• Sri Lanka are crying foul on and off the field during the ODI World Cup in England and Wales so why isn't the ICC fronting up with facts and figures to counter their allegations?
• The ICC shouldn't be afraid to admit curators can be influenced to ensure certain teams progress to the playoffs at the expense of others to boost profit margins.
• Is it time for the ICC to consider pulling out names from a hat — as the Fifa World Cup organisers do publicly on TV — to see who gets what in the future?
Sri Lanka may well argue it's not a case of sour grapes when they raise examples of disparities at the ICC World Cup under way in England and Wales this month.
Regrettably when teams eke out just one win from five outings then any rants and raves of preferential treatment to others at their expense may as well be voices in their head.
Just before the 87-run loss to Australia at the weekend, Sri Lanka team manager Ashantha de Mel was scathing of the quality of wickets, practice facilities, transport and accommodation accorded to their players.
"This is a World Cup where the top 10 countries are taking part and I feel that all the participants should be treated equally," Sri Lankan newspaper Daily News quoted De Mel as saying last week.
He labelled the pitch with a greenish tinge at the Oval against Australia "very unfair on the part of the ICC" when it was different to what other teams had played on.
De Mel also got stuck into Sri Lanka's team bus, saying it was more cramped than the double-decker vehicles provided to other teams.
The net facilities at Cardiff, he said, were "unsatisfactory", akin to the squad's hotel in Bristol, which lacked a swimming pool.
Football Ferns' blueprint issue, not individual quality
Kohli clapping gesture to India fans timely diplomacy
De Mel went on to assert the ODI world cup's timing (from May 30 to July 14) suggested the ICC valued the Ashes test series between England and Australia — which will follow the cup — more than its flagship tournament.
No doubt, the ICC played bat/pad to any such assertions on the platform of equality and fairness.
"We employ an independent pitch adviser to work with the host curators at all ICC events and the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2019 is no different," it had reportedly declared in a statement.
"As part of the four-year planning process to deliver this event, we have liaised with all teams to ensure they are happy with their set up and are available to work with them should any issues arise that have not been previously anticipated," it clarified.
ICC's response is as plausible as De Mel's explanation for why Sri Lanka failed to show after succumbing to the Aussies — the players were deflated and didn't appreciate the scribes writing them off earlier in Cardiff.
Dare I say it, had India or Australia levelled such complaints there would have been hell to pay for.
The media would have picked it up and countless stories analysing such allegations.
But, alas, Sri Lanka belong to the cricketing tribes of have-nots in a sporting ecosystem where some players mingle behind gated communities while others drive past ghettos on the way to their modest neighbourhoods.
Such relative inequalities give way to teaching contentment for the privilege ICC accords to the likes of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan to even play on its global platform.
It is a similar culture of demarcation that is prevalent in rugby union and one which rugby league relishes exploiting to its advantage when pitting the big dogs against the underdogs with frequency.
Nevertheless, it's imperative the Sri Lankas of the world don't stop asking such questions.
No sport teaches that better than cricket, especially the battered bowlers who tend to find the game heavily stacked against them from the time of selection to the post-match blame game when scape goats are needed for an escape clause following shattering defeats.
Had someone from ICC fronted up to the media scrum, instead of releasing a statement, there would have been some interesting questions to ask.
For instance, can the curators please explain why a wicket can be green as a Taranaki dairy pasture one match and as barren as a drought-stricken Hawke's Bay vegetable farm the next?
At this juncture, I hasten to add that it's not skulduggery for England and Wales to prepare wickets for whatever reasons because therein lies the prerogative of the hosts who can exploit the rub of the green as home advantage.
Let's face it. Australia and New Zealand, co-hosting the 2015 world cup, ended up playing in the final in Melbourne after some heavyweights struggled to come to terms with the bounce and carry here, never mind teams such as Pakistan who played at an Aussie venue then caught a flight to face an opposition at McLean Park, Napier, a day or so later.
The subcontinent nations have on numerous occasions prepared benign spinning wickets to bamboozle outside nations at previous world cups.
The point is, ICC shouldn't be afraid to admit curators can be influenced to ensure certain teams progress to the playoffs at the expense of others to boost profit margins.
If 800,000 fans had applied to watch India play Pakistan on Monday and only 22,000 could be accommodated at Old Trafford in Manchester then is it fair to assume the ICC will shoot itself in the foot if India and England don't make the final at Lord's in London on Sunday, July 14. What should we make of the loss in revenue in the hosts' inability to cater to 778,000 who missed out.
Like the Rugby World Cup, diplomacy to promote inclusiveness is admirable but not necessarily good business sense.
That aside, can the ICC shed more light on who is the independent adviser on preparing wickets and what is his explanation for why the wickets offer seamers movement one game but render strike bowlers, such as Jasprit Bumrah and Mitchell Starc, redundant the next.
As futile as it may sound, why have some teams got double-decker buses and hotels swimming pools and not others? Should the ICC disclose how poshy one team's hotel suburb is relative to others?
Maybe the ICC should consider pulling out names from a hat — as the Fifa World Cup organisers do publicly on TV — to see who gets what in the future.