Why Modi is like Sehwag

There's a correlation between a stable administration and a team's strong performance on the field, so is it then fair to compare the style of a player with that of an official?

The thought came to me following Virender Sehwag's highly amusing press conference in Chittagong where he claimed: "Bangladesh are an ordinary side. They can't beat India because they can't take twenty wickets."

Why all the fuss over his comments? After all he is correct. Sehwag was only being honest, which is the least you should expect from players and administrators. He was also being consistent; he's a straightforward, uncomplicated batsman so why would he be any different off the field?

As a batsman Sehwag is brilliant but frustrating. He can win a match in a session with scintillating strokeplay and equally drive his captain and fans to distraction by playing an indiscreet shot at an inappropriate moment. However, as the lyrics in Love and Marriage go: "you can't have one without the other". A captain can't gleefully hail Sehwag's scintillating performances when it results in victory and then castigate him for the odd indiscreet shot when it's detrimental to the team.

If we were to judge the flamboyance of administrators along similar lines, does that make Lalit Modi the Sehwag of officialdom?

Modi has had moments of brilliance interspersed with occasional lapses. His outstanding manoeuvres have resulted in IPL franchises, the IPL-Google deal and the BCCI's finances rising exponentially. On the debit side there have been his indiscretions in the USA during his student days and a rampant ego massaged by appearing more often on the IPL television coverage than the sponsor logo.

Modi is an administrator for the modern game. He's decisive and forward thinking. However, like Sehwag needs a steady opening partner to balance the combination, Modi requires a strong lieutenant to watch over him and temper his instinctive brilliance with a liberal dose of discipline.

With a number of international teams now bunched at the top of the rankings and sides being more aware of each other's ability through technology, one of the few remaining ways of gaining an advantage over opponents is to have a decisive and more flexible administration. This should apply to officials both at home and on tour.

And "decisive and flexible" certainly do not describe Pakistan's administration which is like the captain who is always at least a couple of overs behind the play.

It would have been preferable if Pakistan hadn't appointed Mohammad Yousuf captain in the first place. He has a temperament being weighed down, rather than buoyed, by the extra responsibility. However, having made the appointment and then found him wanting in the second Test, a vibrant administration would have considered replacing him swiftly. It couldn't have done any worse in a new appointment because following the SCG debacle, Yousuf was a dead captain leading.

Having seen that Yousuf would back off even before trouble reared its ugly head, the Australians couldn't wait for the next opportunity to attack Pakistan. They knew Yousuf was likely to succumb and he quickly obliged on the first day of the Hobart Test. That just confirmed his lame-duck status. And the Pakistan board reacted in the worst possible way.

Instead of making a bold move in an attempt to keep the team's hopes alive in the ODI series, it threw a lead-weighted lifebelt to a captain already up to his neck in quicksand. It retained him as the ODI captain and announced there would be a change in leadership when the team returned home. It couldn't have committed a bigger crime if it had backed Australia to win all five matches in the series. With the administration of both Pakistan and West Indies floundering, Cricket South Africa has made an interesting decision on the eve of the team's departure for the crucial Indian tour. It has decided to restructure the administration and as part of the process the coach has resigned and the selection panel has been sacked.

This move has the potential to replicate either a brilliant attacking masterpiece by Sehwag or the chaos of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salman Butt gesturing at each other after having failed to complete an easy single. We'll soon know. If South Africa win the 2011 World Cup, instead of making an ignominious exit at the knockout stage, the decision will have a touch of Sehwag's genius.