Communication gap between players and boards a worry

Yes I think the emphasis has changed. If you look at our strategic plan, we had said that up to 2005 we would target about 100 members. We have ended up with 96 which isn't that bad. What's more important now is to change the emphasis from quantity to quality. We have to go for improved performance among our associate members. They have to be competitive - there's no point in them playing cricket at very junior club level. We have to raise the standards and we're doing that very well.

We've now decided that the top six associates will take part in the next World Cup. And also that matches between those associates and full members or between the associates themselves will be designated full ODI status. So that gives it weightage and credibility. And if these countries are going to take part its important they get exposure: we've arranged for these six countries, between now and the World Cup next year to play 64 matches which will be official ODIs.

They're going to get a lot of cricket before the World Cup. The other very important thing is that we leave behind a legacy after the World Cup for these countries to continue to develop. The board has agreed that from this World Cup each of these associates will get US$500,000 as a special grant. Longer-term view, we've decided for the 2011 World Cup, the top associates will get US$1 million. This is just to consolidate the growth of cricket in these countries to make sure they become more professional in their approach.

It's interesting to look at the six top associate countries. We've got Scotland and Ireland where indigenous people are playing cricket. They have a long tradition but have never done really well. We are now trying to get them up to the next level. Then you have Canada which is mainly expatriate but making small inroads into the indigenous population. Bermuda is totally indigenous, as is Kenya so you have a fair mix there.

I never apologise for the fact that it's the expatriates who play cricket when we first go into a territory. That's how the game has expanded, even in the subcontinent. The British army brought the game into Calcutta and then as they gradually crept into the rest of the region, they took cricket with them. That's one of the good things they did do and that is often the way these things do start.

What is important is that when we move in, we make sure the game moves into the grassroots level. UAE is a good example: for years they've been playing good cricket but only expatriates. We've recently been talking to the UAE government and they have realised that cricket should be played among the indigenous population in schools. Sheikh Nayan al-Mubarak, minister for sport and education has taken it on personally. He saw the Pakistan-India matches in Abu Dhabi and was so impressed by the passion for the game and the crowd involvement that he felt that this was good for his own people.

Governance problems will arise - the USA is another example - from time to time in our member countries. The ICC's view is that so long as there is a constitution in place and that people follow the constitution - their own constitution which the ICC has got a copy of to vet - we don't interfere. We treat these as domestic affairs because ultimately if the stakeholders are not happy they have recourse to their local courts and systems. It does become a worry when there are allegations of financial irregularities or funds are misused or when the constitution is bypassed.

We found that was the case with the US: there was no clear group in control, there was in-fighting and we asked them to get their act together. While they continued to fight we cut off all their funding and suspended them in a way.

In Kenya, we worked very closely with the government once we realised things were not right there. Change was brought about and they've done really well in the way they have handled things.

Zimbabwe is a different problem in that there is a lot happening in the country, as a result of which cricket has been impacted. It's very unfortunate they have lost some senior players and obviously we have to keep an eye and make sure the integrity of Test cricket is not tarnished.

Zimbabwe is playing international cricket as ODI matches are still being played. It will play in the World Cup. There is no threat to Zimbabwe's ICC membership as a full member. But what I said, and I support, is that Zimbabwe should only come back to Test cricket when it is ready.

The best way of finding that out is by exposing them to A team and U19 tours to test their strength. They have some very talented cricketers and have actually done surprisingly well in ODI matches. Even when they have lost they have not been rolled over.

They have lost 15-20 of their top cricketers. No country can sustain a loss like that: If you remove the top players from Pakistan or India you will have to rebuild. If you remember the Packer years: Australia lost a lot of players and for a while became the country that people were signing up to play because they knew there was a sure win there and look at the force they are now. These things go in cycles and yes, obviously Zimbabwe needs a lot of time before they return to Tests. That is going to be the challenge in the coming few years.

We are governed very much by our constitution. We have the responsibility to manage affairs at international level. It is only when things start impacting the international game that we move in. This is what we have done each time. If you remember Zimbabwe was first pulled out of Test cricket when Australia was touring the country.

