Institute Term Limits for (Bangladesh) Cricket Captains

Bangladesh have sacked their captain and vice-captain after some less-than-stellar results against Zimbabwe. The sacking has already raised some questions; Cricinfo reports some directors on the country’s board were not consulted.

Which leads to me ask: Why don’t we have term limits for cricket captains? In current political parlance, ‘term limits’ are often proposed as a way to prevent politicians from consolidating power. But the idea of having a set term of office actually has a long history, stretching back to the U.S. Constitution, which famously gives a 2-year term for House members; 6 years for Senators; and 4 for Presidents. In contrast to British (and Indian) Parliament, which can call general elections when they please — a practice the authors of the Federalist Papers labeled “dangerous” — the American system gives office-holders space to achieve what they can before turning to the public for approval (or rejection).

Obviously, cricketers face different challenges from politicians, and other considerations — form, physical shape, etc. — are involved. But I think boards would do best to pick a captain, set a term limit — 2 years, perhaps — and say, “This appointment will not be questioned until the term is up” and give him their best shot. Dissenters will realize they can’t do anything to topple the leader, and captains realize they have limited time to prove themselves.


3 thoughts on “Institute Term Limits for (Bangladesh) Cricket Captains

  1. Mkd says:

    I guess this would be more useful for Pakistani Captains. But Ian Chappell and others do talk about captains passing their ‘use-by’ date. It would be more relevant for captains who have led for long periods like Ganguly and Ponting in the recent past.

  2. My only problem with that is that the end of the term would essentially become a campaign. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the Pak team knew Misbah’s term was ending in a few months.

    • duckingbeamers says:

      That’s true, Devanshu. But you have to ask yourselves (as the American Founders did): which one is better — a state of perpetual political disorder (with elections held once a year or sometimes more often than that), or a set time when all people can come together and decide the issues of the day?

      So, you get 3 months of instability compared to the perpetual chaos associated with the Pakistani team.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: