Deb K. Das has been USA Coordinator for Cricinfo since January 1999.
An artist, poet, writer, photojournalist, editor, Artificial Intelligence researcher, and econometrician, Deb K. Das graduated from Cambridge University in England, and served as Managing Editor of CRICKETER INTERNATIONAL'S North American Edition for three years.
He has translated documents from Vedic, Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Avestan and Cuneiform; lectured and written on "Ancient Cuisines of Europe, Asia and Africa", and "Impacts of Industrial Energy Efficiency on the Global Economy"; and researched "History of Cricket from 700 to 1700 AD", "Cricket in America" and "Cricket for Baseball Players".
He is a former Chairman of the Seattle Cricket Club, and a co-organizer of the First North American Tournament in 1995.
USACA's FIVE-YEAR Plan: A Critique
On January 17, 2002, the USACA declared that it had met the deadline imposed by WICB, ICC and CCAM, and had submitted a 5-year plan detailing how cricket was to be developed under USACA auspices in the United States for the next five years (see USACA's 5-yr PLAN, elsewhere on this Web site.)
This is perhaps the first time we are aware of, that anything like this has been attempted for US cricket-- certainly by the USACA, which has been criticized in the past for lurching from crisis to crisis without a road map, or indeed any defined sense of direction. For this, the current USACA Administration deserves its measure of credit. To be sure, it had not been given much of a choice-- the stern admonition from the "outside" (especially, we were told, from the WICB) was that if the USACA did not shape up, it was risking its continued membership in the ICC, and CCAM, not to mention the international cricket community as a whole. But the fact that the USACA Administration was able to rise to the challenge should be fully acknowledged-- and the appropriate kudos distributed.
The details of the Strategic Plan have yet to be released. USACA stated that it would be available on the Web "in the next few weeks". However, the summary that it has helpfully provided on its Web site is sufficiently detailed to provide a good sense of where the USACA intends to take US cricket. Below, we critique the Summary section by section. Hopefully, our readers will find this helpful.
--Deb K. Das, USA Coordinator, CRICINFO
Section-by-section ANALYSIS of USACA Plan Summary
"During the period 2002-2006, USACA intends to develop a very viable cricket infrastructure in America".
A statement of intent, which needs to be spelled out: what "infrastructure"-- grounds, facilities? Or something else? "Infrastructure" means different things for different people; in fact, most of the discussion in the USA over infrastructure has centered on facilities such as grounds, and pitches, which are not mentioned in the Summary. Hopefully the Final Plan will spell out what it means by "infrastructure" and what specific steps it will take over the next five years to achieve viability in this area.
"Among the many carefully derived objectives, is the implementation of a multiphase program leading to the development of the USA National Cricket Team to qualify for the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies."
By setting the development of a US National Team as a priority, the USACA could be going against those who have argued that development of domestic cricket should take priority over trying to make it on the international cricket scene. How strong the feelings of the "neo-isolationists" are, it is difficult to ascertain at this point. Our own feeling is that we shall soon be hearing from them, since feelings run high on the subject.
"An integral part of this plan is to: (1) Identify the top 25 players in the country through Inter-Regional competitions ; (2) Appoint a National Coach ; (3) Organize Annual Training Camps; (4) Arrange for the National Team to participate in selected International Competitions ; (5) Prepare National Team for:(a) Americas Regional Championship 2002, 2004, 2006, (b) ICC World Series Competition 2004, (c) ICC Trophy 2005 -- and finally, (6) Host at least two visits by Full Members 'A' teams."
Here we see, in some detail, exactly how USACA intends to carry through on its goal of "the development of the USA National Cricket Team to qualify for the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies". Even in Summary form, specific steps have been spelled out and a rough time table established. Obviously, these activities are the ones that would be of greatest interest to "outsiders", and to "outward-looking" US cricketers.
Part of the USACA's plan is to increase the number of participants from 10,000 to 50 000.
Compared to the "US National Team" goal and activities, which were well-defined and focussed, this is an incredible and mind-numbing goal. It took nearly ten years for the number of active cricketers to double from 5000 to 10,000, and that growth rate was impressive. Now it is expected to quintuple the number in half the time? What are the specific steps to be taken to attain this lofty participation target? We need more detail, even in a Summary, to be convinced that these numbers are not a joke.
" .. the USACA plans to execute a well defined multi-facet campaign at various levels throughout the USA, utilizing: (a) Schools cricket program and PE teachers training programs ; (b) Junior cricket leagues and coaching programs; (c) Inter school, inter league and National Competitions; (d) Promotions & advertisements;
(e) Expanding the geography of cricket."
