Zimbabwe Cricket are in a tight spot. The national team’s decline has continued, the domestic game is horribly weak and the administration is carrying a crippling debt. Former coach Dav Whatmore has predicted that Zimbabwe is going the way of Kenya – a sentiment that many other well-informed commentators (who have less of an axe to grind than Whatmore) have also expressed in private.

Last August, Tavengwa Mukuhlani was appointed chairman of ZC as Wilson Manase lost his seat on the board. Mukuhlani is not new to the ZC board – he was vice-chairman for much of the 2000s, and played a key role in the ‘rebel’ saga.

Tristan Holme spoke to him to find out how he plans to revive cricket in Zimbabwe, and his thoughts on the ICC proposal to split Test cricket into two tiers. Mukuhlani explained the reservations that ZC have about that proposal, and revealed that there are major changes afoot in the domestic game this coming summer. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What would you say is the state of cricket in Zimbabwe at the moment?

The state of cricket in Zimbabwe has been deteriorating for a couple of years now. It’s been going on a downward trend for a couple of years. So yes, it’s not in good shape.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced, coming in as the new ZC chairman?

Zimbabwe Cricket is in a bad financial state. The team has not been performing well. Our development programmes are not running as they should be, and our domestic cricket is not in the state that it should be.

That’s a pretty comprehensive package of things that are not running well. What are your plans to turn it all around?

You would have noticed that we have moved from franchise cricket to go back to provincial cricket. The reason is that we want to get our provinces to be in charge of running cricket, so that they run development programmes in their respective areas. We had five franchises that were reduced to four, and the funding model was such that money was going into the franchises and then the franchises would take care of the development programmes for the provinces. That programme did not go as planned.

Also at the time when the idea of franchise cricket was brought up, it was thought that they would become stand-alone entities which would be bought by businesspeople who invest in these teams and then run them independently, rather than being run by ZC. That also did not materialise. So when we came in we looked at the model and said that we’re not capable of financing that model because we don’t have the money. So we went back to the original system where cricket is run at provincial level and provinces take charge of all the cricketing activities in their provinces.

Does that mean that there won’t be any franchise cricket this season?

We will have our competitions, but at provincial level. We have split the provinces into a two-tier system where we have four first-class provinces that are playing the four-day game, and we have got six Associate provinces that are playing a lower league by virtue of them not being very well developed. Bulawayo Metropolitan, Harare Metropolitan, Midlands and Manicaland are our first-class provinces. The rest will play in our Associate leagues, which are already being played – currently we are having our 50-over competition, which is called the Zimbabwe Premier League. The main idea is that if we are to have franchise cricket, we must have external investment along the same lines as the Indian Premier League, but at the moment we are not doing that because we don’t have the capacity to finance it.

Will the Associate provinces still play three-day cricket?

We have put together a proposal that is still to be approved by the provinces of a 12-month cricket season. They are yet to have a look and see how it works within their plans and give their input. But what we have realised is that our cricket season was short, and it was getting even shorter. Maybe because of financial constraints, I don’t know, but you found that leagues were not being finished. Games were not coming to an end. So we have said we must have a longer season. We have proposed 12 months, but we’ll see what the provinces come back with – they may say we should make it nine months. It’s a discussion. But our desire is to play more cricket at the lower level.

And does the proposal include three-day cricket among Associate provinces?

Yes, it does.

Obviously the difficulty of playing more cricket is that it costs more money. Is ZC in a financial position where they can do that, given the debt that you are carrying?

We have to make a choice. It’s either we are not playing cricket and we close shop, or we find a funding mechanism. We must find a funding mechanism to play cricket. You will notice that we are going through a restructuring that has involved laying off and severe salary cuts. The whole idea is to plough those savings back into funding domestic cricket programmes.

Are the national contracts likely to be worth less when they are handed out in the coming months as you try to save a bit more money?

The restructuring that has taken place so far has not touched the technical staff – that’s your coaches – at any level. It has not touched the players at any level. We will obviously be going into a contract review for the players – that is a process that we have started. The technical team and a panel of experts will advise the board as to the number of contracts that they think are feasible to have, and to the level of grading.

Is your hope that you’ll be able to give domestic cricketers something closer to a 12-month contract, rather than what you had before where they were only contracted for around five months of the year?

I think some will even get longer contracts of two, three or even four years. The discussions we have had with the players have suggested they are agreeable to it. So some players will get four-year contracts and some will get three-year contracts. That’s at all levels. It is a comprehensive exercise that will look at all levels.

The figure that is going around at the moment is that ZC are $19m in debt. Can you confirm that?

We have been servicing our debt. Off the cuff I can’t give you the figure, but the liabilities in terms of loans, yes they are at $19m. But they have been significantly reduced over time because we have been servicing the debt. We are looking at how best we can manage this in a sustainable way going forward.

At the ICC level, you have potential changes with the idea to adopt a two-tier Test system as well as a changed revenue model. Are ZC in favour of that?

