When Cricket Stops Pretending to Be Neutral: India, Power, and the ICC’s Double Standards

Pakistan's decision to boycott its T20 World Cup match against India has been framed by much of the global media as an act of politicisation. That framing is misleading. What the boycott actually exposes is a far more uncomfortable truth: international cricket has long ceased to be neutral, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) now operates within an ecosystem structurally tilted in India’s favour.

The immediate trigger for Pakistan’s decision was security and diplomacy. Following deadly, coordinated attacks in Balochistan, attacks Pakistan’s interior minister publicly attributed to India, Islamabad chose not to proceed, with a high-profile sporting encounter against its rival. Whether or not one accepts Pakistan’s allegation, the principle involved is not novel. National governments have repeatedly exercised discretion over participation in ICC events based on security and political considerations.

What is novel is the selective outrage.

Bangladesh, Neutral Venues, and Selective Fairness

Tensions had already been building before Pakistan’s announcement. In January, Bangladesh requested that its World Cup matches be shifted away from India, citing security concerns. The ICC rejected the request outright and then went further, removing Bangladesh from the tournament altogether and replacing it with Scotland.

This decision was extraordinary. Historically, the ICC has accommodated such requests. India itself has refused to play in Pakistan for years, with its matches routinely shifted to neutral venues. England, Australia, and New Zealand have all declined tours or fixtures in the past without being expelled from tournaments or financially penalised.

Yet when Bangladesh sought identical consideration, it was denied. The principle of “neutral venues for security reasons,” long treated as legitimate when invoked by India, suddenly became unacceptable when invoked against India.

This asymmetry is the real scandal.

The ICC–BCCI Blur

The controversy has also reignited scrutiny over the increasingly blurred line between the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The perception, fair or not, is that global cricket governance is now effectively anchored in New Delhi.

That perception matters because money matters.

An India–Pakistan World Cup match is not merely a fixture; it is the tournament’s financial engine. Advertising slots during such games sell for astronomical sums. Broadcasters price entire tournament valuations around this single matchup. When Pakistan withdrew, panic followed, not in cricketing circles, but in boardrooms.

This reaction reveals the structural dependency of the ICC on India-centric commercial logic. When India advances deep into tournaments, revenues soar. When India exits early, as in the 2007 World Cup, broadcasters panic and financial models collapse. That dependency has quietly reshaped governance priorities.

Fairness, under such conditions, becomes conditional.

Precedent Matters And Pakistan Is Within It

The charge that Pakistan is “politicising cricket” collapses under historical scrutiny.

In 1996, Australia refused to play matches in Sri Lanka. In 2003, England and New Zealand declined tours citing security concerns. Zimbabwe skipped the 2009 T20 World Cup. None faced revenue sanctions. West Indies continue to receive full ICC distributions despite repeated failures to qualify for global events.

These are not exceptions. They are precedents.

ICC revenue allocation has always been structural, not punitive. Participation has never been enforced through financial coercion. To suggest otherwise now—implicitly threatening Pakistan with “long-term consequences” marks a dangerous departure from established norms.

The India Exception

What truly undermines the moral argument against Pakistan is India’s own record. India has unilaterally suspended bilateral cricket with Pakistan for over a decade without consequence. Entire Future Tours Programme cycles have been disrupted. The ICC did not intervene. No fines were imposed. No lectures were delivered about “the global game.”

Political selectivity, in other words, has already been normalised, primarily when it serves Indian preferences.

Pakistan’s response, therefore, is not radical. It is reciprocal.

Power, Not Principle

It is also worth noting that Pakistan is no longer institutionally dependent on ICC revenue in the way it once was. The Pakistan Super League has created an independent commercial base, placing the PCB among a small group of boards with financial leverage outside ICC distributions.

That reality alters the power equation. The implicit assumption that Pakistan must comply to survive is outdated.

The Real Question

This episode forces cricket to confront an uncomfortable question:

Is the ICC a multilateral sporting body, or a revenue management arm of Indian cricket?

If neutral venues are acceptable for India but unacceptable for Bangladesh, that is not governance; it is a hierarchy.

If political discretion is legitimate for some but condemned for others, that is not neutrality; it is power.

Pakistan’s boycott does not politicise cricket.

