|
A viable new layer
Cricket's greatest flaw has been the weakness of the levels of the game below the international. With the Champions Twenty20 League, that may be set to change
September 14, 2007
 |
|
Only three days ago cricket's new age was heralded with the beginning of the World Twenty20. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that a newer age beckons already. The Champions Twenty20 League, announced with pomp and grandeur yesterday, promises to transform cricket worldwide. Judgment must be suspended on whether it will be for the better or worse, but it can be said that it will be cricket like we have never known it.
For a start, it will be more like football. Already the length of the game has shrunk to roughly twice that of a football match, and now with a league like those in football, the fabric of the game is about to change. For a sport that has been founded on bilateralism or regionalism, this is a paradigm shift. And unlike the Indian Cricket League, which is based on a similar principle, but is bereft of players, infrastructure, and official sanction to be able to make it count, this is serious business. Serious enough for the ICC president to fly across to India for the launch, abandoning his own party back in South Africa.
The league is the combination of two radical ideas. Clearly, those who run cricket see in Twenty20 a golden future. Cold to the concept, to begin with, the Indian board has now gone to the other extreme and chosen the format as the agent to revolutionise the game. Last season Twenty20 was a footnote in the Indian domestic calendar; next year it promises to be the main event.
Far more significant is the concept of franchises, which could potentially alter the dynamics of the game.
In no other team sport in the world has there existed such a disparity between the highest levels and all forms below. It has been cricket's greatest weakness that no layer below international cricket has been financially viable. Domestic cricket has merely served the purpose of being the supply line to the national level, and has subsisted on the charity of national boards. The Australian domestic competition, despite being the strongest domestic competition in the world, gets negligible crowd support; in India the first-class game has suffered from criminal neglect on the part of the administrators. That the proposed league could help create a vibrant and viable second tier is a welcome prospect.
In no other team sport in the world has there existed such a disparity between the highest levels and all forms below. It has been cricket's greatest weakness that no layer below international cricket has been financially viable. That the proposed league could help create a vibrant and viable second tier is a welcome prospect
|
Of course a lot will depend on how the cricket boards and the ICC adjust their calendar to accommodate the league. It is obvious that its success will depend heavily on the participation of international players, and the international calendar is already creaking. England's players haven't had a decent break in two years, and the Indians managed one only because they were dumped out of the World Cup. Money is a fair motivation for professional players, but these matches must necessarily be staged at the expense of some of the many desultory ODIs that are routinely squeezed into the Future Tours Programme, finalised by the ICC. Player burnout is a factor, but even spectators need a break.
This will be the first instance of administrators giving up control of the selection process; those who buy the franchises for the league will have the freedom to bid for players from an open pool. This will be a novelty. The players who were paraded at the event yesterday were a curious bunch. Of them, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly have opted out of Twenty20, Glenn McGrath has retired from all forms of the game, Anil Kumble has retired from one-day cricket, and Stephen Fleming wasn't deemed good enough to play the World Twenty20 for his team. Yet it was implied by the organisers that were all available to the new league. Obviously star value will count as much as playing merit.
Cricketers will now come with individual price tags. How much will Tendulkar be worth? He has been the world's richest cricketer for years; will he also be the most expensive? Will money be a big enough catalyst to bind players who have, for most of their careers, been united by national or state affiliations? The failure of the ICC's ambitious Super Series proved that you can't make a great team by merely assembling a few great players. Or will professional obligations be compelling enough in this instance?
Will it see the advent of football-style managers who will decide on the buying and selling of players and the picking of teams? Will the role of the captain diminish?
Of the four cricket boards that have agreed to participate in the league, only the BCCI has announced its next move. England, Australia and South Africa already have their own domestic Twenty20 competitions. Australia and South Africa have sponsors for each of their teams, but these sponsors don't own the teams. The first Champions League, to be played next October, is expected to be a hybrid, but will these boards be disbanding their existing competitions and handing the teams over to franchises? The idea is financially appealing, but it will entail giving up control.
|
|
|
The concept of Twenty20 is built around the idea of packaged entertainment, and in India the fallout could be radical for the spectators, for whom the experience of watching cricket at grounds is currently somewhere between an ordeal and a nightmare. Since gate collections will form a major source of revenue for the franchisees, they will get a percentage of the central revenue - which will mainly comprise earnings from the sale of media rights - and will fully pocket the local revenues which include proceeds from gate collections, hospitality, and in-stadia promotions. It is reasonable to assume then that the paying public will have to be accorded the dignity normally given to a customer. This, in itself, would be a quantum leap for the game in India.
But what will happen to the game that we have known and cherished? Already Twenty20 feels like a different game, lacking in character, subtlety, variety and the skills that endear cricket to us. So far it has been at the fringes; what will happen when it becomes the centre piece?
Change is inevitable, and often welcome. In case of proposed league, the gains are tangible enough, but it will perhaps take us a couple of years to find out the cost. Meanwhile, get ready for the ride.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine
Feeds: Sambit Bal
Do you think the proposed champions league is a positive step forward in the game? Tell us
| ||||||
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Editor Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Interviews : 'We're trying to change the world order'
News : International Twenty20 league launched
Sponsored Links
Western Union Instant Win Game
NoPurchaseNecessary. Subject toOfficial Rules
Buy Ashes merchandise - clothes, books, DVDs & more
At Cricshop
Get the right speed and online tools
Rogers Business Internet
No Minimum Balance NRI Account
Citibank
and get a calling card
i can see what DJ80 is saying and its mostly true but i still think that the greatest game i have ever seen was India Pakistan game on saturday. excitement from start to finish, and all within 4 hours! but i do hope that 20/20 doesnt take over because test cricket will become more and more boring for those who enjoy watching hard fought matches. people will get used to slogging and forget what test cricket is all about, patience and skill. if 20/20 isnt over-used and say only one match in the middle of a series (like how JB77 said, just a one-off event) of 3 tests and 5 odis is played it could be good for the game and provide an injection of excitement to a series if it really has become extremely boring. if they start playing whole series of 20/20, cricket will probably become as money orientated as football.
