“India being in the final is the best result for women’s cricket,” Heather Knight, England’s captain, said. “There’s massive scope for growth and support from India. And with their team being in the final, BCCI will take note and support women’s cricket the way it should be.”

The BCCI have already done exactly that. On the eve of the final, they announced a bonus of INR 50 lakh (approx US $ 77,500) for each member of the squad, irrespective of whether they return home with the trophy or not. It means that for reaching the final, Indian women will receive more than three times the amount of an annual Grade A contract, which is set at INR 15 Lakh (approx US $23,200). If they win, who knows how much richer they could become.

Raj hoped the wealth won’t be measured only in numbers. “There might be a lot of changes back home if we go on to win the World Cup, and those changes will benefit the future generations,” she said. “Women’s cricket in India will have a brand of its own. It won’t require anything else to support it and promote it as a sport. This platform and this win will definitely give it that edge for young girls to take up sport back home and maybe a women’s IPL might be in the pipeline.”

This is not the first time Raj has proposed a women’s IPL. Before last year’s World T20, Raj predicted that if India did well at the event, it would “give birth” to the women’s IPL. As things transpired, India only won one of their four group games and did not make the semi-finals. Now, things have changed. The team is on the up and Raj has reason to restate her request for an IPL.

“It is time. Looking at the way the girls have been performing in the last couple of years. And we’ve seen how Smriti and Hamanpreet have benefitted from their exposure to WBBL,” she said. “I am sure if the other young girls in the squad are exposed to the culture of a T20 league, the domestic standard in Indian women’s cricket will also improve immensely.”

Knight agreed that an IPL could become one of the showpiece events for the women’s game, and that the performance of the Indian team at this World Cup could be the catalyst for starting it. “A women’s IPL would be brilliant. The BBL and KSL have been really successful and they’ve been a part of pushing women’s cricket forward,” she said. “You’ve seen players involved in those competitions really develop and perform in this World Cup. All we can keep doing as cricketers is keep improving and keep pushing. The more cricket we play, the more competitive and close games, people will improve quicker.”

England coach, Mark Robinson, however, was a little more sceptical about another T20 competition. Being a national coach, his reservations are understandable, especially because the women’s game is still trying to find its feet when it comes to regular bilateral fixtures. “I think we have to play more international cricket before we get into IPL. We don’t play enough international games. We haven’t played since November coming into this competition,” he said. “We can’t get too far ahead of ourselves. England need to play New Zealand more, Australia more, South Africa more. We need to play more good games, home games from a selfish point of view. The IPL might improve cricket in India, but we want to play more international games.”

Even in that regard, Raj aimed to please. Though T20 is foremost on her mind, she also wanted to see the game develop more traditionally. “I would also prefer women cricketers playing the longer format, because that is the ultimate challenge,” Raj, who has played 10 Tests, said. “T20 is a good way of promoting the sport and it gives more range for the batters to be more innovative and proactive in their shot selection. But if you want to see quality bowlers, it’s the longer version that you give them that space. We need to have bowlers also in the game and not just focus on batters.”

But not at Lord’s tomorrow. Raj was hopeful of “plenty of runs” at the ground where she averages 153. She has only played at Lord’s twice, first in 2006, when she made 59 in a losing cause, and then in July 2012, when her unbeaten 94 helped India beat England. She remembers the first occasion because all she wanted to do back then, as a 24-year old first-time entrant at the venue, was “click pictures.” Now that she is back here to finish her World Cup career, she considers it “destiny.”

Though Raj believes she can continue playing for India for a little longer, she has confirmed this is her last World Cup and she wants to give it everything because she does not know how great the rewards could be. “Unlike 2005, where I played with a lot of pressure, this time I want to enjoy being out there,” she said. “In all the years, there were a lot of occasions where I could have enjoyed the success of my team or a few of the innings I played, but it never occurred to me. Now, I will make sure I will not let the fear of what might go wrong cross me.”

What about what might go right? “It’s a final and everybody will have their nerves. No matter how many finals we play, there’s always that fear of putting a wrong foot,” she said. “But this bunch of players is playing a final for the first time. I don’t see any fear in them now. It’s completely different to 2005 when we were all overwrought by the situation.”

India’s calm comes from a place of certainty, because they know that everybody, at least everybody that matters to them, is rooting for them. “The whole world will be watching India play. Everybody is rooting for India back home,” Raj said. “We’ve been getting calls from various parts of the country to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the team so far. Everybody is very happy with the way the team has performed through the tournament. One more game can change the fortunes for women’s cricket and Indian women’s cricket.”

Article Courtesy – espncricinfo.com

Have N Srinivasan and Niranjan Shah acted disruptively and subversively in the BCCI’s efforts to implement the Lodha recommendations, as the Committee of Administrators (CoA) complained to the Supreme Court? Did the pair “hijack” proceedings at the BCCI’s crucial June 26 special general meeting (SGM), where another delaying tactic – the creation of a special committee – was agreed upon?

As the BCCI continues to dawdle over the implementation of the Lodha Committee’s recommendations – most of which are now pending for over a year – Srinivasan’s influence in that movement has come under attention. As per the minutes of the SGM on June 26, seen by ESPNcricinfo, Srinivasan and Shah had a prominent voice against what appeared to be a majority view of BCCI members, who wanted to find some middle ground between rejecting and implementing the recommendations.

The SGM was significant because of its single-point agenda: deliberation on the implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations. It ended with the formation of a seven-member committee to put together “critical points” on the major reforms BCCI members were opposed to, which will then be presented to the Supreme Court.