It merely exposes who has been doing so all along.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Tony Greig in the Caribbean: A Storm Foretold

Some cricketers captivate, and then some provoke. Tony Greig belonged to both categories, a towering figure whose presence on the field was as commanding as it was controversial. When he arrived in the Caribbean, he did so not merely as an English cricketer but as a character in a larger drama, a man whose competitive instincts would etch his name into cricket’s most fraught encounters.

His early exploits on the tour, particularly against Trinidad, were spectacular. With an elegant 70 and an unbeaten century, he seemed to charm the spectators with his blond-haired exuberance, his broad strokes, and his theatrical flair. But charisma alone was never enough for Greig; he thrived on confrontation. His overzealous appeal against local hero Deryck Murray soured the goodwill, and by the time Trinidad Guardian headlined, “Greig loses popularity at Oval,” the seeds of discord had already been sown. This was but a prelude to the storm that awaited at Queen’s Park Oval.

The Moment of Infamy

The first Test began inauspiciously for England. Put in to bat on a humid, overcast day, they crumbled to 30 for 4. Greig, ever the fighter, counterattacked with daring strokes, including two powerful swings over mid-wicket. Yet his defiance was short-lived; his 37 was the top score, but England managed only 131. The following day, the West Indies, anchored by Alvin Kallicharran’s imperious batting, built an imposing lead. As he piled on the runs, Greig found himself not just outplayed but also humiliated—his bowling dispatched for three successive boundaries.

The final over of the second day remains one of cricket’s most notorious moments. As Derek Underwood bowled, Bernard Julien dead-batted the deliveries, and Greig inched closer and closer at silly point, a predator waiting for the opportune moment. The last ball of the day was pushed wide of him, and in that instant, Greig acted on pure impulse, or so he later claimed. He seized the ball and, seeing Kallicharran walking towards the pavilion, hurled it at the stumps. The bails flew.

The appeal was made. The umpire hesitated but, bound by the laws of the game, raised his finger. Kallicharran, unbeaten on 142, stood momentarily stunned before storming off in fury. The stadium erupted.

The Aftermath: Between Laws and Spirit

What followed was a maelstrom of outrage. The English press condemned the act as unworthy of a sportsman, while the Caribbean media saw more than just an overzealous cricketer; they saw a South African-born player, a reminder of a past and present stained by apartheid. In the stands, tempers flared; had the match been in Jamaica or Guyana, violence might have been unavoidable. The England team, sensing the severity of the situation, convened in a desperate attempt to quell the rising storm. By nightfall, after protracted negotiations, the appeal was withdrawn. Kallicharran was reinstated, and the crisis was, for the moment, averted.

Greig, for his part, vacillated between regret and defiance. At first, he claimed it was instinctive, an act of reflex. Years later, his apologies were tempered by justification. “It was straightforward,” he insisted, “definitely not premeditated.” And yet, the shadow of doubt lingered. Even his captain, Mike Denness, would later admit, “To a certain extent, I think Tony had thought about it.”

A Series Marked by Tension

The tensions never truly dissipated. Kallicharran, reinstated, added a mere 16 to his tally before falling to Pat Pocock. Yet the match had already shifted from cricket to something more elemental—a battle of pride and perception. England, despite a valiant 174 from Dennis Amiss, collapsed under the pressure of Lance Gibbs and Garry Sobers’ spin. The West Indies claimed victory by seven wickets.

Off the field, relations between the teams were fraught. Pat Pocock recalled it as the most hostile atmosphere he had ever experienced. Every exchange with Kallicharran was personal, an attempt to provoke. But the taunting ended the moment Garry Sobers strode in. “It would have been like swearing in a church,” Pocock reflected. Some figures simply transcend the need for gamesmanship.

The Legacy of a Moment

Greig’s act at Queen’s Park Oval remains one of the most infamous incidents in cricket history. Some saw it as a cunning exploitation of the rules, others as a betrayal of the sport’s very ethos. Mick Jagger, ever the provocateur, congratulated him: “Good work, I don’t blame you.” But the majority, from the English press to the Caribbean faithful, viewed it differently. Henry Blofeld called it “indefensible,” while Christopher Martin-Jenkins lamented it as an ungracious act from a man who, off the field, could be utterly charming.

Yet Greig was never a cricketer for half-measures. His game, his personality, and his approach to competition were all uncompromising. His time in the Caribbean was not merely a chapter in his career but a reflection of who he was: a man who could enthral and alienate, dazzle and disrupt, often in the same breath.

