& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Million dollar question

AFP, London
For years the International Cricket Council (ICC) was widely derided as an organisation that would do almost anything rather than make a decision.
But the same people who used to accuse the world governing body of 'fudging' major issues are now among those furious at its so far steadfast refusal to reconsider the status of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
On Saturday, Bangladesh's first Test on English soil ended in an innings and 261 run defeat at Lord's in under seven sessions.
It was the latest one-sided contest involving Bangladesh, who've won just one of 37 Tests -- against fellow strugglers Zimbabwe -- since the Asian nation became the 10th Test nation in 2000.
Test match cricket in particular, where fixtures can last for as long as five days, likes to distinguish itself from other sports by pointing to its greater capacity for reversal of fortune.
But the only fortune reversed at Lord's was ticket revenue for English cricket and there is every prospect of a similar story at Durham's Riverside ground when the second and final Test of the series starts on Friday.
That led former Australia captain Richie Benaud to label the match "an absolute shambles" and call for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to be thrown out, saying their presence devalued the currency of Test runs and wickets.
But why is their expulsion or even suspension unlikely?
International matches provide the financial lifeblood of cricket as a whole.
The biggest market for cricket is Asia, specifically India where the mass enthusiasm for the game amongst the world's second most populous nation means broadcasting contracts can change hands for hundreds of million of dollars.
But there was a feeling that this was not reflected in the ICC which had been traditionally, and sometimes crassly, dominated by England and Australia, the sport's oldest nations, often supported by New Zealand.
Hence the conclusion that Bangladesh's elevation was a way of making sure India's commercial strength was backed up by voting power within the ICC, where there is now an Afro-Asian bloc.
Until a year before their promotion to Test status, Bangladesh had no significant first-class structure in place.
And that problem was compounded by a measure designed to ensure greater fairness.
For years newer sides such as Sri Lanka found themselves fobbed off with a solitary Test at the end of another series.
As part of its new Test Championship structure the ICC insisted that all sides must play a series (two Tests minimum) home and away against all other nine nations within a five year period.
What this has meant for Bangladesh is that they have been denied the gentler, if patronising, introduction afforded say New Zealand who took 26 years to win their first Test and had to wait a staggeringly unfair 27 years between their first and second series with Australia.
Bangladesh achieved their first Test win in just five years in January but that was only against a Zimbabwe side itself returning following a suspension imposed last year after questions were raised regarding racial bias in selection by former captain Heath Streak.
Zimbabwe's neighbours South Africa spent over 20 years in Test exile because of apartheid but no team has ever had its Test status stripped for not being good enough.
Suggestions made to improve Bangladesh and Zimbabwe's standard, range from additional A (2nd) team tours, the two countries playing more matches against non-Test nations, and two divisions of Test cricket.
In the meantime the only proposal set to take effect is a plan to put Bangladesh and Zimbabwe's international matches on a six, as opposed to five, year cycle.
In October, following an inquiry into the structure of Test cricket, ICC president Ehsan Mani said the purpose of the review "was not to take away the Test status of any country" and nothing has emerged to suggest a major shift will take place at the governing body's June meetings.
After Lord's, Bangladesh coach Dav Whatmore said: "Trying to achieve what everyone wants us to achieve is tough but to solely take Bangladesh out of international status is just pure folly, ridiculous. We need to have a means to an end."
English officials and players daren't risk getting drawn into the debate, chairman of selectors David Graveney summing up the party line on Monday by saying: "It's not for us to decide whether they (Bangladesh) should be playing Test matches or not."
Bangladesh are not without hope. Their Under-19s recently enjoyed an undefeated tour of Australia. The question now is how long will it take for their seniors to enjoy similar results.