India holds the key to the future

Tony Greig was funny, outspoken and enlightening in a
question and answer session.

Tony Greig's analysis is that India holds the future of the game in the palm of her hands and everything hinges on a willingness to apply the 'spirit of cricket'

I attended the Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lord's on Tuesday. This may seem an anglocentric way to start a World Cricket Forum but the speaker was Tony Greig, an international figure if ever there was one.

Greig was born in South Africa, played for England, settled and worked after the end of his cricketing career in Australia and is often feted in Sri Lanka and India – though after his lecture he may not be feted quite so extravagantly in India as he once was. He is without question a global figure, always provocative and entertaining whether as a player or a commentator on the game.

For Greig this was an emotional homecoming. Here he was, welcomed back to Lord's, the home of an establishment that he had enraged 35 years ago by signing up for Kerry Packer and then recruiting cricketers for the "Circus". It may have helped a little that the president of the MCC, Phillip Hodson, is a good friend of Greig and a brother-in-law. The welcome was genuinely warm.

Actually the lecture format did not suit Greig perfectly. It was almost as if he was shackled by a script, which had taken weeks to chisel out, and he was determined to cover almost every aspect of the modern game. This was highlighted when the evening moved to a Q and A format, hosted by Mark Nicholas, in which Greig was joined by his old mate, Derek Underwood, and the nearest equivalent to Greig that England can currently offer, Stuart Broad, blond, 6ft 6in and a dashing all-rounder with a bit of devil in him. Once the Q and A was under way Greig was at his best: instinctive, mischievous, funny, outspoken and enlightening.
Greig has always been a man of contradictions. He took on the old order, yet last Tuesday he mentioned how much he regretted causing such pain to two very contrasting members of that cricketing establishment, EW Swanton and Alec Bedser. In the Q and A he was extolling the virtues of "walking" to Broad one moment and then explaining amid much hilarity why he could not contemplate walking against the Australians back in the 70s and how he encouraged the English players of that era to follow suit.

He explained that one of his reasons for aligning himself with Packer was to secure the future for himself and his family. Clearly self-interest was a significant factor. Yet here he was beseeching India to put aside self-interest – or at least immediate financial gain – for the greater good of the game.

In simple terms Greig's analysis was this: that India holds the future of the game in the palm of her hands. Everything hinged on India's willingness to apply the "spirit of cricket" and to make some financial sacrifices along the way, a simple analysis but also an alarming one.

So it was all the more striking to read on the day after Greig's lecture that India would not agree to the use of the umpire decision review system in the forthcoming series against England at the end of this year. In the scheme of things it does not matter hugely that India should veto the DRS again. The assumption is that a senior player, such as Sachin Tendulkar, does not like the system partly because it is always used against him. After all, it makes sense for India's opponents to use their reviews against the opposition's best player. But there is something symbolic about India's stance. With all that financial clout, India is more than willing to go her own way on a whole range of topics whatever the majority at the International Cricket Council think.
Less symbolic but far more financially significant was Greig's suggestion that the administrators in India should reduce the duration of the Indian Premier League as part of a package to preserve and protect Test cricket. Even Greig, a natural optimist, was none too sure whether India currently regards Test cricket sufficiently highly that they might be prepared to do that.