Are the programs listed here the ones that will help to quintuple the number of active cricketers (see previous section)? By the way, what does "expanding the geography of cricket" mean, in this context? And has any thought been given to the numbers of $$ required to attain the target of 50,000 participating (full-time) cricketers in five years-- a level that has not been achieved so far by ANY non-Test nation? Each of the goals mentioned here are nice ones, to be sure. But they will need to be spelled out in detail, and the "main" HOWs under each of these goals have to be referenced, even in a Summary, for the program statement to be fully credible. (note that this has been done with the National Team goal--the other goals, surely, deserve equal attention?)
[UMPIRING] "Already WICB and CCAM have offered to provide us certified umpires to conduct training and umpires' seminars at various locations here in the USA. USACA has started the process of setting up a National Umbrella Organization for all umpires in the USA. Maximum efforts and available resources will be directed to standardize Rules for competitions, recruitment and training of Coaches, Umpires and Scorers, to gradually raise the standards to International levels, in a phased development program."
This is also a praiseworthy goal, but may be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Other than the fact that WICB has expressed interest in setting up umpiring clinics, don't we need to firm up and expand a national cricket playing infrastructure before we talk about a national cricket support structure (i.e. umpiring and scoring) ? In any case, many of the larger US leagues have developed their own umpiring programs, and would probably not be amused at the idea of these being "nationalized".
[COACHING] "Skillful recruitment of coaches shall also assist in the execution of comprehensive and perpetual educational and promotional programs."
It is not at all clear how "Skillful recruitment" of coaches will help to execute all the kinds of cricket programs listed in the Summary. Again, nothing wrong with "skillful" recruitment of coaches, or for that matter anybody else (although we are a little bit in the dark about what "skillful" is supposed to mean here)-- but exactly how will this help to launch all those different kinds of programs? Is the "coaching" effort also supposed to be nationalized like the proposed scorer and umpire programs? Many questions, and not enough answers.
[OFFICE] "USACA shall soon have its well-deserved Head-Office staffed with highly qualified and competent professionals. Cricket Administration in The United States of America shall adopt state of the art technology to attain optimum results from the implementation of its strategic plan for the period until 2006."
We are not sure how a USACA Head Office is "well-deserved"! (The remark was intended as a joke.) But the idea of a Head Office is not new-- as we recall, there was already a USACA Head Office under Kamran Khan's presidency, in Haverford. As to the "state of the art technology" for managing cricket, this has been a plank of Major League Cricket Inc. for two years-- is the USACA borrowing a leaf from someone else's book? Other than that, we go back to that tired old saw--there has to be something to manage before state-of-the-art technologies can be applied to managing it.
[MEDIA] "Electronic Media shall provide tremendous advantage in promoting cricket through website, newsletters, newspapers etc"
We are not sure where USACA is planning to go with this one. There already are any number of websites, newsletters, newspapers put out by many persons and organizations in the USA on cricket--at last count, CRICINFO-USA was counting over 50 of these, spread out across the USA. So, what are the new ideas being proposed by USACA in electronic media, and how will they be applied to give the USACA a "tremendous advantage in promoting cricket"? Perhaps this will be covered in the detailed Plan-- on this topic, the Summary is very ambiguous.
[PROMOTIONS] "USACA visualizes great opportunities in hosting tournaments with the participation of top quality cricketers(emphasis by CRICINFO-USA)...USACA's aggressive promotions and advertising campaign shall include: (a) Festival Cricket games involving International Cricketers (b) Community Cricket Day(s?) (c) Women's cricket; (d) Promotions through electronic, print, television and other media (e) Distribution of informational materials such as brochures, Video tapes etc."
As before, we like the list of proposed "promotions"-- but we do not see what "great opportunities" the USACA is referring to. "Hosting tournaments" even with "top quality (presumably, international or/and near Test-calibre) cricketers" is something many organizations in North America, including the USACA, have tried in the past; the best that can be said of such "tournaments" is that they typically involve as many risks and possibilities of fiascos as they do "opportunities". Certainly, any one or all of these activities could be worthwhile. But the opportunities to be pursued by the USACA's systematically carrying out any of these activities need to be spelled out more precisely, it would seem.
"Generally, financing remains as the crucial element for achieving the objectives and goals of the 5-Year Strategic Plan that USACA formulated for itself. While meaningful negotiations and discussions shall persevere with businesses and local, city, state and federal government officials to identify sponsorship and other forms of funding, initial assistance from leading International cricketing bodies (emphasis by CRICINFO-USA) shall be the major source of hope .... at this crucial juncture in the development of cricket and cricket relations in the United States of America."
And here we come to the real issue. It seems the USACA is admitting that "assistance from leading International cricketing bodies" shall be the "major source" of funds to pursue all these activities. Is this really the case? If so, USACA'S 5-year Plan could find itself DOA before it is reviewed by the very international organizations (and potential $$ contributors) to whom it is being submitted-- they are not likely to relish the thought of being the major $$ sponsors of US cricket, and could demand that the USA assume the lion's share of the costs of carrying out its own Plan. Which leads back to the question-- where are these indigenous resources coming from? The Summary is notably silent on this topic, and this is its most glaring omission.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe the USA-- and US Cricket as a whole-- is important enough to the Americas, and even the ICC, for them to swallow hard and provide the life support that (according to the USACA) is essential for US cricket to be fully resuscitated, and finally become viable.
