus guaranteeing the Associate members (those who are not Test-playing) at least six matches each.

The Netherlands beat South Africa and Bangladesh in the World Cup, indicating the gap between teams may not be as wide as imagined, and with greater exposure, some teams could measure up. The Netherlands haven’t played any of the 12 Test-playing countries since then. Still, they expected to get their chance in the expanded version.

Oh no, said the ICC. There may be 14 teams, but the “inconsequential” matches will be done away with. A governing body known for shifting the goalposts (if you’ll pardon the metaphor) has changed them again. The ICC has announced that the World Cup will be held in three stages, the first involving a round-robin among three qualifiers of whom only one will qualify.

This team then joins the top eight-ranked teams, the two Test-playing hosts (South Africa and Zimbabwe; Namibia miss out), the winners of the qualifying tournament and the winners of the first round robin, making 12 teams, which is effectively when the World Cup actually begins. The three-team qualifier has merely been tagged on to the main event, and bears no relationship with it.

The 12 will be divided into two groups, with the top three teams and the best finisher among the rest qualifying for a ‘Super Seven’ who then play a round robin. The four top teams get into the semifinals.

India-Pakistan factor

To change the format 15 months ahead of the World Cup with no assurance it won’t be changed again brings no credit to the ICC. Guaranteeing at least two India v Pakistan matches, perhaps even three, is a strong motivation. World tournaments seem merely backdrops to the real thing: India v Pakistan.

That match is the ICC’s biggest money-spinner both for the baggage it carries and because the countries don’t currently play bilateral series. If television is to be kept happy, the spread of the game will have to be pushed into the background. Television may not directly dictate to the ICC, but the governing body knows what it likes. And if it means Scotland, Netherlands, and a host of Associate members will have to be satisfied with the crumbs, the ICC sees that as a small price to pay.

It will be interesting to see if India and Pakistan are placed in the same group before the round of 12 commences. After all, they have been in the same group for 12 consecutive global events now (perhaps the ICC uses a magic hat for the draw). What if, drawn separately, Pakistan do not qualify for the Super Seven? The ICC might be loath to take such chances. This makes a mockery of a World Cup, but that too is a price the ICC is willing to pay. The ICC was badly scarred at the 2007 World Cup where both India and Pakistan were eliminated in the group stage and television viewership dropped by 50%.

The new format means that the top teams get to play more matches (if they get to the final), and the Associates fewer overall. Football showed in its World Cup how expanding the number to 48 showcased teams like Cape Verde which brought a special flavour to it. Greed and personal aggrandisement might have been the motivation there, but it was good for the game.

Kenya beating twice world champions West Indies in 1996, Ireland beating England in 2011 are just two of the more dramatic results in the World Cup. Upsets are good for the sport, but not always for television. When what is good for one is also ideal for the other, we will finally have a World Cup that is equitable. And the magic hat can be done away with.

What the Indian women had and the men lacked in England was better planning, more time to acclimatise (players have been there since May for the World Cup and the T20I series), sensible selection, superior captain-coach co-ordination, better fielding (that catch by Richa Ghosh at silly mid-off was one of the finest ever), keener awareness of the game situation, all of which added up to a resounding Test win. The men’s 0-4 loss in the T20 series following the 0-2 loss to Ireland shone a light on issues that have been long glossed over.

Admittedly, the men were without Hardik Pandya, Jasprit Bumrah (rested), and skipper Surya Kumar Yadav (sacked) from the World Cup-winning side. Player-of-the tournament Sanju Samson was handled poorly, his increasing insecurity (with Vaibhav Sooryavanshi waiting in the wings) used as a weapon against him.

Added to that was the mishandling of Sooryavanshi himself who was thrown in the deep end in England when he might have profited from starting out in Ireland. He was advised to ignore the noise around him, advice coach Gautam Gambhir himself followed, playing everything close to his chest. India failed to get the best out of their two top batters.

Misplaced belief

India believe they can field two or three T20 sides of roughly equal strength. The IPL, on which such a belief is based, is played on good tracks where explosive batters prosper and all-rounders miss out because of the impact substitute rule. As Assistant coach Ryan ten Doeschate said in England, “What works in India won’t necessarily work here.”

