It is easy — fashionable even — to blame administrators for every dropped catch and every middle-order collapse. But if we are to be fair, we must ask the harder question properly:

What have the previous administrators of Sri Lanka Cricket actually achieved?

And what have they failed to protect?

The Early Architects

Under the stewardship of figures like Ana Punchihewa and Upali Dharmadasa, Sri Lanka Cricket navigated the post-1996 World Cup era. The commercialisation of the game accelerated. Television rights expanded. Sponsorship structures professionalised. Sri Lanka began hosting higher-profile bilateral series.

That was not accidental.

It required negotiation, positioning and institutional strengthening at a time when Sri Lanka was still considered an emerging cricket nation.

Then there was Gamini Dissanayake, who, though not a conventional cricket administrator, played a pivotal role in securing Sri Lanka’s Test Status which eventually led to co-hosting rights for the 1996 World Cup.

Those were foundational years.

The Commercial Expansion Era

Administrators such as Thilanga Sumathipala, Upali Dharmadasa, and Jayantha Dharmadasa presided over a period of massive revenue growth.

International broadcasting deals expanded dramatically. Sri Lanka Cricket became one of the wealthiest boards relative to the size of its domestic economy. Infrastructure improved. Stadiums were upgraded. The High Performance Centre was strengthened. Domestic tournaments were expanded. The board became financially powerful — even influential — within Asian cricket politics.

These are not trivial achievements.
Sri Lanka punched above its weight in ICC corridors during certain periods. That required administrative strategy. But here is the uncomfortable part.
Financial growth did not consistently translate into structural excellence.

The Interim Committee Culture

Repeated government-appointed interim committees signalled instability. Administrations were dissolved. Boards replaced. Elections delayed. Oversight blurred with political influence.

That cycle alone damaged institutional continuity. Cricket governance cannot thrive in perpetual transition. When administrators spend more time defending positions than developing pathways, performance suffers.

The Core Question

So what did they achieve? They achieved financial scale. They achieved global positioning.They achieved stadium infrastructure. They achieved commercial visibility.
But did they achieve sustainable systems? Did they insulate selection from influence?

Did they modernise domestic cricket to produce consistent elite pipelines? Did they implement governance frameworks strong enough to prevent recurring corruption allegations?

That is where debate intensifies.
Would the Old Guard Be Disappointed?

Would figures like Killi Rajamahendran — who symbolised corporate discipline — or Gamini Dissanayake, who saw cricket as national strategy, be satisfied with today’s output?

They would likely ask one question: How did a board so financially powerful produce such competitive inconsistency? Sri Lanka once exported cricketing intelligence. Today, it imports consultants.

That is not nostalgia. That is structural reality.

Are We Blind to Achievement?
It is unfair to say administrators achieved nothing. They built wealth. They built infrastructure. They built influence. But governance is not measured only by balance sheets.

It is measured by legacy.

If the finances belong, in effect, to the People — then the duty is higher than sponsorship deals and political leverage.

The real achievement of any administration should be this: A system that functions without them. Has Sri Lanka Cricket reached that stage? Or does it remain dependent on personalities, alliances and proximity to power?

That is the question worth asking. Not in anger.

In accountability.