The wasted decade
Charlie Austin explains why Sri Lanka failed to capitalise on their World Cup triumph in 1996 and face an uncertain future
Charlie Austin
28-May-2006
Why Sri Lanka failed to capitalise on their World Cup triumph in 1996 and why they now face an uncertain future
![]() |
![]()
|
Sri Lanka's tour of England marks the end of an era. Ten
years on from their spectacular World Cup victory in
1996, a win that signalled the end of their minnow
status, there is growing uneasiness about the future.
Some former players have been sounding the alarm
bells for years, warning that the fruits of that triumph
were being squandered by administrative incompetence and shorttermism.
But only now, prompted by their plunging ODI and Test
rankings coupled with the retirement of stalwarts like Sanath
Jayasuriya, are people realising just how critical the situation
has become. The sad truth is that Sri Lanka's cricket system - the
development, coaching and administration structures that underpin
the national team - is sick and in need of urgent attention after what
has been a wasted decade.
The excitement generated by the World Cup win was Sri Lanka's
equivalent of England's 2005 Ashes effect. Cricket was carried deep
into Sri Lanka's rural out-stations, popularising a sport that had
hitherto been largely the preserve of the privileged minority in
the main cities. Cricket's growing popularity made a mockery of
volleyball's official status as the island's national sport. No other
sport mattered any more: cricket was the undisputed No. 1.
World Cup success brought money, too, and lots of it. Before
the tournament cricket was run on a shoestring budget. Sri Lanka
were the paupers of the world game, capable of paying only meagre
salaries to the players. The tour fee for the whole World Cup was only
£600 and the match fee was a miserly £40. Training facilities were
astonishingly backward. It is alleged that when Alex Kontouri, the
team's first full-time physio, was hired in late 1995 he had to plead
with the board's treasurer for 10 annual subscriptions to a private
gym in Colombo.
But after the win television and sponsorship revenues soared,
providing the much needed cash to develop the domestic game. That money was not properly used. It did not end up where it needed to
develop the game and got wasted through construction contracts
and television deals.
Chronic instability
Within weeks of the World Cup there was a takeover within the administration and two businessmen Upali Dharmadasa and Thilanga Sumathipala replaced Ana Punchihewa, a board president respected for his integrity and vision. It was the beginning of the end, the start of a decade of political infighting. Since the 1996 board elections there has been chronic instability within the administration.
Within weeks of the World Cup there was a takeover within the administration and two businessmen Upali Dharmadasa and Thilanga Sumathipala replaced Ana Punchihewa, a board president respected for his integrity and vision. It was the beginning of the end, the start of a decade of political infighting. Since the 1996 board elections there has been chronic instability within the administration.
Annual elections are a constant source of intrigue
and often farce, as in 1999 when gun-toting private security guards
made a dramatic appearance in an apparent attempt to bully voters.
As alliances collapse and reform, the complexity of the political
machinations that bubble beneath the surface of Sri Lankan cricket
is beyond comprehension.
Every now and then the Government,
which plays a leading role in this soap opera, is persuaded to join in
by one faction or another, suspending democracy and appointing an
interim committee in a bid to clean-up the administration. Only last
year the Government launched a takeover on the grounds of alleged
financial mismanagement. Typically, as has happened numerous
times, it triggered a legal wrangle that was ended only when the
Government sent armed police into the board's headquarters to
wrest control from the outgoing executive committee. The board
denied the allegations.
![]() ![]() |
But the Government's own interim committees tend to collapse and
the result is a constant change of administrators and no continuity in
policy-making. Sri Lankan cricket has had more five-year plans in the
last decade than the Soviet Union had in its entire history. They are big
on grandiose objectives (ie: to make Sri Lanka the world's best cricket
team in five years). The problem is implementation.
The same key problems remain unsolved: poor infrastructure,
especially in the out-stations; a pitifully weak first-class structure; and
a once great schools system in decline. Several ex-players have been
co-opted over the years to address the problems but rarely are their
recommendations implemented. Arjuna Ranatunga's recent resignation
as chairman of the cricket committee is the latest example. Ranatunga,
one of the architects of Sri Lanka's World Cup victory, as well as one of
the most outspoken critics of the administrators, quit in disgust after
the board ignored the advice of his committee, which included a long
list of former captains, and expanded the island's already bloated fi rstclass
competition to 20 teams.
Sidath Wettimuny, another former Sri Lanka captain, has
also grown increasingly disillusioned: "It's worrying because
the planning is all about what can be done for today. We are not
thinking of tomorrow or the year after. It is a serious problem
and until the Government and the sports ministry realise the
importance of this game to the country, the importance of what it
brings to Sri Lanka by way of goodwill, tourism and exposure, my
fear is that nothing will happen. There is no urgency about what
needs to be done to improve long-term structures."