Perhaps having so much skill in their ranks worked against the team. When there are many claimants for a slot, players try too hard, or attempt the spectacular regardless of the state of the match, the wicket or the opposition. An element of selfishness creeps in, especially if a player feels anxious. Sometimes nothing succeeds like failure. Were the Indian men undone by their own riches? Was competition for places a curse rather than a blessing? When teams begin to lose, individuals become overkeen to protect their territory.

If the women appeared more settled, and less troubled by selection, it had everything to do with coach Amol Muzumdar and skipper Harmanpreet Kaur. The communication lines were clear. Television caught the captain preparing to declare in India’s second innings casually looking over her shoulder at the coach whose nod was almost imperceptible. There is respect here, and a maturity to understand their respective roles.

Contrasting attitudes

Muzumdar has been an outstanding mentor, bringing to his task a calmness and an empathy for the players which begets trust and respect, as Harmanpreet has acknowledged more than once.

Gambhir’s approach is more along the lines of “my way or the highway”, and his prickly nature can be intimidating. All is forgiven when the team succeeds, but brought into sharper focus when it does not.

Consistently poor fielding and catching are usually indication that there is a problem within the team. At no time did the Indian men look like the world champions they are; they have fabulous batters and excellent bowlers, but apparently not a great team — and that is worrying. A good showing in the one-day series will probably erase the results in T20; this is often the way. Earlier results tend to be forgotten, and thus forgiven.

The women were professional, and deserved the win. Yastika Bhatia’s century at Lord’s — Sunil Gavaskar, Sachin Tendulkar and Virat Kohli don’t have one there — and Kranti Gaud’s five wickets in an innings have a significance far beyond the honours board.

Striking a balance

Smriti Mandhana’s two half centuries, the success of the off spinners Deepti Sharma and Sneh Rana, an unbeaten half-century by Richa Ghosh point to team effort in the win. Harmanpreet’s fifty in the first innings and her measured captaincy throughout, unhurried, skilfully maintaining the balance between attack and defence was crucial too. India haven’t lost a Test yet in England, having now played ten.

The women’s victory coming on the heels of the men’s defeats might exaggerate some of the differences. Teams are judged by results, however, not on potential or future hope. In the here-and-now, the Indian women’s team has a lesson or two for the men’s.

Pretty soon, the Indian selectors will have to take a call on the future of two of the greatest players to have put bat to white ball. Both Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma appear keen to play in the World Cup in October-November next year. India play at least 18 One-Day Internationals before that, possibly more.

On paper, the selectors’ task is straightforward: keep tabs on form and fitness, the only two metrics that matter, although Kohli turns 39 during the World Cup and Rohit will be 40 earlier.

But its seldom so simple in India. For one, should the two greats be hyphenated? Is it a Kohli-Rohit issue, or will dropping one make it easier to justify the other’s selection? Is this cricket’s version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where if one person withdraws, the other goes through?

Have the players been told in advance what the selectorial thinking is so they know what to expect and there will be no embarrassment? Can a ‘cricketing’ decision, which is what it will be touted as either way, be independent of the sentiment and romance attached to it?

Chairman Ajit Agarkar and his team have shown a streak of ruthlessness Indian cricket is unfamiliar with, ditching the captain who won the T20 World Cup. Suryakumar Yadav was desperately short of runs, and India’s pool in T20 cricket is so vast and so deep that it was a justified call. Fan response was muted, although that will not be the case with Kohli and Rohit. The selectors’ message, though, is simple: runs matter.

Crucial series

The three-match ODI series in England next month will be crucial. Both as an opportunity for self-assessment for the two veterans and to give the selectors some clues. Kohli, who missed the Afghanistan series with a hamstring injury, was replaced by Yashasvi Jaiswal who made a century in the last match. But Jaiswal is not in the team for England (unless Kohli misses out again and he takes the older man’s place). Younger players in form shouldn’t be kept waiting for too long; it’s easy to sympathise with Jaiswal. But such are India’s riches.

Selectors have the job of balancing the past with the future while focusing on the present. Youngsters have to be given a chance to succeed, while veterans need the chance to fail, as this column has often argued. In other words, youngsters require the freedom and backing to build confidence without fear of being dropped immediately. Veterans possess an equity that entitles them to a bad run without being instantly discarded.

Skipper Shubman Gill has not looked uncomfortable with former captains playing under him. This was not always the case with India where former captains often acted like they had power but no responsibility. Gill’s inputs will be important too as he settles in for a long career as batter and captain, possibly in all three formats.

