New Delhi: BCCI President Sourav Ganguly has assured all state associations that domestic cricket will start as and when the situation is safe amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but did not specify the date from when the season will kick off.
Normally domestic season starts in August but the pandemic has wreaked havoc with the calendar and Ganguly’s letter to state associations on Thursday made it clear that the Board is yet to lock in a date.
The domestic seasion is now expected to begin with the Syed Musthaq Ali T20 tournament, tentatively from the third week of November.
“…the BCCI is making all efforts to ensure that domestic cricket resumes as and when the conditions permit. The health and safety of players and all other involved in domestic cricket is of utmost importance to BCCI and we are constantly monitoring all aspects,” Ganguly wrote in the letter to presidents and secretaries of the its affiliated member associations.
“All members will be duly informed about the future course of action and suggestions will be taken before we resume domestic cricket.”
He said the BCCI was hopeful that the Covid-19 situation will improve in the next few months and domestic cricket will be able to start in a safe environment.
The BCCI chief informed the members about India’s commitments in the Future Tours Programme (FTP), including the scheduled tour of Australia later this year and playing host to England early 2021.
He said that India is set to host the T20 World Cup next year and the ODI World Cup in 2023.
“The BCCI and the Indian cricket team will continue to fulfil its FTP commitments. The senior Indian men’s team will travel to Australia for its series starting in December this year, and will come back to the country for a series against England starting February next year.
“This will be followed by IPL 2021 in Apri,” Ganguly said.
“The BCCI contiues to be the host for the ICC T20 World Cup 2021 and the 50-over ICC Cricket World Cup in 2023.”
The former India captain also said that the tours of the Indian women’s team are “under discussion” but did not elborate further.