Is there a more insufferable administration than the BCCI? With the Australia-India Test series underway, the most significant exclusion of a Maxwell is not Australian all-rounder Glenn by Mickey Arthur, but Australian commentator Jim by Indian cricket’s bosses.
Let me put this on the record with maximum clarity. Dissing Jim Maxwell is the most grievous insult you can deliver to the land of the stolen pavlova.
Jim Maxwell is so Australian he makes Phar Lap look like an itinerant taco vendor from Vladivostok.
The number 2013 at the top of your newspaper means that Maxwell has now been covering cricket for 40 years. For some, that would be a life sentence.
For Jim, it has been a joy. He has broadcast something like 250 Tests, and smashed more ODIs than Garfield.
Summer officially starts when you snap on the wireless and hear Maxwell’s unmistakeable tones, like sinking back into a vintage leather armchair. Those under a certain age have never known anyone else, those over it can’t remember that far back anyway.
His voice is so rich it seems to be dripping out the speaker grilles and pooling on the floor.
Imagine Harsha Bhogle were denied the right to commentate in Australia. Imagine the uproar, the ludicrousness of the decision. Yet Maxwell, with his wealth of experience, has been denied accreditation to cover the upcoming series for ABC radio.
I just want to repeat that, so you can chew over each word like a Werther’s Original: Jim Maxwell has been barred from covering a Test series for radio.
This is like telling Rudolf Nureyev that he’s not allowed to dance. Telling Phillipe Petit to get off that high wire. Telling James Brayshaw not to talk like he’s at schoolies week on a construction site.
Where no media application should have been more of a formality, the BCCI have treated the voice of Australian cricket like some hopeful work experience kid from a WordPress.com sports forum.
It would have been less disrespectful if they had rolled Richie Benaud in flour and tied him up to a coconut shy.
On what basis has India’s esteemed administration decided to exclude Australia’s most dedicated broadcaster?
Money. The BCCI have a great big pile of it, and like most people with a great big pile of it, they think that pile would be best complemented by smaller piles thrown on top.
The ABC has broadcast five previous tours, yet when they tried to arrange coverage this time, were quoted a vastly higher fee. They reluctantly declined, deciding instead to send Maxwell solo to phone in match reports.
But the BCCI, deeply miffed at missing out on those few extra dollars, channelled a kid with a new Fisher-Price gadget and declined to share. Maxwell could come, they said, but not in a press capacity, and if he wanted to report he’d have to do it from outside the stadium.
The ABC, quite rightly, told them to jam a fig in it.
The result is symptomatic of the short-sighted nature of the BCCI’s decision-making, the impulsive greed of their modus operandi, and the petulant bullying approach they take to satisfy that greed.
They’ve set new heights for financial acquisitiveness over the past few years. Look at the bidding process for the IPL franchises. Or the tie-breaker payments at the player auction, in which secret amounts were paid to the board while the player in demand got nary a cent.
These days, the greed-first mantra is beyond blatant. It’s beyond unapologetic. It’s pretty much written across N Srinivasan’s naked chest in peanut butter as he urinates in your letterbox at 3am while screaming at your kids’ bedroom windows.
The big earner for all cricket boards is selling broadcast rights. The BCCI jack these up as high as they possibly can. This isn’t such a problem with TV stations – by all means get the best price they’re willing to lay down.
But it’s not like there are other radio broadcasters queuing to devote 20 days of coverage to an event best described as niche in its appeal. Australia’s summer of cricket is a big deal, but those like me who want ball-by-ball coverage of every away tour would be markedly fewer. Getting radio to resume coverage will be much harder than having it continue.
Add to that the fact that most Australian households still don’t have cable, and radio has always been the best way to connect them with Indian tours. Exposure is key. If no-one knows your product exists, it doesn’t help its value.
But the BCCI doesn’t seem to know or care. Their dismissive treatment of the ABC is part of a broader campaign to dominate all media around their matches.
They also banned photo agency Getty Images, in an attempt to make Australian outlets buy and use BCCI-supplied photographs. Those outlets have instead chosen a boycott, and will not include any images in their coverage.
“The industry recognises the BCCI media policy is an attack on the news supply network and there is potential other governing bodies would follow suit unless publishers demonstrate their discontent,” said Tony Hale, chief executive of the newspaper industry’s peak body.
