Sri Lanka coach Trevor Bayliss and his comments about a need to shake up security on the subcontinent has caused a stir in certain circles in India.

However, Yahaluweni, they do not appear to be strong enough for others to take seriously. Which itself is a pity.

Making some smart observations after the Lahore security fiasco with the Sri Lanka team, the former New South Wales middle-order batsman said the process for getting security reports needed overhauling on the subcontinent. This included getting more advice from independent experts.

Yet, what does Mr Ego, Lalit Modi decide to do? Ignore the comments. The way he and his greedy BCCI buddies have reacted, even the Indian elections should take second place to the holding of the Indian Premier League.

If comments from friends in New Delhi and Mumbai, who are usually close to the BCCI action as well as security measures, Modi treats the IPL and players as chattel. This becomes all too obvious at his impulsive behaviour to ignore the Federation of International Cricketers Association (Fica), the players body.

Already serious questions are challenging Modi’s rationale behind the decision for the IPL to run its own, untested security systems. This comes after the pointed Bayliss comments.

‘There are some big questions to be asked by the governing bodies of all the sports, not just cricket,’ Associated Press reports Bayliss saying from Sydney. ‘I think this proves that if cricket, which is the number one sport on the subcontinent, can get hit then any big sporting tournament can get hit, or the Commonwealth Games.’

Placing a different spin on the security issue, Australian umpire Steve Davis, who survived the terrorist attack in Lahore, has urged the International Cricket Council to take full control of security during all future cricket tours instead of handing the responsibility to host boards.

‘If you leave the security arrangements to the home board, there's a vested interest in that home board getting that series going ahead, either consciously or subconsciously,’ he said. ‘A recommendation will be to have some independence in security systems and security arrangements,’ Davis told national newspaper The Australian.

‘That's the only way I can see it running properly because without that independence, you are at the say-so of whoever is organising security,’ he added.

All good points, but unlikely to be taken up. Now Modi, like Ijaz Butt, the Pakistan Cricket Board head honcho, has an ego the size of Grand Canyon. They see that nothing they can do is wrong.

But when certain foreign players start questioning the IPL safety measures and how are they going to work, Modi becomes as arrogant as I S Bindra, the Punjab Cricket Association president. This is the guy that the BCCI have play a senior advisors role on the International Cricket Council.

Waffling into a CNN/IBN microphone, he accused the Indian Government of ‘dilly-dallying’ over the issue of clearing the IPL issue. Which begs the question, what is more important, the IPL or the nation’s general elections? This is the type of arrogance Modi, Bindra, and the rest of the BCCI are parading on the Indian TV screens. It looks ugly and explains their thinking.

Bindra says the worse case scenario could happen should the IPL is called off. It could affect the hosting of the World Cup in India.

‘My worry is that if the IPL is called off it could threaten the World Cup and the Commonwealth Games,’ Bindra said. ‘Especially since the West has this perception that India, as far as security is concerned, is like Pakistan. So if the IPL is not held they will think India is in the same league.’

This is, of, course, one man’s opinion but you can see what angle he is coming from. At least Bindra did concede a potential solution in the form of drastically reducing the number of venues for the IPL, to five or six.

Scrapping it all together is a better option if the security risks are as bad as Fica officials fear they could be. Or as one New Zealand player suggested, if there is a hint of any problems, he would not be going, whether or not Modi liked the idea.

Of course it is an old habit, but down in the shaky isles, the shock waves are inclined to tremble at an indignant Richter Scale 5 when guests tell Kiwis what they can and cannot do.

While New Zealand Cricket were more than obliging over withdrawing players with ICL links from their own tournament to allow Indian players a chance to get some pre-Test form in the State Championship four-day game.

Then the Kiwis had the BCCI's travelling goon, Niranjan Shah, telling TV 3 who they could and could not have on their commentary team.

‘As far as we (BCCI) are concerned any commentator or somebody involved with an unauthorised tournament declared by the BCCI, our people will not take part in it.’

While Sri Lanka Cricket would bend over backwards and tell TEN they cannot employ an ICL linked player, TV3 politely told Niranjan Shah what he could do with his views and if he didn’t like it, put it in writing to the New Zealand Prime Minister. But this is the type of ego and arrogance that the BCCI and their members use to threaten others.

It will be interesting to see how Sri Lanka Cricket’s new interim committee chairman, Somachandra de Silva, handles the BCCI, Modi and the rest of the crew in Mumbai. But first, he needs to step down as the SLC’s advisor of school’s cricket to the state president otherwise, there will be seen to be a conflict of interests.

If Mike Procter had to relinquish his ICC match referee position when he became convener of the selection panel of the South African team, De Silva should quit his advisory post. This may not be a popular view, but you cannot effectively wear two caps.

At least with someone such as Kumar Sangakkara as captain of the national team, you know that you are getting, as with his friend and predecessor, Mahela Jayawardene, quality.

As erudite as they come, Sangakkara adds the sort of panache to this role as he does with his batting and ability to discuss any number of topics that have nothing at all to do with the game.

In August 1998, during the South African A tour of the island, an invitation was made by the then Sri Lankan A team physio to have a look at a special player. We went to the nets at the Colombo Cricket Club and there was this tall elegant-looking lefthander.

Watching him reminded me of a photograph in an old book in my library of the great Indian Prince K S Ranjitsinhji. Okay, Ranji was right-handed, but the point is there was a style and a causal dignity about the young man’s batting in the nets, which were damp anyway, which begged the question of if was he not in the senior team, why not at least Sri Lanka A squad?

Good question. Ask the selectors, came the response. The problem was that most people who mattered were in England with Sri Lanka side for the Emirates series and the one-off Test.

Unfortunately the rain arrived (there was a lot of rain that tour) and the practice session designed to give several promising batsmen a chance to impress for the one days squad was scrapped.

However, that stylish image remained and when he arrived in South Africa a few months later with the A Team, the quality he showed was always a cut above the others. He often appeared a touch nonchalance when playing some of his cuts, or drives. But that is the illusion you get. He has that habit of making it look too easy, yet examine his gameplan and technique tells you that he has this distinctive style.

It will be seen in his leadership skills as well as he is a cool, smart thinker and not afraid to bounce you for an explanation, such as happened once when the term ‘potential’ was raised in casual conversation. This sets others thinking as well.

A thesaurus will give you a half a dozen or more synonyms that do no quite really explain the term potential, which had been the point of Sangakkara’s comment. He found it far too nebulous to explain a player who had impressive talent. If he is talented, use the word and forget potential.

Yet as you discover, Sangakkara is sharp and thoughtful and reads widely from Salman Rushdie to Oscar Wilde, John Cleese and what else captures his interest, which is why it is not too surprising that he has Mike Brearley’s ‘The Art of Captaincy’ on his bookshelf.

Graham Gooch brought out one on captaincy styles as well, and there is Don Bradman’s ‘The Art of Cricket’ which is still one of the great coaching books, but the Brearley one on captaincy is the most popular if you can find it.

Its value is that Brearley discusses the game without cluttering the subject with theories and this is how Sangakkara thinks and works at his game. Cricket is complicated enough because of the skills and technique needed to play it.