Interview: Haroon Lorgat, the outgoing ICC chief

Sachin Tendulkar helped India win the Cricket World Cupin April.

Osman Samiuddin speaks to Haroon Lorgaat, the outgoing International Cricket Council chief

Q: Do you feel you've left the game in a better state than when you came?

A: To be honest, and I know I'm not objective when I say so, I strongly believe so. When I look back, internally in the office, I certainly get the feedback that we're well-structured and organised. We certainly have a strategy and we know what we are implementing. Externally I believe the image is better. It's always a challenge to protect the image of the ICC by virtue of its design. I do think we enjoy a better reputation and image than before. We seem to also deal with issues much more decisively, more speedily. When I walked in, there were – it's still there – serious concerns about Test cricket, the 50-over game, how we're going to manage three formats. The World Cup 2011 was a success, the Champions Trophy before that. Quite honestly, I would look back satisfied at what I've been able to do.

There's concern that cricket is hurtling towards overt commercialisation, that boards and administrators are more concerned with money than the actual game. How much of an issue is that?

Without doubt it's a serious challenge. It requires good, strong leadership, a mindset prepared to look at all the opportunities and risks in deciding on a balanced approach. Invariably people lean towards commercial aspects at the expense of other strategic issues.

Boards and administrators do?

I'm talking about all persons in leadership roles which is all of us in administration and that is a real risk. It requires people with vision.

Will that come from the ICC or boards itself?

Let's never forget that the ICC is a collection of boards. So it's going to start with the boards and those people in turn who represent the boards at ICC must carry the same thinking through. That's a responsibility on the boards and ICC.

Was the Test championship delay a victim of that thinking?

Yes, we got the balance incorrect. There was a strategic choice that had to be made, it was an investment to be made and the leadership chose not to do it.

That must be disappointing?

I've openly said it was a disappointment by deferring it to 2017. We've got some seriously good players at the moment, shining in Tests. The chances of them being around in 2017 is zero. That is a particular disappointment.

Do you think it will happen?

It will happen eventually. I hope it doesn't happen when it's too late. It's a new cycle. There's absolutely no reason why it would not be in the schedule of events. We missed a golden opportunity in 2013 because Test cricket was starting to go on an upward trend.

If the member boards had shown the will, is it fair to say they could've convinced the broadcaster?

It had nothing to do with the broadcaster. The broadcaster is but one party to the discussion. It's a board decision.

You hope they reflect on that and not make that decision again?

I hope that all the time we make the right decisions in the best interests of the game.

But they haven't?

You can argue not always have we seen decisions made in the best interest of the game. Another example would be the 10-team World Cup. I favoured that but with qualification by everyone for places.

How do you convince boards to look beyond money?

It's a reality, money. But you got to make investment decisions also.

And in these two decisions they haven't.

We could've taken a more strategic choice in playing a Test play-off and having a ten-team World Cup.

Do you feel there might emerge leadership which is aware of the needs of the game?

It has to come, it will come. Invariably, good leadership emerges out of foresight or out of an institution that is broken. People make decisions invariably because either they can have the vision and the foresight of leadership to do so or they are under water and have no choice but to do so. Inevitably the game will survive.

On balance, have boards given enough importance to Test cricket?

I think not because they tended to lean away from Tests. There was a two-Test series in South Africa recently. People were desperate for a third Test. That is an example where it has not leaned towards Tests. I realise it's a complication, a difficult balance to achieve. Evidence shows us that many of us are not pushing, or promoting Tests in the fashion we ought to.

The BCCI exerts an extraordinary amount of influence on cricket. How much of a concern is having one strong power like that?

It's a clear risk towards good governance and leadership. But we must acknowledge that the economic might of India is good for the game. I don't begrudge India for its strength. Rather what concerns me is the weakness of other boards. They need to find ways and means of generating revenue, of sustaining the game. They cannot operate on a dependency mentality. It's not the strength of India that is a concern to me, it's the weakness of the others.

Do you think the BCCI have shown the responsibility that such power brings?

Well, you can draw your own conclusions because the evidence must speak for itself. In my view it shouldn't be a judgmental call. You do the research and make up your own mind as to what you think India has been doing. It is a serious opportunity for India to lead the game, a real opportunity because they do enjoy an inordinate amount of influence. With that kind of power comes responsibility.

The amount of importance given to T20, would you say that is evidence the BCCI are not overtly concerned about Tests?

