Concern at repeated failings of the USA Cricket Association

Although facing some of the greatest challenges in its history, the United States of America Cricket Association (USACA) has been strangely evasive in its public dealings. It took no public position on ProCricket although repeatedly asked to do so, refused to even explain (let alone justify) its team selection procedures of recent months, and turned a deaf ear to all questions about what it was doing and why.

The only reliable source of information about USACA is the proverbial grapevine. Typically, some member of USACA's "inner circle" will anonymously post a sensitive letter, e-mail or memo on a bulletin board, a web site or on the internet. This will be picked up by other equally anonymous folk, and the flurry of e-mails will bring a lot of hitherto unknown facts to light. Then, as the correspondence subsides, all is silence again--until the next leak, or unexpected revelation.

This is just what happened over the last two weeks. A series of internal memos between members of the USACA executive and board of directors has surfaced on the internet, and is busily doing the rounds. Taken as a whole, they do not present a pretty picture of the USACA's inner workings.

The current squabble revolves around the selection procedures for the USA team for the 2004 Under-15 tournament in Cayman Islands. The New York region, which has had a running feud with USACA ever since it felt cheated out of USACA's top offices in 2003 by an alleged conspiracy between the other regions, was the first to protest, claiming that its youngsters had been totally ignored by the selectors. Then, a more serious protest, "quoting chapter and verse", was lodged by the Northwest region--its director posted documentary evidence for five nominations it had made to the USACA selection committee and pointedly asked what criteria, if any, had been used to reject his nominees.

This challenge was altogether too much for an ex-president of the USACA, who is widely rumoured to be the "invisible hand" behind US team selections. After congratulating the USA Under-15 team for their performance in the Cayman Islands, he took direct aim at the Northwest director in what amounted to a character assassination--and he made sure that all other USACA directors, and all USACA executives, got the message. This ex-president is widely credited with engineering the coup that knocked the New York region out of all positions of control in the USACA, and putting in place a president, Gladstone Dainty, who had served as his USACA treasurer. His incendiary attack on the Northwest region director set off all kinds of reactions across the US cricket community, and before long the rumor mills--and the web sites-- were churning furiously.

This exchange of e-mails exposed the ruthlessness that underlies USACA's docile public face. Any perceived threat to its ways of doing things, and its chiefs go for the jugular, trying to silence its critics by any means necessary. USACA has been especially successful in this activity because of tactit support from the ICC, which refuses to deal with any other entity in US cricket. Whether those days will come to an end now that ICC has established a presence in this country via its Project USA remains to be seen -- but few bets are currently being placed on either side.

The internet correspondence also provided some juicy tidbits about what has been going on behind the scenes at USACA. It appears that the energetic P. K. Guha, first vice-president of USACA who had openly challenged the president and the USACA board of directors over their lethargy and inaction, resigned rather than wait to be fired by the Board. Guha was the one member of the USACA executive who had been elected as in "independent", i.e. owing nothing to any of the factions that have dominated the USACA for the past five years. His sudden departure can only cast further doubt on USACA's ability to manage the affairs of US Cricket.

The divisions within the USACA board on what to do about ProCricket were also highlighted in the e-mails. Apparently, on the basis of his unedited comments, the ex-USACA president has been leading the charge against ProCricket. The current USACA secretary has argued in favour of leaving ProCricket alone, the current president has refused to take a firm position, and the treasurer has adroitly avoided being put on the spot. With the USACA executive being so hopelessly at odds over as important a challenge as ProCricket, it is easy to see why nothing has been accomplished by USACA in the past few months.

Which brings us to the real question. Apart from its politics--what is the USACA doing for US Cricket?

The answer would have to be, nothing much; or more accurately, nothing that one knows of. USACA's five-year plan, written in 2000 at the urging of the ICC, is gathering dust on the shelves with most of its domestic objectives unmet. Its promises to develop junior cricket across the USA, to develop a national umpiring program, to secure better facilities and resources, and to implement a series of initiatives to make cricket more accessible to the US community, have been largely unfulfilled - any successes in these areas have been local or at best regional, with little participation or input from USACA.

A perfect example of this do-nothing attitude is provided by some of the incidental e-mails. The next big event on the USACA's domestic calendar is supposed to be the national Under-19 Championships, which are supposed to take place around mid-August. Someone asked, disarmingly enough, what the USACA was doing about it, since it was only three weeks away. The final answer - from a member of the USACA executive who would undoubtedly wish to remain anonymous - was that he had heard nothing about it, no one had even discussed the event with him, so it was (for all practical purposes) a non-event! Yet there it is, prominently displayed on the USACA web site.

It is not clear that the USACA even knows how to proceed on a national basis with such goals. There are no professional marketers or sports managers at the board or executive level in the USACA, and no indication that there will be any in the near future. This is where Project USA, and its new CEO might help--but only if USACA's leadership is prepared to listen--become more transparent and open in their dealings, and give up on backroom politics as their reason for continuing to exist.