Rohit Sharma missed the 2011 World Cup which India won. The chairman of selectors then, Krishnamachari Srikkanth apologised for this a decade later. He said in a podcast, “I still feel bad for him. We just wanted more all-round options.” Rohit has come through a lot since then, including, as captain, the agony of losing the last final at home to Australia.

Kohli was a key member of that 2011 squad, starting with a century and finishing with an important partnership in the final with Gautam Gambhir.

Present matters

Not that any of that should matter to the selectors. It wouldn’t do to choose players based purely on past record or to compensate for past wrongs. The present should be all that matters here. Playing in South Africa (and Zimbabwe) means the experience of the stalwarts is important.

As things stand, Kohli probably has the better chance of making the team a year from now. His fitness has been an example to colleagues, and so too his motivation and fierce competitive spirit. Rohit might appear more laid-back but he is equally motivated and competitive. In the end, it will have to be form and fitness alone that matter.

Between now and the final selection, Kohli and Rohit will figure prominently in all discussions, an important adjunct to the main story of India’s preparation.

Sunil Gavaskar is not a bigot. Of that I am fairly certain, even granting that people can change and that as you grow older you tend to drift towards the more conservative end of the political spectrum.

Without quite being buddy-buddy, we have known each other for four decades now. We have had our good days — on tours especially, where we were both simply ‘writers’, and he was encouraging of youngsters. And bad days, when he has reacted to what I said. Recently, he was so upset about something in this column that he sent a letter which was carried in full.

But through all of this, the conviction that he is one of the all-time greats of the game has never faltered. He is an intelligent man, often compared by teammates to a chess grandmaster for his ability to think a dozen steps ahead of a move.

Twisted view

Which is why his recent pronouncement on a Pakistani player being selected to play in The Hundred in England is so twisted.

He has accused Sunrisers Hyderabad, owners of Sunrisers Leeds in England of contributing to the Indian casualties by funding weapons for Pakistan through the money Abrar Ahmed, a leg-spin bowler, will pay in tax. This is a bit like arguing that anybody who takes Shubman Gill’s wicket on the first day of a Test match is ruining cricket’s economy because fans might stay away on the second day.

Sunrisers Hyderabad signed up Abrar for $254,000 in the London auction.

“Although belated, the realisation that the fees that they pay to a Pakistani player, who then pays income tax to his government, which buys arms and weapons, indirectly contributes to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians, is making Indian entities refrain from even considering having Pakistani artistes and sportspersons,” Gavaskar wrote.

Gavaskar, who turns 77 this year, seems to be plugging into the spirit of the times. This is who we are in the new world order where India’s version of Donald Trump’s MAGA are the arbiters of what is good, what is nationalism and how patriotism is a zero sum game where loving your country means hating others. And you have to feed the beast if you are a public figure.

I hold no candle for Pakistan (although after this appears, trolls will suggest I move there). They are a struggling economy which exports terror. Politicians need India as the ‘other’ to spew venom at for their own ends. It takes the focus away from their own misdeeds and the sufferings of their people. It is a time-tested strategy used by other countries too. Yet to conclude that a cricketer’s salary contributes to terrorism is convoluted.

Following the Mumbai attacks in 2008, Pakistani players have been kept out of the IPL. There was no official order from the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Such things are done informally, with a nudge and a wink, the BCCI’s most effective weapons. Franchises understand what is good for them, and are unwilling to invite problems by selecting Pakistani players in India. The trouble — nudge,nudge, wink, wink — is not worth it.

But there is something disturbing about a national figure, a hero to millions mouthing the kind of stuff that is the preserve of social media trolls. If we see parts of ourselves reflected in our heroes, then this is not a wholesome reflection.

Less tolerant

Or perhaps, unknowingly, gradually, we as a people are becoming less tolerant, more likely to weaponise anything from a handshake to a selection abroad to buttress our self-image. The genuinely powerful do not need to constantly reference their power. Cricket is often called upon to clean the mess politicians make, or indeed endorse their views.

Gavaskar is entitled to his opinion, of course. Using his logic, you can make a case for keeping Indian players out of the IPL too, because the taxes they pay should go into building proper roads. But our roads are so full of potholes that you can say the IPL is leading to corruption (Note to trolls: This is a joke).

Once it was an article of faith that the best way to grab attention was to write against the prevailing ideas. Today the opposite seems true. You bow to the zeitgeist, and endorse the prevailing ‘wisdom’.