I had convened a meeting of full members of the ICC directors' board at the time and said that I believed Test cricket will get degraded if Australia play against this side. Zimbabwe and Australia agreed before the meeting took place and decided to cancel the Tests. The ICC will move and I didn't hesitate to move when I thought the integrity of Test cricket was at stake. I'm sure that is exactly what will happen in the future. Whether I could have done anything differently, I don't think constitutionally I could have done anything differently.

Match-fixing is not so much a worry for me. I believe we have things pretty much under control. We have good safeguards and safety mechanisms regardless of where matches are played. The real worry from this development is the player workload. We've got to make sure boards balance the amount of cricket their players are playing with the money they are making. That is going to be the bigger challenge from this development.

Of course it's concern. When captains and senior players - and this has happened in India, Australia, England and Pakistan - when they are saying we need a balance, we need more space between tours, that tells me there is a lack of communication between the players and their board. That is a worry.

When we talk to the board, they tell us they do not fix their tours without consulting their players. That happened recently in Pakistan where they pulled out, after the England tour, of a possible triangular in India - and quite sensibly too because they are going to the Champions Trophy in October. So boards are taking player wishes into account but it will remain a concern so long as players complain. Where there are gaps, countries try to fill it to generate money. But they've also got to take into account the workload they are putting on their players.

There is little we can do but we act as a very good pressure group. We actually publish every year the number of matches countries have played and where they are going over the minimum stipulated matches as India will for ODI matches in 2007. We bring it to their attention and point out to them to be conscious of the problems they are creating for by doing that.

Look we have a problem of numbers in cricket. Ten is too few to have for, say for example, two or three divisions. If you had 20 to 30 countries you could do that on a regional basis. What is important at this stage is to not fast-track any country into Test cricket. Test cricket is a time-consuming game, involving a lot of infrastructure and a heavy financial burden from the country. But it is the purest form of the game.

We have to make sure that the associates - and we are doing this in a very structured way - are competitive and able to challenge the full members. Say Bermuda started beating the full members regularly; it will then only be natural that they aspire to Test cricket. If they are then able to take on A teams of the full member countries and beat them - as Pakistan used to do with MCC teams - then obviously countries say we are ready to do that, we can beat second string in the longer version of the game. You can bring them into the fold in a very controlled and structured way.

The mistake we made in the past - we should be honest enough to accept and learn from them - is the way that countries like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were brought into Test cricket. They became Test-playing nations on the strength of ODI performances and that was wrong. We should've given them more support in terms of playing more of the longer version of the game.

When I took over, relationships between the ICC and other members - not just the BCCI - were strained. It was clear at that stage was that there was something wrong and that there was a huge communications gap. Unless we had a clear understanding of our members' views we would be pulling in opposite directions. So I spent the first year visiting each full member, talking to them about the ICC, what we do, how we are structured, how we act in their interests.

Surprisingly, many members, especially below the people who attended our board meeting, were not aware that any decision or policy that is put in place is done by the Test-playing countries and three associates. They are the ones who regulate world cricket and make policies. So when you hear about ICC decisions, it is our full members and associate members who actually do that.

There was change within BCCI last year and some statements coming out gave the impression that there was a difference in views and there was. I put that down to a lack of communication between the new board and ourselves. As I sat down with them and worked through issues with them, it became clear to them how the ICC worked and they realised that what the ICC was saying was really part of the decisions taken by countries including India.

The sort of things you heard people opposing at the ICC like there should be no more than one Champions Trophy and World Cup every four years - I pointed out to them that BCCI has already agreed to one ICC event every year. Once they got over that and there was better trust and understanding, you've seen in recent months things have eased off. A lot of this comes down to communication and understanding their point of view and often members have a point of view we should take into account and we do. And similarly them understanding the process by which the ICC makes decisions. So there was tension when I took over and there was six months ago but in both cases I believe that we have successfully managed that.