The VisibleHand

Unlike Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', the very visible hand of IPL money is disrupting the ICC's world. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) needs to decide whether it wants to run cricket globally (which I think it does), or whether it is one member which must compromise with the requirements issued by the ICC.

However, it's not that simple, either.

Arguably, the BCCI is defending its turf against the Indian Cricket League, and needs the ICC's support in this. That's a decision that must be reached in conversations between the BCCI and the ICC. England and Australia, amongst others, should butt out, or at least do all their talking through the ICC, and not via the papers. This sort of press coverage is typically English, in that it stirs up a public controversy where there needn't be one, as a certain KP might attest.

If the BCCI needs to fend off the moneybags of the the Indian Cricket League, then it should fight them aggressively by running their competition at the same time.

If the ICC wants to control Twenty/20 cricket in the largest market (which it should), then it needs to work with the BCCI in accommodating its needs.

If England's cricket season clashes with the BCCI's IPL, then the England and Wales Cricket Board has a problem that ranks behind the ICC's, but is equivalent to the BCCI's. That becomes a money question, and the interest of the board with the bigger revenues must prevail.

So now you're left with the players' question of whether they prefer the money or the pride of competing for their 'country' (in quotes because of KP again). I'd be interested to see what an Australian cricketer would do faced with such a dilemma. That would tell you all you need to know.

Of course, if you employed a squad system for Tests, then the problem might well go away!

Maestro Boycott Speaks:

Here, in the Daily Telegraph. I have to say that there is a consistent anti-Moores bias emerging here. The paper broke the story, Scyld Berry was for Pietersen, and now Boycott, a hero round here for his near-sabermetric understanding of the game on the field, comes out with a few choice anti-Moores comments.

It has to be said that the EWCB emerges with very little credit from all of this. They seem to have chosen Moores rather hurriedly - he was a pal of Hugh Morris, the managing director - then chose as captain a man who clearly didn't have much faith in Moores, but who fit a different criterion, unifying the captaincy of both the Test and One-Day sides. Then, the EWCB's man, Moores, gets summarily dumped when it gets a bit hot for the EWCB. If a Test side's quality is revealed from the top, no wonder England are in a bit of a downward spiral at the moment, since the board running the show seems to lack grit.

Living in England as I did for so many years, I did find that a chronic problem was what I call 'isolated decision-making'. This is the sense that you narrow a question down to its absolute core, applying Ockham's razor (and what country did that come from?). The board identified a problem in having separate captaincies, and solved it by selecting the player most likely to keep his place in both sides. Unfortunately, this isn't my preferred method of 'consequential decision-making' - the first decision is the crucial one, and all subsequent decisions must take this into account. After selecting Moores, the ability to work with Moores became a significant factor. As long as Pietersen can't work easily with Moores, better to live with the separate captaincies problem. It's something you learn from studying military history: lay down your logistics network first, then the conduct of operations fits into that template.

Maybe it's a bit early to believe the Australians are taking much interest in this at all. A scan of one paper shows they're busy patting themselves on the back for an excellent Test series. The English are obsessed with the Ashes, when they can't even get past the likes of India, South Africa and Sri Lanka. It's back to Ockham's razor - what's essential is beating Australia. But if I were an England commentator, I'd be more worried about what's going to happen in the West Indies.

Congratulations to CMJ

Next to the great Henry Blofeld, Christopher Martin-Jenkins taught me the most about watching cricket. He probably wouldn't see all that much value in my sabermetric methods, but he's partly to blame for me trying to apply them. I've always thought he'd make a good selector. I didn't realize he'd retired from his post at The Times, but last spring and summer were among the most difficult of my life; and a lot went on then that I didn't really keep on top of. Best wishes and congratulations to one of my favourites.