We shall see. This ought to be interesting.
The FIVE YEAR PLAN: An Independent Cost Estimate
In the USACA Web Site, an independent cost estimate was printed on the Bulletin Board. The calculations were not re-checked by us, but we are presenting it here as an important contribution to the USACA Five Year plannig process.
OK, these are the summary numbers produced by our panel. Keep in mind these are only guesstimates, and could go way up or down depending on the assumptions being made.
We worked with a minimum USACA program for cost purposes, consisting of the following:
(a)National Team Development, using the timelines and milestones laid out in the plan;
(b) A US inter-league tournament comprising member leagues or/and regional teams;
(3)A national Junior developmet program, at a minimum one tier but expandable to three (e.g u-13, u-15 or U-16, and U-19)
(4)National Support programs in minimum one area, expandable to 3 (Umpires, Scorers, League and Club Administration)
(5) A Coordinating (Head Office) function to unite and manage all the above in a coherent fashion.
The cost model we used involved three levels; (1) a top or national level (2) zonal or/and regional levels (3) a "grass-roots" level consistng of subsidies or activities from levels 1 or 2. For example, a Junior development program could consist of (a) a national tournament or/and selection program (b) regional or zonal tournaments/camps (c) support of local programs on a funds-matching, services or outright grant basis.
There were modifications depending on the program level, but the details are omitted here for reasons of space. Also, we used the minimum cost estimates for each element-- for example we used the lowest possible Runzheimer costs for travel and accomodations, rather than budget at metro cost levels. It would not surprise our panel to see these estimates exceeded in actual practice, though our hope is that planners and administrators would do their best to adhere to these benchmarks.
Our computation suggested that the National Development Program would require $100k to $300k per year, depending on how many international tours or tournaments per year would be included in the team development process. The Inter League tournament would cost $500k to $800 k per year, with a set-aside of $5000 to $15000 per league to cover their participation expenses. A junior development program could cost $600k for a single-tier program to $1500k for a full (three-tier) program. National Support Programs were budgeted at $100 k each, i.e. $100 k for a single program initiative to $300 k for all three. Finally a national coordination initiative (i.e. at a minimum a fully functioning Head Office, at maximum some funding for development consultant resources)could cost $100 k to $300 k per year.
This gives a total of $1.45 million per year for a minimum program and $3.2 million per year for a [more] comprehensive program. Note that we did not include any expenses here for exhibitions or tours by international teams or players, women's cricket, use of new technologies, and other goals which were included in the 5-year plan. We assumed (perhaps optimistically) that budgets for these would be developed separately as the programs were defined, and some of these could be sel-sustaining.
USACA'S FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY: A General Comment
There never has been a national, long-term strategy for US Cricket. Now, thanks to the USA Cricket Association, we have a strategy. This, in itself, is a matter of some importance-- and the USACA deserves the credit for placing such a strategy on the table.
The new strategy deserves careful review, and thorough analysis. No doubt many details will be worked out as the Final Plan takes full form. All the more reason, then, for examining the premises on which this first draft of the strategy is based.
The major focus of the new strategy is on the development of a National US Team over a five-year period-- one that is able to take its place, within that time, among the best of the Associate Members of the ICC-- and possibly, be a contender for even greater honors such as world ODI or even Test status. This is certainly an ambitious goal, and the USACA has outlined the steps that must be taken if such results are to be achieved. Whether these intermediate goals can be accomplished within the times put forward in the summary is an open question, but the milestones are there for all to see-- so, progress can be defined, and measured.
When it comes to other goals, the Five Year Plan is less precise-- and considerably more ambiguous. A series of program initiatives are suggested in the summary, but there is no clear prioritization; nor are there any statements on how these are to be accomplished (or when). In these areas, the Summary reads like a smorgasbord of desirable goals, each of which might be justified on its own merits but none which are described succinctly enough to provide any clues as to how they are to be attained. What is lacking, in other words, is focus. Even in Summary form, the Plan needs to provide at least an outline of how things are to be tried, and this is missing.
The most serious lack, at least in the Summary form of the plan, is any indication of what resources are likely to be needed to accomplish all the Plan goals, and where the cash and in-kind contributions will be coming form. In fact, it is implied that "international bodies" will have to be a "major source" of the funds needed to make US cricket progress to the degree described in the Plan Summary. If this philosophy is allowed to prevail, the USACA may well stand accused of abrogating its responsibilities and relying instead on "outside contributions" to achieve anything of substance. To defend itself against this possible charge, the USACA needs to develop its own resource plan-- and that, in short order.
-- Deb K. Das, USA Coordinator, CRICINFO
help@cricinfo.com
Date-stamped : 17 Jan 2002 - 20:52