Cricket, like all great sports, is played on the margins, between what is legal and what is right, between instinct and intention. Greig’s run-out of Kallicharran may have fallen within the former, but the jury of cricketing history has never quite absolved him of the latter.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Sachin Tendulkar’s Perth Masterpiece: A Lone Warrior Amidst the Ruins

India arrived in Perth battered and bruised, trailing 0-3 in the five-match series. Facing an Australian pace quartet at the peak of its powers on a treacherous WACA wicket was a daunting prospect. The pitch, notorious for its trampoline bounce, promised little respite for a lineup already struggling against relentless hostility. The Australians had posted 333, a total that, in the given conditions, was neither intimidating nor insubstantial. India’s response soon unfolded into a familiar pattern of capitulation.

When Krishnamachari Srikkanth miscued a pull against Craig McDermott, sending the ball spiralling into David Boon’s waiting hands at short-leg, India’s scoreboard read 69 for 2. The impending collapse seemed inevitable. Yet, in this bleak moment, history was about to be written.

The Arrival of a Prodigy

The 18-year-old Sachin Tendulkar strode out at No. 4, a position he would make his own in the years to come. A diminutive figure in his cricket boots, he appeared almost incongruous amidst the towering presence of Australian fast bowlers. But any reservations about his ability to cope with the ferocity of Perth’s conditions were quickly dispelled.

The first boundary was a statement of intent—a deft steer between slips and gully. What followed was a masterclass in technique and temperament. He let the bouncers go when needed, cut fiercely when width was offered, and drove with pristine timing when the bowlers over-pitched. Against an unrelenting attack, Tendulkar batted with an authority that belied his years.

For a fleeting moment, with Sanjay Manjrekar providing able support, the scoreboard read a respectable 100 for 2. It was, however, a mere illusion of stability.

A Lone Warrior in a Losing Battle

Merv Hughes, burly and bustling, found his mark. He induced an edge from Manjrekar, lured into an on-drive, and Dean Jones flung himself horizontally to complete a stunning catch. Soon after, Dilip Vengsarkar perished in an eerily similar fashion, Mark Taylor completing the dismissal at slip.

Even as wickets crumbled around him, Tendulkar remained an immovable force. Hughes was square-cut with venom, McDermott was dispatched with a regal drive, and Paul Reiffel was subjected to an exhibition of precise stroke play. But the resistance was solitary.

At 130 for 5, Mohammad Azharuddin’s reckless pull before the end of play epitomized India’s batting frailties. The scoreboard read 135 for 5 at stumps, with Tendulkar on 31—undaunted, unshaken.

A Fight Against Fate

The next morning, nightwatchman Venkatapathy Raju perished without troubling the scorers. Tendulkar responded in kind, a fierce cut off Hughes bringing up his half-century. But even as youth displayed resilience, experience floundered.

Kapil Dev’s ill-judged hook landed safely in the hands of long leg, and two balls later, Manoj Prabhakar slashed straight to gully. At 159 for 8, India seemed on the brink of complete disintegration. The field closed in as Allan Border sought a swift end.

Yet, Tendulkar refused to succumb. He drove Whitney down the ground with elegance, guided Hughes to the fine-leg boundary, and square-drove Reiffel with pristine precision. Kiran More, dogged in defence, provided invaluable support. A partnership of 81 was stitched together, remarkable in both circumstance and quality.

At 96, a brace of runs brought Tendulkar closer. Then, in an act of poetic symmetry, McDermott over-pitched, and a sumptuous straight drive sealed his hundred. Helmet off, bat raised, the boy revealed his youth to the world. He had played one of the most luminous innings ever witnessed on that treacherous surface.

Having reached his hundred, Tendulkar sought quick runs, unfurling daring strokes over the slip cordon. But Whitney had the final say, extracting steep bounce from a good length, forcing a fend to second slip. He departed for 114 off 161 balls, his innings spanning 228 minutes and decorated with 16 boundaries. From 159 for 8, he had propelled India to 240, but his disappointment at dismissal was palpable. As the WACA crowd rose in admiration, he struck his bat against the ground, knowing that this was just the beginning of a journey.

The Verdict of the Match, The Verdict of History

India’s innings folded at 272, with More contributing a gritty 43. Australia, relentless in their pursuit of victory, piled on the runs and set India an insurmountable target. The final act was brutal—a surrender to Mike Whitney’s precision, sealing a 300-run defeat. Australia clinched the series 4-0.