I owe my love for cricket to India, to radio, and to the likes of Jim Maxwell. The series that converted me from occasional watcher to adherent was the tour by Steve Waugh’s Invincibles.
It was 2001. I had just started university. Through evening tutorials, I kept one earbud of an honest-to-god radio Walkman surreptitiously plugged in, listening in astonishment as VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid batted and batted and batted throughout that entire fourth day.
The next evening I was at home, unable to help cheering India because of the impossible nature of the comeback.
Staring at the green light of my AM/FM stereo, I sat on the couch transfixed, as Harbhajan Singh and the unlikely Sachin Tendulkar worked their way down the order, were held up by Glenn McGrath for nine equally unlikely overs, then claimed the wicket with Australia in touching distance of safety.
After eight unremarkable Tests that had led to 18 months in exile, the young Harbhajan was recalled for that series when Anil Kumble went down injured. He proceeded to tear the Australians apart, with 32 wickets in effectively five innings.
The third and deciding Test was as gripping as the second. I listened to every ball, India just got home, and I was hooked for life.
In brushing off ABC radio, Srinivasan’s men are losing the chance to capture the imaginations of a new generation of devotees. However exceptional the play this series, it will be lost on most of the Australian viewing public.
We’ll be stuck with the same uncomfortable options, whether that be forking out for cable, living in the pub for four weeks, or hunching over some graphics-crammed illegal web-stream of a shonky Indian broadcast that squeezes three Bollywood-dancing shampoo ads in between every drop-out.
What’s good for cricket inevitably comes a distant last behind what’s good for the BCCI’s coffers. What they don’t seem to realise is that their earnings are only built on the game that they now neglect.
Of all the things that could happen this series, I had been looking forward to the chance of hearing about Parvez Rasool. The off-spinning all-rounder ripped out 7/45 against Australia for the Chairman’s XI only last week.
He has been a revelation in this season’s Ranji Trophy, never more so than against Assam, when he top-scored with 67, took 7/41 to gain a substantial lead, scored 120 not out to extend it, then added 2/70 in helping wrap up the win.
It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Rasool will get a run during this series, which would make him the first player from struggling Jammu and Kashmir state to play for India.
The last time that an Indian bolter came from nowhere to shock an Australian touring side, his name was Harbhajan Singh, and every ripping off-break was brought to us in verbal pictures from Eden Gardens and the Chidambaram Stadium.
It’s a damn shame that if a new generation’s talent gets his chance to do the same, Jim Maxwell won’t be there to carry the story home.
Indian cricket fan
Guest
Lord David, your comments are consistently atrocious. How did you ever become an "Expert"? Actually, never mind that question. Trivial mindsets are always intimidated by size - big must be bad... Fact is broadcasting rights are secured through commercial transactions. ABC Australia is too broke to cough up the dough and the BCCI is not a charitable organization. Unfortunately there are enough dimwits like you in this world to keep cricket polarized forever.
Bayman
Guest
Are we talking about the same "portly chap" who averaged 44.95 to Mark Waugh's 41.81? I'm surprised Lehmann didn't replace Mark Waugh even earlier.........
Curtley Ambrose
Guest
the problem is that the ICC is virtually a sub-department of the BCCI these days, with the corruption of sharad pawar at the top. he's even hated in india, that's why he quit the top job of the BCCI and made the international board his own.
Aahafezi
Guest
Interesting coverage, but where were Indian commentators when similar band was applied to English media
Prodigy
Guest
Feels like the Aussies are getting a lesson on how capitalism works, He with the most money make the rules. - ABC could not afford to pay the additional funds required to broadcast from the grounds. Hence, no access - Media cannot accept BCCI pictures. Hence, caricatures on newspapers Wonder if Glenn Maxwell will say no to the million dollar IPL contract to concentrate on national duties. Wonder if Michael Clark will leave the IPL early to prepare for the Ashes.(remember country comes first, NOT!!) So, until the Aussies can contribute 80% of the global revenues they will have to live with it. When they do contribute 80% of the revenues they can make the rules and we will switch roles and start whining. At least the managment running Aussie cricket have brains, they follow what is laid down by BCCI. Adios!