Declining standards
The first-class system is a case in point. While most other countries have focused their attention on raising the standard of their domestic game, Sri Lanka's major first-class tournament involves the participation of over 400 players each season. Last season Cricinfo's statisticians were left confused about the identity of a new player: he turned out to be the team's bus driver who was filling in for an absentee. The result is a low standard of competition, which means the top players are not challenged sufficiently to prepare them for the international stage.
The first-class system is a case in point. While most other countries have focused their attention on raising the standard of their domestic game, Sri Lanka's major first-class tournament involves the participation of over 400 players each season. Last season Cricinfo's statisticians were left confused about the identity of a new player: he turned out to be the team's bus driver who was filling in for an absentee. The result is a low standard of competition, which means the top players are not challenged sufficiently to prepare them for the international stage.
The tournament is run on largely amateur lines with struggling clubs reliant on tiny central hand-outs (approximately £10,000 a
year) for all their equipment and development work. The lucky
ones, usually the prestigious clubs with access to sympathetic
corporations, secure useful sponsorships while most have to rely on
ground hire and bar profi ts to maintain their facilities. As a result,
the players are forced to fend for themselves, fitting in cricket after
work. Most have no access to top-class coaching or physiotherapy.
Many drop out of the system early, their talent wasted forever.
To make matters worse the schools system, once so good that many
players were able to jump straight into international cricket, is in
crisis after a failed experiment with limited-overs cricket. Playing and
coaching standards have dropped alarmingly. Fortunately the current
cricket board - an interim committee appointed in March 2005 - has
acknowledged the crisis and agreed to invest substantial new funds,
completely revamp the tournament structure and introduce an islandwide
programme for training coaches.
At the national team level the players have done a remarkable
job of covering up the cracks in the system. But they suffer quietly.
Their salaries are poor compared with those not only of England
and Australia players but of their Asian neighbours. Muttiah
Muralitharan could earn twice his annual board income (central
contract and match fees) by playing summers for Lancashire. Players
have been denied representation by a players' association and the
board even refuses to offer them insurance against long-term injury,
a basic right even for an average county player in England.
Team selection often seems eccentric at best. Fine players never
get a look-in while mediocre ones are frequently promoted. The
current four-man selection panel, appointed by the sports minister,
includes two members with no first-class experience at all. The input
of the coach and captain is frequently ignored.
Russel Arnold's omission after he topped Sri Lanka's averages in
the recent VB Series was explained away as "resting", yet he had only just reclaimed his place in the team after a year on the sidelines. The
necessity of his resting was unclear.
Against this backdrop it is remarkable that Sri Lanka win
many matches at all. They have competed with the best, albeit
inconsistently, because of some world-class performers backed up by
some quality coaches, especially Dav Whatmore - who was treated
deplorably before leaving for Bangladesh - and Tom Moody.
What next?
The last wave of the golden generation is now nearing retirement. Chaminda Vaas, Jayasuriya and Marvan Atapattu - if he ever plays again after back surgery - have all vowed to retire after the 2007 World Cup while Murali, 34, is likely to concentrate on Tests only. There are rays of hope in the emergence of Farveez Maharoof (fast bowling allrounder), Malinga Bandara (legspinner), Upul Tharanga (opener) and Chamara Kapugedera (batsman).
The last wave of the golden generation is now nearing retirement. Chaminda Vaas, Jayasuriya and Marvan Atapattu - if he ever plays again after back surgery - have all vowed to retire after the 2007 World Cup while Murali, 34, is likely to concentrate on Tests only. There are rays of hope in the emergence of Farveez Maharoof (fast bowling allrounder), Malinga Bandara (legspinner), Upul Tharanga (opener) and Chamara Kapugedera (batsman).
But the rebuilding
phase will be tough and possibly painful. Patience is required.
In the past 10 months the board has invested in a new top quality
management team. Moody was employed as head coach
with a broad mandate to prepare not only a strong national team
but also to build a coherent coaching structure from the grass roots
up to the national team.
In addition, Trevor Penney was hired as
their first assistant coach, the Australian Tommy Simsek as the
physiotherapist, CJ Clarke as a full-time fitness trainer and also
Sandy Gordon, a leading sports psychologist, as a consultant.
These innovations are positive signs but Sri Lanka still enter the
next decade with limited optimism. Below the national team the
game needs an overhaul. Individual brilliance may carry them to
occasional victories but consistent long-term success will be elusive
until the bureaucrats back home get their house in order.