NIZAMUDDIN CHOWDHURY. Photo: Star File

Players always want to maintain a process so that they can be consistent in their performance. It is also believed that a team can only improve their performance graph by following a good process.

It is no different when it comes to administrative issues.

Bangladesh cricket is now going through a good time, though one should not forget that it is only in limited-overs cricket.

There may be a long way to go to be established as a leading cricket nation but the last few years' performances have provided enough signs that this cricket-mad nation has got the talent to reach the pinnacle. The arrival of a number of world-class players has completely changed Bangladesh's face on the cricketing map.

It is however always good to ask difficult questions in good times. And now may be the best time for Bangladesh to make sure that they are proactive in making the most out of their recent improvement in results.

But are the activities of our cricket administration as bright as our current performance under the charismatic leadership of Mashrafe Bin Mortaza?

A controversy regarding the revamp of the current selection panel brought the question to the fore.  Leaving aside what people have been saying off the record, the one reason that has been cited time and again for the change to a successful system is the lack of coordination between the selectors and the team management.

A number of questions have been raised about the selectors' leave, their neglect of domestic matches, and many other mistakes.

Should the lack of coordination and the aforementioned issues not be properly taken care of by a powerful chief executive officer?  

If anyone is to be blamed for it is none other than the most powerful man in the board after the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) president. It is absurd indeed to break a system that is working and bring many ridiculous recommendations to create an unnecessary chaos, rather than discussing matters that are more pressing. 

The current BCB constitution has given the CEO enough power, much like that enjoyed by Australia Cricket CEO James Sutherland.  But is the BCB's incumbent CEO Nizamuddin Chowdhury aware of the significant power that he can exercise to ensure good processes in the country's cricket administration?

 There have however been whispers about a lack of a pro-active attitude, and lots of dilly-dallying regarding any issue. Why is a lack of communication often blamed for the loss of a coach like Stuart Law, who it is said may have served the Academy if things went smoothly?

Why do they need so much time to form a bowling action review committee? Why does the BCB need to wait for advice from its technical committee to decide against the malpractice in domestic umpiring or to realise the importance of improving in Test cricket and creating opportunities for more longer-version cricket?

Whispers abound among board members regarding whether discussions with other board members on the sidelines of the ICC meeting will indeed serve the purposes of the team or if there is a need to strengthen bilateral relationships to keep the ball rolling not only for the national team but also for the A team and different age group teams.

If a good system is always in place a country will never face extreme dearth in quality, like Australia which took little time to re-establish their prowess in world cricket after the departures of one great star after another.

The CEO is a very important cog in running a good system, so the BCB must think whether this vital cog is functioning properly.