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Actually I would get Luke Doherty to do the exposé. Afterall, at the moment he seems to be obsessed with scribbling in a tabloid fashion about doping. :)
sheek
Roar Guru
Tenash - they can try! ;-)
Brendon
Guest
The BCCI is not a majority shareholder, no one owns the game of cricket, that fact that you see it this way is of concern to me. It appears that the BCCI, and I am not talking about this article but the treatment of the game see's it this way too, they pay the most money so they get the most say and if anyone disagree's then we will lord the big revenue stick over you. Please tell me Deepak, how has the BCCI helped world cricket with their actions? Please don't say they started the IPL, as that's ruining the game I love. You seem to be saying that if there were no India then it would go back to being an amateur sport, well the last time I looked we got 60,000 spectators to the boxing day test (that's right, test matches get good crowds in other parts of the world) with Sri lanka and have had bumper crowds all year, next year see's England tour and we'll get 100,000 to the MCG, somehow I think we'd be ok without the BCCI's over bearing and bullying style of management. They don't own the game, they aren't a "major shareholder" they are a country and an organisation that benefits greatly from a sport that's loved worldwide and without teams like Aus, SA, England, Sri Lanka etc you have nothing but a second rate hit and giggle comp played only by Indians where everyone bowls spin and hit's ramp shots on grounds no bigger than a postage stamp, if the BCCI had it's way test match cricket would be dead by now and that's my real beef. Without world cricket there is no BCCI and there is no international cricket in India, no one country or person is bigger than the game.
Cosmos Forever
Guest
Has anyone asked the simple question up front about why the ABC would seek to invest its scant funds in covering a foreign series live when the team at the centre of the series can't even fill Blundstone arena in Tassie during the summer. I'm get that this issue is about the BCCI but there is a broader debate to be had here about why the ABC continues to favour cricket over emerging or non-traditional sports at all. I'm sure Norrers has a view he'd like to share? And is very interesting that no-one who's happy to take Geoff's side on this one has responded to the Gideon Haigh soundwave... Telling.
Deepak Shah
Guest
Hughster, beating Indian team wold not have any impact upon BCCI's role in ICC, as long as it provides significant amount of money to ICC's coffers. However, if Indian team keeps getting beaten, perhaps Indian cricket fans will turn their attention off the game and that may reduce BCCI's returns from the game. So that is like a plan. Poms did win after a small span of 26 years. Aussies have won only once in India, within a span of over 40 years. But, there is a possibility as recently, Indians have been scoring self goals! As for the common man on the streets of India loosing his interest in the game though, please do not hold your breath! Wait!! There may be other way for this. Let us get Chinese to play this game, generate lot more money through the game, where Aussies and English keep making the pulp of Chinese teams but still Chinese keep generating money more than BCCI, so that they can take the control away from Indians and then we, Aussies can again rule the cricket world through our close relationship with the Chinese.. after all Kevin Rudd can speak fluent Mandarin!!! Now that IS a plan...
Deepak Shah
Guest
Hughster, indeed I am from the amateur period, where cricketers had to hold a regular job to play cricket for their country. Often in INdia, past cricketers have died paupers....one instance of Ramakant (Tiny) Desai, who opened bowling for India in late 50s-60s and was genuinely pacy, a rarity in INdian cricket, died practically moneyless. If the game has to provide a secure future to players, continue with its globalization and innnovate to improve games, it needs money. Today every sport is money based and BCCI being a major contributor to the ICC coffers is able to exercise a control like a majority share holder does in any business. There is a choice and that is to go back to the amateur days and just play for the love of playing for your country!! It is surprising that Australians would find it hard to understand the phenomenon of money in sport. Its two of the most popular games, AFL and NRL are run as pure business and who knows what scandals are going on within, as the drug use and nefarious connestions with crime syndicate have been indicated in news recently. If indeed as you suggest, Australia stop "inviting" India, it is fine. Perhaps you are not aware of the FTP (Future tours program) requirements of the ICC. But that can be manipulated as Australia and England did that in the past and BCCI have done so by never inviting Bangladesh so far. However thenet result will be Australia will not have money enough to start its own IPL (Big Bash league). Hardly matters. Our cricketers can always play on dole, now can't they??? Let us stuff those corrupt Indians!!
Deepak Shah
Guest
Correct James. But sadly, that neither matches with the perception nor will become "interesting" news!
Deepak Shah
Guest
matthewthorpe, seems like you haven't bothered to listen to Giden Haig's interview. He clearly says "ABC went in half hearted and then they pin the blame on BCCI for not bending over backwards"......
Deepak Shah
Guest
Good point Nick..
Deepak Shah
Guest
Be ready to be shot dead like a lot of Indians were by English army.....
zacbrygel
Roar Guru
Great article Geoff. Tristan I completely agree, to not allow TheRoar accreditation is pretty bad - I believe all proper sports media outlets should be given the best opportunities possible to maximise their coverage of not just the series in India but cricket worldwide, to help promote the sport to non cricket followers. To not give Jim Maxwell accreditation is just a joke, imagine Richie Benaud being denied the right to commentate our cricketing summer? This is just as bad.
Deepak Shah
Guest
To Devils Advocate...mate, put your name up here first. Agree that without England and Australia, cricket would not have existed. But it is equally true that they did not do much to spread the game and take it globally. It was done by ICC (and not BCCI) but only after a lot of money started coming to the ICC coffers through the business plans after it became more open and equitable; where indeed BCCI played a big role. To be honest those events of 1995-97 are really what still hurts some old timers within the England and Aus boards. In your next post you have raised issues about my blog and DRS. Did you read it? I have raised clear scientific concerns about the technology which is also, agreed to by the writer of the Hawk Eye program. Read it and then comment. I don't LOVE BCCI and I am no one eyed Indian. In fact I have seen one-eyed phenomenon only after coming to Australia!! If you know anything about Indian cricket fan, you would know that they are worst for their own team. You guys are missing the basic point here. BCCI sold its rights to some one else and ABC had to get that arramngement organized through them. In business deal, if two parties do not agree it does not go through. No emotions involved. In Australia itself, how many NRL, AFL and A league games are being beamed free to air? TV channels are pretty much doing what they want with the programming and even setting the times of the games. And when you have no arguments left, corruption is the best card to use, isn't it? You taunt me for "not using the race card" and in the same breath, use "corruption" card!! Since in your eyes all Indians are corrupt, dishonest, thugs, (and even terrorists?) and hence they should shut up, and give their money over to the only honest, australians and english to run the game right? You know what, if English and Australians do not like Indians and BCCI, they can take their game and go home and play among themselves. Good enough. The game was played like that for a long time before both got tired of each other...Cricket Australia and ECB are not fools. They know very well that if they have to progress their cricket plans they need money, significant proportion of which is coming from India. Like it or lump it. In any business the highest stock owner, runs the company. Today's sports are run as business and one who invests most, gets a say. If you can, raise the dough and take control. Its as simple as that...
Devils Advocate
Guest
I feel the you logic for not liking the DRS are as follows. - BCCI don't like the DRS. - There are no real reasons for this, so I'll make up some and post it on a blog. I never understand this stance coming from the BCCI and Indian supporters. After all the bleating that comes from these camps about poor umpiring, you would think they would be jumping at the chance to use it. But in the end I guess they use the same logic as you.
Devils Advocate
Guest
So once again to sum up your argument Deepak. - They did it to us so its right to do to them back. The funny thing is that you don't seem to realize is that without the nations you criticise, cricket wouldn't have been in such a fine position for the BCCI to destroy. And one quick question. How is the former head of the IPL. Is he enjoying is jail cell? Or did pay some corrupt officials off and now is walking free?
Devils Advocate
Guest
Now lets see what we got here. Here a sumation of your arguments. - The BCCI are indefensible but are alright guys - Every body else does it so should the BCCI - Those other naughty cricket nations did it to India so the BCCI has the right to do it back to them. - The refusal to use DRS is right because a few of the cricket boards corrupted by the BCCi have supported there stance. - BCCI have given token money to developing nations for favors so to increase there unsavory strangle hold on world cricket. - Any person who disagrees with the superiority of the BCCI way of doing things is unsavory and of poor nautre, and you have to take personal offense even though none was intended. Its a wonder you didn't pull out the race card. Sorry Deepak, this pseudo logic doesn't wash with me or any serious cricket supporter. If you took off those India colored glasses you might see cricket as we use to know if is slowly being destroyed by these corrupt and inept officials that run the BCCI. Now I'll let you go back to defending what you describe in your own words as "Indefensible"