I can’t give a direct comment on that because it is a discussion that is going on. The ICC board has not yet made a decision as to which way we are going with the restructuring of international cricket, but as you’ve rightly pointed out there is a proposal on the table. We have our views on that, but nothing concrete has come out of that proposal.

But having said that, our view as Zimbabwe Cricket, and I believe it’s the view of any other weaker nation who is trying to improve their game, is that by not exposing our team to good opposition we are not going to improve. Whatever restructuring of international cricket is done must be aimed at ensuring that it improves cricket and our belief is that you can only improve when you play against the best. If you have some teams playing against weaker sides always, as is the case for some sides now – Zimbabwe has only been playing against Bangladesh previously, and we’ve played Afghanistan and Hong Kong – there is no way that cricket in Zimbabwe is going to develop.

Cricket can only develop if everyone plays the other, and if the weaker nations have an opportunity to play the bigger nations. That’s our view – we need the exposure. Like we have New Zealand coming to play with us, and that’s the only way we can develop. If India visit, that’s the only way we can develop. To have a situation where the smaller nations play alone, I’m not too sure whether that will develop cricket and bring any value to the game. So we will make our presentations and give our view to the proposal.

Some people might point out that Zimbabwe hasn’t played a Test match for almost two years, and so at least the new system would guarantee a certain number of matches – and that hopefully those matches would be paid for by the ICC’s new finance structure.

There was a time when the Champions Trophy was in England and Zimbabwe did not travel because of the tension between Harare and London, and Scotland played in their stead [actually the 2009 World Twenty20]. Zimbabwe would have been compensated, monetarily or otherwise. But I’ll tell you what. There is no amount of money that will be able to replace the experience that the boys will have by playing Test cricket against Australia. The only way for the boys to develop is to play the bigger nations. If we focus on the monetary value that is going to come out of it, I don’t think we’ll be able to develop the game of cricket. I still believe there must be a number of games that weaker nations must play against bigger nations.

Everyone talks of Afghanistan having improved. It’s not because they were playing Oman, the UAE, Nepal and other Associates continuously. It’s because we also, as a Full Member, have given them game time, and they’ve taken experience out of that. Even for the Full Members, it’s important that those who are ranked lower continue to play the higher ranked sides so that we continue to improve. And everyone who says Afghanistan has improved has not yet exposed their team to Afghanistan. Afghanistan has only played one Full Member in a bilateral series and that is Zimbabwe. So I’m of the opinion that there must be exposure at all levels for everyone. That’s the only way that we can develop cricket. I’m fully aware that there is a financial implication in terms of having equality, but we must try to find a balance between the commercial aspect and the cricket aspect.

Speaking of the Associates, Dav Whatmore told me that there is a reluctance within ZC to play against the Associates because there is a feeling that if Zimbabwe loses to them then it won’t look good. Is there any truth in that?

I don’t think there is truth in that. Zimbabwe has played more games against Associate nations than any other Full Member. So to say that Zimbabwe is reluctant to play against the Associates for fear of losing is not true. It’s unfortunate. It’s an issue of funding and he’s well aware of that. If you take Australia A and Scotland, who would choose to play between the two? So we are also alive to the fact that we must play the best possible opponent, rather than just play for the sake of fulfilling the fixture. The games must be beneficial to both sides. If we go and play Namibia tomorrow we see very little benefit to our players. If we bring Australia A, India A, Sri Lanka A, England A or West Indies A then there is benefit to our players. We are guided by that. So it’s not that we are avoiding the Associates, but rather we are looking at what will be most beneficial. Remember we have limited resources.

You appointed Makhaya Ntini as coach on an interim basis. Are you any closer to appointing someone on a full-time basis?

The board hasn’t advised me of anything but I would want to believe that they are working around something. They are observing what is happening and they will give me the directive.

Several players I’ve spoken to have suggested that they’re not enjoying his methods.

[Laughs] Players will always be players. We do listen to players – it’s important that we do – but we must find a balance between the players becoming cry babies and finding reasons for not performing, and also genuine concern.

Was there any concern about Makhaya’s lack of qualifications when he was appointed?

Dav won the World Cup with Sri Lanka, he went to Bangladesh, he went to Pakistan, he’s been with India Under-19 and with the academy and all that. And Afghanistan had Inzamam-ul-Haq and that was his first assignment. The results are a world apart. So I think we need to give Makhaya the benefit and support him. International experience can not be understated; he was a top performer. I think he can be useful to the youngsters, and to his credit I think there has been some improvement in our bowling. We have brought in Lance Klusener who should be able to cover the batting.

But as I say the board is taking a closer look at that and will make a decision based on what they’ve seen. He has only been in charge for the India series. The T20 series was a very close series which could have gone either way. Not that I’m saying he should be the next coach, it’s obviously dependant on what the board wants to do. But I think the issue of him not having coached before must not be a big issue.