Yet, amidst the ruins, India had unearthed its future. Tendulkar’s innings was more than a hundred; it was an announcement. Against the best attack in the world, on the hardest pitch imaginable, a teenager had showcased a brand of batting that would define an era. This was not just the arrival of a prodigy; it was the birth of a legend.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Adelaide 1960-61: A Test Match Without a Final Word

The match ended not with resolution but with defiance, its final moments echoing the drama of the opening Test. West Indies were denied a series lead not by collapse or chance, but by the stubborn refusal of a last-wicket partnership that transformed survival into resistance.

When Kline joined MacKay, the arithmetic was cruelly clear. An hour and fifty minutes remained; the target was irrelevant. Australia were not chasing runs, only time. Yet almost immediately, fate hovered. Sobers, stationed improbably close, four yards from the bat, leapt in confident appeal as MacKay edged Worrell. The cry was certain, the moment electric. But Egar’s finger stayed down. It was the turning point of the match. From that reprieve grew not merely survival but audacity: 66 runs added, time extinguished, and West Indian certainty dissolved into disbelief.

This was a Test rich in incident, almost overloaded with narrative. Gibbs’ hat-trick in Australia’s first innings—the first inflicted upon them this century- was not merely a statistical novelty but a symbolic rupture. Australia, so often immune to such collapses, fell suddenly from 281 for five to 281 for eight, undone in a blur of precision and panic. That collapse was sharpened by contrast with Kanhai’s mastery: a hundred in each innings, strokes flowing with a fluency that seemed to mock the contest itself.

West Indies had set the tone early. Winning the toss, they lost Hunte cheaply but found freedom on a pitch that neither hurried nor deceived. The partnership between Kanhai and Worrell—107 runs in just over an hour- was a statement of authority. Kanhai’s first hundred came in barely two hours, ornamented with sixes and boundaries that reflected not recklessness but command. Only Benaud, with his patient, intelligent spin, imposed restraint; his five wickets for 96 restoring balance to an otherwise fluent innings.

Australia’s reply mirrored the match’s volatility. Favell fell early, McDonald dug in doggedly, and Simpson, after flirting with disaster, found his feet and his rhythm. Yet MacKay, uneasy throughout, succumbed leg-before to Gibbs, and the innings seemed destined to unravel completely. Benaud, calm amid chaos, and Hoare, unexpectedly resilient, shepherded the score to 366—respectable, but insufficient to seize control.

If Australia hoped the second West Indian innings might offer reprieve, it did not. Their bowling lacked menace, and Kanhai resumed his dominion, completing a rare and magnificent double hundred in a Test match. With Hunte, he added 163, a record second-wicket stand for West Indies against Australia, batting that combined elegance with inevitability. When Worrell declared, the challenge was stark: 460 runs in a little over six and a half hours. It was less an invitation than a provocation.

Australia faltered immediately. Three wickets fell for 31, and the final day opened under a cloud of apprehension. A resolute stand by O’Neill and Burge briefly steadied the ship, offering hope until almost lunchtime. But as wickets fell and time drained away, defeat seemed only postponed.

Then came resistance of a rarer kind. MacKay and Kline did not merely defend; they fought. Stroke by stroke, minute by minute, they transformed desperation into resolve. For the final over, Worrell turned to Hall, seeking one last breach. It did not come. MacKay survived, and with him, Australia escaped.

The match ended not as a draw of convenience, but as a contest unfinished, its legacy defined by courage at the margins, by moments when certainty was denied, and by the enduring truth that in Test cricket, survival itself can be a form of victory.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Underarm Bowling 1981: The Ball That Rolled Away Cricket’s Soul

The series stood delicately balanced at 1–1. New Zealand had taken the first match, Australia the second. The third final of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup was meant to decide momentum; instead, it interrogated the meaning of cricket itself.

Even before the last ball, the afternoon had begun to curdle.

Greg Chappell, Australia’s captain and fulcrum, had already been at the centre of controversy. On 58, he drove high and flat into the Melbourne outfield. Martin Snedden ran, dived, and claimed a catch that looked, and later proved, clean. Richie Benaud, watching live, called it “one of the best catches I have ever seen in my life.” Slow-motion replays reinforced the verdict. Snedden had cupped the ball above the turf.

The umpires disagreed.

In an era before television evidence could intervene, the decision stood. Some believed Chappell should have accepted Snedden’s word, invoking cricket’s old covenant of honour., Chappell insisted he was uncertain and within his rights to wait. He went on to score 90, before later walking when caught in a near-identical fashion, having seen the ball clearly held.