Posted by goindia1 on (September 15 2007, 21:54 PM GMT)I hope 20/20 does not become the main game of cricket. I feel 50 over match makes you think more for the game.
Posted by michaelfernando on (September 15 2007, 02:41 AM GMT)I like it! ... more ingredients: 1) Franchises with team salary caps. Else, a team in a lucrative market will hog all the good players while a team with not much money will end up with the scraps. 2) The South Asian community world-wide is a great market. Leveraging it, cricket can be globalize. In a not too distant future, aim for teams in these cities: Los Angeles, Toronto, Trinidad, London, Manchester, Amsterdam, Dubai, Karachi, Lahore, Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore, Dhaka, Colombo, Johannesburg, Nairobi, Singapore, Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland (or 20-some similar cities). 3) A draft is a good thing. Every team gets a fair chance at grabbing the "right" players. 4) A roster of 25 players per team. (25x20 = 500 quality players in a high-quality tournament around the globe ... some day!) and limit the number of games per player, say, 10 games less than number of games per team to force teams to play most of the roster; and it will help develop the young talent.
Posted by cranaweera on (September 15 2007, 01:51 AM GMT)Let's not get too carried away in our criticism of T20. Certainly it is not 'real' cricket. But this form of the game too will evolve. In the end, if the fans don't like it, it will die. Without the true fans, no form of the game can be sustained. Regarding the new league: I think it has no future. Unlike in other sports such as football or basketball, in cricket the calendar is full of international fixtures. So, how can the best players participate in the new league? Without the best taking part, there is no chance that it can succeed. It will only be good for the second rate cricketers who aren't good enough to play for their countries. And who wants to watch them on a regular basis? Nobody!
Posted by NeeravHK on (September 15 2007, 00:56 AM GMT)It would seem that the sides would not be restricted to selecting players from their own country. Hopefully this will result in the selection of players from non-test playing countries. Having a star from a non-test playing nation, performing on the international stage, is a great way to boost popularity in that nation, eg what has happened to basketball in China. Until now, international cricket did not facilitate this. Wouldnt it be wonderful if, say, someone from Papua New Guinea, became the star of the series? And hopefully, models can also be developed in other cricket for greater non-test playing representation. My only concern would be that none of this should be allowed to in anyway adversely affect test cricket - the true form of the game.
Posted by MichaelG on (September 14 2007, 17:33 PM GMT)Stop bagging T20 so much. You'll have to get used to it as 50 overs and Tests will be pushed out of the way by it. Is the rugby world cup rubbish because it only takes 80 mins a game? No.
Posted by Abhishek_T on (September 14 2007, 17:12 PM GMT)I can't understand why some so called fans do not agree with twenty 20, odi cricket is boring and I think no team should be allowed to play more than 15 odi a year. If cricket wants to compete with other sports it has to adopt 20-20 otherwise this shit called odi will kill cricket. Remember that farce of an event called ICC World Cup, do away with this boring 50 overs shit. I for one dont have time to watch the game for 7 hours, where I know what would happen during the middle overs. Accept 20-20, this is the only way to globalize the game. I love test cricket but one day cricket sucks
Posted by kingofspain on (September 14 2007, 16:12 PM GMT)Can someone explain to me why anyone likes 20/20? It's the most boring "spectacle" I can remember seeing. None of the aspects of cricket which makes one fall in love with the game in the first place are present in this contrived slogathon. I can't wait for this tournament to finish so real cricket can return. Test cricket is real cricket, ODI's are a bit of fun but 20/20 is a waste of time for me.
Posted by joshlobo on (September 14 2007, 14:07 PM GMT)From the ten or twelve T20 matches that I have seen, this form of the game can only be called gimmicky, at best. Think of 5 years from now when, as it seems, T20 tournaments will be the norm, the viewer will be desensitised to slogging, just as viewers have been desensitised to swearing or violence on TV. Just like TV violence which has become fake and unrealistic, T20 has the potential to become the same, in the sense that audiences will have certain expectations of excitment of other forms of the game. What will happen to test cricket? Will we want to see Matt Hayden grind out a 100 over 2 days? Chances are that the audience will become increasingly bored with slow play, and low excitment. The strategy, patience, guile and skill that make the game great are being given an injection of steroids, to bring in the crowd...and the coin. These elite cricketers have worked for many years to perfect their game, and for what? 20 overs of crash and bash. Doesn't really seem worth the effort.
Posted by DJ80 on (September 14 2007, 12:27 PM GMT)Twenty-20 at present remains more of a means to entertain the less informed and less knowledgeable viewers of cricket. The game of cricket is full of complexities, statistics and a steady build up of tension and excitement. To a true cricket fan, the enduring images of Tendulkar defending maiden after maiden overs to Saqlain Mushtaq in Chennai, 1999 or the more recent ones of Harmison-Hoggard-Flintoff-Jones rocking Australia with their pace and swing is what constitutes real cricket. In an already unequal setup towards bowlers, 20-20 comes as the latest pain. Sad to see commercialization gaining so much precedence over everything else. It pains me more to see certain articles on Cricinfo (offlate)trying to promote and market a particular concept only. In an era of all permasive superficiality in arts, movies and media I sincerely hope that cricket regains the true spirit of a contest, and Cricinfo retains its high and rich quality of editorial content, articles and features.