No, on the contrary they've harnessed T20 and let's not forget they were opposed to it initially. They've harnessed the potential to generate new funds. On the other hand you need to do something to sustain the other formats, so it's not the fact that T20 has emerged, but what are we doing to protect and promote the other two. We've laid out a fantastic World Cup and we need to take advantage now. There's been a resurgence of interest in Tests. There's been some fantastic series. It's what we do to harness that opportunity. Many boards should be looking at the complete portfolio of players and products and cross-subsidising. We're certainly not providing the same weight financially or otherwise to Tests. In the case of the ICC, for example, we're paying a small reward for a team that ends up on the top of the Test ranking. It doesn't indicate the value of Tests to us. We attempted to increase the prize money two years back and the board waited for the Test championship model before it decided. We should do that immediately irrespective of the championship.

There's been concern expressed at the way the BCCI conduct themselves in boardroom meetings, that they enjoy so much power they bully other boards. How much of a concern is that as a tactic of governance?

That's the point. India does not favour DRS for whatever reason right? It's up to others to stand firm, to have the courage of their convictions, to show leadership, to oppose that process. That's more a reflection of weak leadership on other boards. And that's why I say I'm concerned with weaknesses of other boards, whether financially, or the leadership in those boards down to the the executive level. They need to have their own strategies of the future and they must have the courage of their convictions to do it. The game cannot exist with India alone.

India need to realise that as well?

That is the responsibility of their leadership.

The governance review has been close to your heart. Have these kind of things come under that review?

The review is wide, the scope is wide. I'm sure there'll be discussions around the impact of the bilateral arrangements. The way we are constituted at the board is a consequence of that as well.

Ideally, what kind of structure would you like to see the ICC have?

The remit of the ICC is to oversee cricket worldwide, so in order to do that, at the very least I would hope there is some form of independent directorship that would enter the board. So there's at least a balance of debate or a voice spoken without self-interest. That might be a good start where the board is comprised of some independence who are protecting the game at large.

That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I'm a bit more hopeful because look at the member boards themselves. West Indies, England, South Africa, I suspect Australia very shortly, New Zealand already, they've got independent representation on their boards. There's a number of associates who have. The world has moved on and our directors, our board, realise there is personal risk and the time could well come when some of them face consequences of not leading the game properly. It makes sense to bring in independence so there is a balance of better debate.

But the implementation will take time.

It could take years. But the way I look at it its why I added one more year, because I knew I had to get the review underway. If I'm able to complete the review, and a successor comes and picks up it'll be a fresh pair of hands that may not have as many battles as I have had over the four years. The person can start fresh and drive the implementation through.

How important was the governance clause about political influence on boards?

That is singularly a huge step which is critical to the future. The game is starting to have a lot more money and it could attract people who should not be leading the game. It should have the right people elected and free of interference and accountable, leading the game. Fortunately the timing was good and people started to realise we need to bring this in.

The implementation is another ballgame entirely?

Just like the governance review recommendations. But we must have the courage and the foresight to put structures in place for the benefit of future generations.

Is it that foresight and courage that administrators don't have, and that perception, that is the problem?

Yes, but we shouldn't give up, right? It's the role of all our stakeholders to ensure we do and say the right things. The game is close to all of us, we all have a serious passion for the game. I've no doubt the game will survive and it's our responsibility as we come and go to do the right things.

When the last FTP negotiations were on there was talk of an elite breakaway of India, Australia, South Africa and England.

There was a risk of that. The initial drafts were leaning in favour of that. It was not agreed to. It was a role I led from the front. One of the directors was suggesting I blocked the FTP and that's not true but it was not agreed to. So that risk will always exist. Fortunately, we've got a better balance in the FTP. That is a reflection on the leadership of each of the boards. So whether you are Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, you've got to have the right people leading your cricket, because you require stronger leadership in view of the challenges such countries face rather.

How disappointing was the DRS U-turn?

Not as much as the Test championship. The DRS is a reality. There is a huge majority that supports it. We've got now a system I reckon as much as 90 per cent of cricketers in the world would support, if not more. You can count on one hand the number who will not support it, or are not totally in favour. Umpires are now supportive, the public are. That is the kind of satisfaction we get out of pioneering something. Whether I'm disappointed, it's not a big deal if two members are left to agree to use it. What would've been of course better would be a standard across the world.

Does it disappoint you that it was used, or issues like these are sometimes, in trade-offs with other issues?

That is a demonstration of poor governance and that is the kind of decision you hope never happens. but its a fact of life in the cricket world and we've got to work around that.