The national cricket team’s poor performance in the recently concluded Test series in Australia, which followed a 3-0 drubbing at the hands of New Zealand at home, left the fans deeply disappointed.

A Test series in Australia is always challenging; hence, the adverse result was not entirely unexpected. The real letdown was the “whitewash” at the hands of New Zealand in the home series, where pitches were prepared to ensure an easy win for the hosts.

Though the win in the first Test in Australia had triggered the hope that the team may find its feet and return with a repeat of the standout show during their last visit, this was not to be. The visitors were forced to eat the humble pie.

It must be admitted that these developments did not shock the discerning followers of this sport. The fragility of the famed Indian batting line-up was visible in almost all the Tests played against visiting sides. A number of times, the side was spared the ignominy of being dismissed for a low score due to the efforts of batters at number 6 or lower.

But instead of finding long-term solutions to the problems that plagued the side, the selectors and the team management continued with the time-tested formula of preparing turning tracks, which were milked dry by the spin bowlers. But the cookie finally crumbled against the Kiwis when even the spinners appeared to lose their edge, thus paving the way for a bitter defeat.

An analysis of the two losses was in order, and one expected the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to go into detail about the reasons for the defeats and come up with solutions. When the national side was knocked out in the 2007 International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup without qualifying for the knockout phase, an in-depth study was done, and remedial actions were taken quickly. One remembers that BCCI consulted former national players of standing on that occasion. However, this time, BCCI top brass spoke only to the team management before deciding on the corrective actions.

If anyone thought that BCCI’s decisions would have more to do with directions regarding the preparation of sporting pitches for test matches or involving talent scouts to look out for youngsters possessing the capabilities for being groomed into test match players, they were mistaken. Instead, a considerable portion of the “ten point guideline” document issued by BCCI reads more like a list of “do’s” and “´dont’s” for a batch of adolescents out on an excursion than a national side on tour playing an important series.

Players must travel together, right from the beginning of the series to matches and even for training sessions. The need to stay for the whole length of the practice sessions and not to reach the venue or leave separately is emphasised.

There is also a provision for the coach or chief selector to waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances. The restriction is also imposed on personal trainers, chefs, private security personnel, and related staff who are not allowed to move with the players during tours.

Players have also been directed not to indulge in commercial shoots during visits abroad as part of the national team. It is surprising that these norms, which are practised right from the school cricket level onwards, are not followed by the national team and that a written direction needs to be issued by the BCCI to enforce them. One is at a loss to understand the purpose of having a retinue of coaches and managers if they cannot even ensure the following of these elementary practices.

The most interesting of these guidelines is the restriction on the presence of family members during tours abroad. The new directions stipulate that on tours exceeding 45 days, family members (partners and children) can be with the players only for fewer than 14 days.

They can visit only once, with prior approval from the coach. BCCI will cover shared accommodation for the family member during this period and the individual must bear all additional expenses. BCCI has stated in the document that the reason behind the restriction is that the presence of family members was found to distract the players.

The issue of allowing immediate family members to accompany players on tour has been debated in India since the 1960s. Whenever the side performs poorly, the blame falls on the poor spouse/girlfriend, who is held responsible for distracting the player from his main mission, leading to his failures with the bat or ball.

However, when the team wins a championship or does well on a tour, they are shown on television enjoying the game and even get interviewed by the media during the celebrations. How much truth is there in the allegation that the presence of family members diverts players’ attention from their main goal?

In the past, and especially before the economic liberalisation started in the 1990s, foreign travel was undertaken only rarely by Indians. There were a few flights, and procuring the required foreign exchange to meet the expenses was challenging. There were very few companies and agencies that could guide travellers in matters of accommodation and logistics while abroad. But things are different now and foreign travel is no longer a luxury available to a select few.

With the easing of restrictions on travel and lifting of curbs on foreign exchange, coupled with the growing affluence of the society at large, presently, every Indian in the middle-class bracket has avenues open for international travel- whether on holiday or honeymoon or as part of work. Families of cricketers who play for the country are wealthy by any standards, and they do not need to piggyback on the player for a tour abroad or to see a new country.

Then why do spouses or girlfriends travel with cricketers when they are on tour? The need arises more from the player concerned, who longs for the presence of a partner during the long break from home. This has been explained very clearly by VVS Laxman in his autobiography “281 and Beyond”, where he has devoted an entire chapter titled “My Best Partnership” to his spouse and the role she has played in shaping his life as an international cricketer.

He also takes pains to explain the difficulties both cricketers and their wives face because of prolonged periods of separation brought about by commitment to the game. Even when they travel with the players, the partners do not have it easy, as they are invariably alone with very little company since the husband remains preoccupied with the game for the most part of the day.

But they not only bear this stoically but also act as a source of strength and support for the husband, always lending a willing ear besides caring for his personal needs. Almost all successful international cricketers have acknowledged the positive role played by their partners in shaping their careers.

Further, the logic offered by BCCI about spouses being a “distraction” does not make sense, as it is invariably the other way around. Most players seek distractions to amuse themselves when their families are not around and boredom from the long tours and living out of a suitcase becomes stifling.

Hence, the decision of the BCCI to impose restrictions on the presence of cricketers’ families when they are on long tours appears baffling. The chairman of the national selection committee, the head coach and the captain have all played international cricket for a long time and know first-hand the pressures and stresses faced by the players exposed to the strain of playing the game around the year. They should have been able to convince the decision-makers in BCCI that imposing restrictions on the presence of family members is a completely retrograde and negative step.

The only measure among the ten points that makes sound cricketing sense is the direction to all contracted players to take part in domestic cricket mandatorily, failing which they stand liable to lose their central contracts.

Besides this, they are also threatened with consequences such as not being considered for selection to the national squad and facing sanctions for taking part in BCCI tournaments, including the Indian Premier League (IPL). Here also, there exists the rider that BCCI can grant exemptions in “extraordinary circumstances”.

One hopes that this clause will be implemented strictly and without any exceptions. This is a long overdue measure and will help the players to iron out any glitches that may have crept into their technique while also contributing to the improvement of the standard of cricket played in the domestic circuit.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that creating the proper ecosystem for implementing the above guidelines is as important as framing them. In this regard, BCCI should show the way by planning the tours and fixtures of the national side during the coming years in a way that they do not clash with the domestic season, which will ensure that all contracted players are available to play first-class matches within the country.

Till this is done, no amount of compulsion or pressure will make “celebrity players” make more than a token appearance in the domestic circuit. And when contracted players exercise the option to avoid first-class games, the matches will not achieve their required importance.

Hence, BCCI should issue directions to the committee in charge of framing international tours and fixtures to keep this objective in mind when they sit down to plan future schedules of the national sides- both senior and the “A” team. Only when this is done will the present guideline making it mandatory for players to play in domestic cricket have a proper impact.

India possesses the largest pool of talent available in the game, and BCCI is, without doubt, amongst the best-run sports administrations in the world. There will appear occasions, like the present, that necessitate cracking of the whip for the overall benefit of the sport. One hopes that BCCI will use its powers judiciously and firmly, keeping in mind the best interests of the game and the players.