by They can tear you with a thousand incisive cuts or you systematically creak in fine powder. They have a talent -free well with multiple world class options in each position. It is not only expected, but demanded, both inside the camp and through their legions of faithful supporters who transformed them into a commercial giant.
No, not India, which has passed New Zealand to claim the Champions Trophy this weekend. We are talking about Australia of Ricky Ponting. In fact, these are the Indians of Clive Lloyd. Or should it be the Chicago Bulls by Michael Jordan, all the blacks of Richie McCaw, or the Americans under Christie Rampone, Carli Lloyd and Megan Rapinoe?
In relation: Australia and England take place for the day’s day test at MCG for the 150th anniversary of the ashes
All sports dynasties share common features. It is not only that they win, but that their winner seems inevitable. They earn ugly and they win beautifully. They might not promote much love beyond their own fans base, but it is undeniable that they are respected. The rest of us can’t help but feel a little jealous while another trophy is added to the battery.
Rohit Sharma India is slightly different. They have all the right ingredients, and their record of 23 victories of their 24 previous games in ICC events places them in the conversation for the biggest white ball of all time. But rather than to arouse admiration, their last conquest was largely encountered with uprights of indifference. The dice loaded, the gerrymandering of the tournament schedule, the endless wealth, the advertiser of the stadium acting as a cheerleader in a place which was ostensibly neutral; All of this was combined to whiten the romance of their success.
The worst of everything was the sight of Jay Shah, the president of the International Cricket Council and the most powerful man in the game, wink at the cameras after having hugs and high-fives to victorious players after their four-titles victory. Shah is obviously a proud Indian, was the secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India for five years and is the son of the right man of Narendra Modi, but that struck naked favoritism. Say what you want from Gianni Infantino, but it is difficult to imagine the leader of FIFA acting with the same lack of self -awareness if Switzerland should win the European Championship.
To underline that India is now effectively directing global cricket is to indicate the evidence. After two seasons in red, South Cricket Africa declared profits of 34.5 million pounds sterling for the year 2023-24 after a whole format visit of India. “During the four -year cycle, there will be two or three years when we make fairly massive losses,” said CSA director general, Pholetssi Moseki. “But there should be at least a year when we make important benefits so that he can cover us in the years when we make these losses.”
The influence of India extends beyond international game. The teams of five national leagues, including the six of SA20 in South Africa, are hardly just satellite projects of Indian franchises in the Premier League. As Moseki added, “India is too important in the cricket ecosystem for all members, including the CPI itself. India will continue to be an important tour team for all countries. Trying to divorce yourself from India is not realistic for any country. »»
Does that give India the right to call the cricket blows? Can someone do anything other than “cry more”, as zealous Indian fans suggested it on social networks, when a team that does not need help to win trophies to play all their tournament matches in a stadium while the rest of the competition is forced to zigzag through Asia?
The empires do not tend to treat the rebels with mercy and any advice that resists India alone will probably find themselves alienated and devoid. But what happens if all other advice, including England and Australia, collectively hide a line in the sand? Could the rest of the world of cricket prove Moseki Tort and survive without the most powerful entity of sport?
European nations leaders are considering a similar dilemma because they plan to consolidate the security of the continent without the support of the United States of Donald Trump. This column will not weigh on questions that are much more serious than the fate of a leather ball, but as Prime Ministers, Presidents and Generals met in Brussels last week to assess the capacities of the battlefield of Europe, it is worth playing with a parallel hypothesis.
Last year, as part of the ICC -reworked income distribution model, the BCCI now wins nearly 40% of the net excess profits from the Management Organization, amounting to around $ 230 million per year. But it is even less than all other councils, including 96 associated nations, added. And even if the share of England of 6.89% is far from coming back in second place, if the cricket had to act as a democracy rather than as the rather the rather than a real change could be possible. India could be informed to play just or play for themselves. Who knows, maybe they even reconsider how the funds are distributed to those who need it rather than distributing crumbs only when they visit foreign land.
Certainly, it is a pipe dream. And why should India abandon what they created? For most of the history of cricket, they lived under an English and Australian influence. Now they call gunshots. Market forces are in their favor. They win tournaments without jasprit bumrah. Their strikers are artists. Their spinners are demonists. We should be in love with them. It’s a shame that we are not.
• This is an extract from the weekly email of the Guardian cricket, the spin. To subscribe, simply visit this page and follow the instructions.