The CoA subsequently submitted a status report to the court saying the SGM was “hijacked” by disqualified administrators like Srinivasan and Shah, who had a “vested” interest against adopting reforms because it would mean ceding the “control” they held for decades over their state associations, and by extension, the BCCI.

Both Srinivasan and Shah attended the SGM as representatives of their respective state associations, even though they were in breach, as per the eligibility criteria set by the Lodha Committee, having exceeded the 70-year age-cap which is meant for the representatives also.

The SGM was dominated by three voices: the BCCI secretary Amitabh Choudhary, Srinivasan and, as a moderating voice, Jyotiraditya Scindia, representative of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association. The meeting began with Choudhary bringing members up to speed with developments since the SGM on October 1 last year, which was the last time the recommendations were discussed by the state associations.

Although the members were in favour of adopting “80-85%” of the reforms then, there was a recognition that some were just “insurmountable” and needed reconsideration.

“Jyotiraditya Scindia, representative of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, said the BCCI’s image to the outside world, not just the court, was “extremely negative” so anything the board said or did would be monitored closely”

The CoA was sympathetic to that assessment. According to Choudhary, the CoA “shared misgivings” over three recommendations: one-state-one-vote, the three-year cooling-off period for an administrator and the reduction in the size of the selection panel.

The CoA also said the court could be asked to modify those recommendations that could not be adopted by the BCCI. In the SGM in June, Choudhary repeatedly stressed on the importance of showing to the court the progress the BCCI had made in implementing reforms. He said that the court could take some drastic action if that wasn’t the case. “Beyond that I see only peril,” Choudhary warned.

Srinivasan remained unaffected. Attending as a representative of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), Srinivasan seemed to argue that the strength of the objections of state associations gave them legal leverage. He said that 19 state associations had already filed petitions against the original court order of July 18 last year. “I think we have to see what is the practical situation,” Srinivasan said, as per the transcript of the SGM minutes. “The practical situation is 19 members of this BCCI have filed affidavits in the Supreme Court. They have filed affidavits where they have challenged the orders of 18th July and they have asked many reliefs.

“So we cannot today, irrespective, even if there is somebody having a gun to my head saying I will shoot you, I cannot change that affidavit. That affidavit, you know, it’s in the Supreme Court. I cannot today say I change something.”

Srinivasan also pointed out that both Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke were sacked by the court as BCCI president and secretary respectively in January for failing to implement the court order. If the BCCI were to now “dilute” its position, it would be letting them down.

“The president of the BCCI, Anurag Thakur, and Ajay Shirke, the secretary, were found fault with saying you fellows did not do anything to implement,” Srinivasan said. “Now if I agree to any suggestion to modify or dilute stand we have taken, then we are completely letting down Anurag Thakur and Ajay Shirke because that means they could have done something, they did not. CoA has persuaded these people to change. So, our original decision on these two fellows are right. I am sorry gentlemen. There is no way in which we should alter anything because that will hit our former president and secretary.”

One of those 19 affidavits came from the Saurashtra Cricket Association, represented by Shah. He reiterated the SCA stance in the SGM, pointing out that it did not agree with some of the recommendations approved by the court.

In contrast, Scindia advised caution to the board members. He said the BCCI’s image to the outside world, not just the court, was “extremely negative” so anything the board said or did would be monitored closely. “There is no easy solution to this. I, for one, feel that today the highest court of the land has pronounced a verdict. We are seen on the outside as an organization that is very obstinate and very stubborn in terms of accepting even what highest court of land has adjudicated.”

Scindia also disagreed with the idea of setting up a special committee that would shortlist the main recommendations the board members opposed. The idea, Srinivasan told the SGM, was mooted by Jay Shah, the Gujarat Cricket Association president.

Scindia feared the court might view a special committee as just another “bureaucratic hurdle” put in place by the BCCI. “So the way forward for us is very clear,” Scindia said. “To me, it is bi-modal. It is either we go ahead and accept it or (b) if we don’t, then we formulate a process with which we say we are going to stick with the [board’s] earliest [position], which is what Srinivasan adjudicated, or you look at a mid-path. Those are the three options that are open to you, either you do nothing, or you accept it, or you look at something in between.”

Srinivasan then claimed that the Supreme Court had told state associations while accepting their individual affidavits that if it found substance, it would refer the matter to a constitutional bench and that, ultimately, it could “recall” the original order.

Choudhary denied this was the case, and stressed that the court had never made any such statement in writing at least. “They have said, I tell you, they have said: I will hear you. Let us not argue on this,” Srinivasan responded to Choudhary. But the BCCI secretary insisted: “The point is, sir, what you actually said is not a part of the order. So these are what we conclude from the body language of the judges or from the informal comments. None of these are part of the order.”

Srinivasan interrupted. “Amitabh ji, the court, the newspapers, many informal comments are made. The media has picked and chosen what they wanted to highlight also. I do not, all I am saying is, this is what I heard, if you say this is not… I have no dispute. All I am saying is they are going to hear us.”

Eventually, influential administrators like Rajiv Shukla – attending the June SGM as representative from the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Associaton – agreed that the forming of a special committee was a good starting point. Scindia, too, ultimately said he was fine if all members supported such a decision.

In its last hearing on July 14, the court served notices to Srinivasan and Shah, asking them to explain why, despite being disqualified, they attended the SGM. The court is scheduled to hear the matter on July 24.

By Nagaraj Gollupudi – Article Courtesy – espncricinfo.com