Andrew Alderson: ICC must look after little guy

Beating Australia sparked a groundswell of support. Photo / Getty Images

The International Cricket Council needs to restructure its board by loosening partisan controls on the game. However, convincing cricket's biggest powerbrokers, led by India, remains a tricky prospect.

The opportunity to make bold reforms is expected to come with the release of the Woolf report, a document compiled by former English chief justice Lord Harry Woolf, which reviews cricket's governance.

The idea to do a review was included in the ICC strategic plan after lobbying by New Zealander Alan Isaac, the current ICC vice-president, who becomes president in June.

India might dominate in the boardroom, just as England did before them, but heavyweight support for change is gaining momentum.

The Marylebone Cricket Club world cricket committee, the Federations of International Cricketers' Associations and individual players such as Daniel Vettori have called for the ICC to publish the Woolf report in full so the recommendations cannot be spin-doctored or hidden behind boardroom doors.

Even outgoing ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat, a man not normally associated with rebellion during his tenure, showed a glimpse of firebrand calling for the board to have some form of independent directorship so "there's at least a balance of debate or a voice spoken without self-interest".

The review is expected to suggest the current board structure - consisting of president, vice-president, chief executive, 10 test-playing nation representatives and three associate members - be scrapped.

A model with independent representatives, appointed on the basis of business and cricketing acumen rather than national allegiance, could be the replacement.

How such revamped roles would be doled out is a point of contention because some nations would miss out on representation while others could get several. But it is more important to focus on how the roles are divvied up.

Recruiting experts regardless of nationality with financial, business, media and playing backgrounds would be a start. Countries such as England, New Zealand and recently Australia are already examples of how such a model works.

The Woolf report comes at an opportune time. Many fans have been frustrated by India's veto of the Decision Review System which further sullied the disappointing Australia-India series. Twenty20 and 50-over cricket has also tended to dominate the Future Tours Programme at the expense of tests.

Yes, revenue is vital but so are the basic tenets of the game traditionally based on tests at international level. A test championship was proposed but shelved until 2017, hindering the chance for cricket to return to its purist roots once every four years.

Any of those valid proposals could have progressed the game with an independent board, but partiality extinguished the prospects. An independent board is a preferred direction for anyone who seeks a wider outlook that doesn't merely accede to the demands of the Big Four: India, South Africa, Australia and England.

Sure, everyone appreciates the Ashes and other significant test series but, for the wider benefit of the game, they shouldn't be played exclusively while assigning minor test-playing nations such as New Zealand to a future where Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies are the only opponents.

The test win against Australia at Hobart in November showed a groundswell of support lies beneath New Zealanders' occasional cricketing apathy. That is just one example but if the ICC observes what it means to smaller cricketing nations to achieve those types of feats, then a board which has independence is the way ahead rather than a situation where the mutual back-scratching of the old boys' networks prevails.