Already, the game had exposed a tension that would later snap: between what the law allowed and what the game expected.

Arithmetic, Exhaustion, and the Slippage of Control

Australia’s management of the closing overs betrayed an unusual disarray. Dennis Lillee, their premier bowler, completed his ten overs with the dismissal of John Parker. Richie Benaud later accused Chappell of “getting his sums wrong” by not reserving Lillee for the final over. Graeme Beard’s overs were similarly miscounted after a mid-field conference involving Chappell, Lillee, Kim Hughes and Rod Marsh failed to reconcile the arithmetic.

Trevor Chappell was left with the last over. New Zealand required 15.

Bruce Edgar, stranded at the non-striker’s end on 102 not out—an innings later called “the most overlooked century of all time “could only watch.

Trevor’s over was chaos in miniature: a boundary, Hadlee trapped lbw, two hurried doubles, Ian Smith bowled attempting a desperate heave. Suddenly, improbably, New Zealand needed six to tie. Seven to win was impossible. Six was not.

Under the laws of the time, a tie meant a replay.

The match was alive.

The Delivery

Greg Chappell, exhausted, overstimulated, and fielding the residue of a punishing season, made a decision that would outlive everything else he achieved in the game.

He instructed his brother to bowl underarm.

It was legal. That, ultimately, would be its most damning defence.

Underarm bowling existed in the laws like a fossil—permitted but obsolete, technically alive but spiritually extinct. It was against the regulations of several domestic one-day competitions, widely understood as unsporting, and never used in any serious context.

The umpires were informed. The batsmen were warned.

Trevor Chappell rolled the ball along the pitch like a bowls wood.

Brian McKechnie blocked it out, then flung his bat away in fury. Australia won by six runs. The New Zealanders walked off not defeated, but affronted.

In the confusion, Dennis Lillee remained fractionally outside the fielding circle. Technically, the delivery should have been a no-ball. Had the umpires noticed, the match would have been tied and replayed. They did not.

The law had spoken. The game had not.

Immediate Condemnation

Ian Chappell, commentating, instinctively cried out: *“No, Greg, no, you can’t do that.”*

Richie Benaud called it “disgraceful… one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field.”

The reaction crossed borders and institutions. New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon described it as “the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket,” branding it “an act of true cowardice.” Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called it “contrary to the traditions of the game.”

In the New Zealand dressing room, silence curdled into rage. Mark Burgess smashed a teacup against the wall. “Too angry for words,” recalled Warren Lees.

Cricket, usually insulated from politics, had forced its way into parliament.

Context, Not Excuse

Years later, Greg Chappell offered an explanation, not absolution. He spoke of exhaustion, of being mentally unfit to lead, of a season so relentless he had asked to leave the field mid-innings. Rod Marsh confirmed it. Chappell had spent overs on the boundary, overwhelmed by heat and pressure.

Chappell insisted the delivery was not about securing victory, Australia had already won, but about protest. A cry for attention against a system that, in his view, was grinding players down without listening.

If so, it was the worst possible articulation.

Cricket has always tolerated cunning. It has never forgiven contempt.

Afterlife of a Moment

The underarm incident changed the law. The ICC banned the delivery in one-day cricket, declaring it “not within the spirit of the game.” Few law changes have been so swift or so moral.

The memory lingered longer.

Chappell was booed relentlessly two days later, then scored a match-winning 87 to secure the series. In New Zealand, bowls woods were rolled onto the field when he batted. The incident entered folklore, parody, cinema, advertising, and comedy. Glenn McGrath later mimed an underarm delivery in a Twenty20, prompting Billy Bowden to theatrically flash a mock red card.

Brian McKechnie bore no lasting grudge, though he wished the moment would fade. Trevor Chappell, forever reduced to that one delivery, learned to laugh along. Greg Chappell accepted the stain would never lift.

Why It Still Matters

This was not an act of cheating. That distinction is important and insufficient.

It was worse.

It was an assertion that legality was enough.

Cricket, more than most games, has always rested on an unwritten compact: that the law sets the boundary, but honour defines the field. The underarm delivery shattered that balance. It revealed what happens when calculation replaces conscience, when winning becomes detached from meaning.

The match itself was forgettable. The moment was not.

On one February afternoon in 1981, the law won, the game lost, and cricket learned, painfully, that some victories cost more than defeat.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar