How does a country with 1.3+ billion people crazy about cricket, plus, almost 10 times the resources of other countries manage to fail so often?
To put it another way: Assume the Indian team gets 8 balls per over, while the other countries get 4 balls per over and yet, the Indian team loses. How is that even possible?
An unequal game
Before we get into what is wrong with Indian cricket, let's take a look at the huge disparity of resources between India and other countries like the West Indies.
1. Talent: India has 1.3 billion people and a vast army of cricket players. India has so many good players that it could probably create 5 teams, and all 5 could be playing in the "Super 12". As opposed to smaller countries like the Netherlands or New Zealand, which have tiny populations, India has players in virtually every village -- which creates a vast pool of available players. Just like every Brazilian is kicking around a football in the street, India too has this vast pool of players, any one of which can become the next Virat Kohli.
2. Money: As everyone knows, India pretty much takes the lion's share of cricketing revenue. With humongous television revenue and monopoly control of ICC schedules, India can completely dominate the cricket world. While other sports "spread the wealth" and aspire to grow the game worldwide (e.g. basketball), cricket seems to be going in the reverse direction where the super-power is making the other countries weaker.
Consider how basketball (which used to be an American sport), is now the world's fastest-growing sport and is hugely popular in Europe and China. In a true testament to the sport spreading far and wide, emerging countries like Spain have even beaten the once untouchable United States.
3. Culture: A huge part of how well a sport does in a country is how it is perceived in the popular culture of that country. There is a reason the Jamaicans produce super-fast runners. And the same is true for cricket in India, which is treated on par with religion. This means that playing cricket gets unequal attention and praise in cultural circles.
The problems
So, despite all of the above positive factors, India continues to underperform in cricket. So that begs the question: Are there some structural deficiencies in how cricket is managed in India? Why is it that a country that has 10 times the resources and talents as other countries continue to underperform year after year? To dive into this, let's look at some key management problems:
1. Management by committee: There seems to be a committee for anything and everything under the sun. Instead of having a "single throat to choke", decision-making seems to be distributed across multiple (often political) committees. There is one committee for selection. Each member comes with his agenda and possibly his own political and non-political beliefs on how the game should be played.
Then there is an additional coach/manager. Then there is the on-field captain. And finally, a bunch of really rich and pampered players. I wonder how many layers of bureaucratic red tape someone needs to wade through to make any decision. And then, when something goes wrong, who is the STC (Single Throat To Choke)? The finger-pointing is bound to begin with each political faction vying to save its skin.
2. Impromptu teams: The teams for strategic events (like World Cup) seem to be put together in an impromptu fashion. Just take the best 11 players and throw them into a team. And hopefully, something will happen. And who decides what the team strategy is going to be? The selection committee? The coach? The captain? There seems to be so much confidence in the individual abilities of the players that everyone seems to think, "Lets just put the best 11 on the field, and everything will be fine".
3. Strategic goals: Is the management driven by ONE strategic goal? (e.g. "Win the World Cup"). Do 4 years of international play all lead to that one strategic goal? And is every decision along the way decided with that goal in mind? Usually, national teams are driven by exactly such a goal. For example, the Brazilian football team is driven to win the World Cup. And all planning is with that goal in mind. Is the same true for the Indian T20 cricket team?
The (possible) solutions
While India does some soul-searching, there are bound to be a hundred solutions. However, I want to offer ONE solution to the problems listed above. This solution is inspired by a similar situation that USA Basketball faced a couple of years ago, widely known as the "Redeem Team".
1. Single throat to choke: Similar to the role played by Jerry Colangelo (in the "Fall and Rise of USA Basketball"), there needs to be a single point of accountability towards the strategic goal (e.g. World Cup). No committees, no multiple layers of bureaucracy, nothing. A single qualified person in complete charge of putting the best option to win the World Cup.
This means: 1. No more selection committees, 2. Guaranteed contract for the person in charge (let's call him "Cricket Czar").
The Cricket Czar gets wide latitude to decide how he wants to compose the team, the support structure, and (possibly) even the game plan. And he gets whatever resources he needs (analytics, recruitment, scouting, you name it).
2. Dedicated specialised team: The Cricket Czar should be able to put together a team that satisfies his chosen system (whatever that system might be!). For example: In the "Redeem Team", Colangelo was able to sacrifice the stars and put together a role-based system tailored to compete in the Olympics. This team was structured so that they could prepare with role-players over 4 years to adapt to the expected conditions at the Olympics.
3. Player commitment: No more pampered rich stars acting like they are doing the country a favour. If a player is selected for a target team in a given role, there needs to be clear commitment and dedication toward that role. To that end, it's perfectly fine to exclude pampered rich stars in preparation for the future.
(The writer is a Boston-based entrepreneur and investor and is currently the CEO of the user-testing platform Poll the People. Alden is the 2016 winner of the University of Massachusetts Outstanding Achievement in Entrepreneurship Award from the College of Information and Computer Sciences)
