Cricinfo Mobile
Peter Roebuck
Peter Roebuck Peter RoebuckRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former captain of Somerset; author of It Never Rains, Sometimes I Forgot to Laugh and other books
Email Feedback Print

Cricket needs its grand occasions

Our sport hardly has the concept of majors. It can start by making the Champions Trophy a destination, not a journey

Peter Roebuck

September 23, 2009

Comments: 11 | Text size: A | A
Zulu dancers practice at Centurion, September 21, 2009
The hosts are trying their best to promote the event, but in an ideal world it wouldn't need such a push © AFP
Related Links
Series/Tournaments: ICC Champions Trophy

Hard-pressed hosts have been trying to present the Champions Trophy as an eagerly awaited tournament and part of a great tradition. By rights it ought to be an easy sell. After all, the top eight nations are taking part, and almost all of the great players are involved. Moreover, the hosts have an excellent chance of taking the spoils. Although it's a close-run thing and the position changes rapidly, South Africa are the top-ranked 50-over team, and Graeme Smith has at his disposal a wondrously varied collection of players.

Certainly that dreadful old rogue Hendrik Verwoerd would be amazed. For that matter it's an exciting time in South African sport, with the rugby team retaining a first position years after its World Cup triumph, and the soccer World Cup mere months away. It's a far cry from the low expectations that accompanied the country as it embarked upon the long and perilous journey from central command to democracy.

With so many brilliant players appearing in such a short period and with no weak teams invited and no dud matches anticipated, the Champions Trophy ought to be the topic on the tip of every cricketing tongue. After all Sachin Tendulkar, one of the greatest sportsmen of his generation, and in prime form after his stirring hundred in Colombo (the 44th of his ODI career, 40 of them scored as an opener and 28 compiled away from home), is about to try his luck against Dale Steyn.

Likewise Ricky Ponting is eager to lead his reconstructed side to success. Almost inevitably Australia are the reigning champions, but those were different days, when Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden ran amok.

Nor is it only a matter of watching a few shining knights of the game. The entire Sri Lankan side, sometimes patronised, is attractive. Sri Lanka is supposedly at peace with itself. That cricket remained largely untouched by the conflict is a credit to all concerned. Now Kumar Sangakkara, intelligent, capable and sometimes provocative, presides over a wonderful collection of proven seniors and youngsters. To watch the recent matches against India was to observe the old hands still battling away and to find wholehearted and unfazed youngsters emerging, including Angelo Mathews and Thilina Kandamby, who follows in the footsteps of Arjuna Ranatunga.

Cricket has been extraordinarily lucky that Sri Lanka have emerged as such a powerhouse. Bangladesh ought to send emissaries to study the methods used. The cricketing politics may have been dubious, but the cricketers themselves have provided outstanding leadership. The only bad patch came in the match-fixing period, but Sri Lanka were hardly alone in that. Mercifully, too, the best among them remained intact.

Pakistan are another side bound to catch the eye. Pakistan cricket is a law unto itself. Against most expectations, and with a typically adroit and opportunistic approach, the team won the World Twenty20 in 2009. Although lacking recent exposure, the side has plenty of experience and all sorts of points to prove. None of their rivals have as many heroes and villains in their line-up. Most of the players manage to be both at the same time. Pakistan is not a side for half-measures, nor is it shy of victory. It's a reminder that a representative team is an expression of the national culture. It might not reveal everything about a country's psyche, but the way a sporting team goes about its work offers an insight. It's not the finishing that tells the tale, it's the starting point.

Of course this Champions Trophy has had its setbacks. Although far from blameless, the ICC has been unlucky with its tournaments in recent years. For example, the last two World Cups have been blighted - by a boycott and the death of a coach.

 
 
Everyone understands that a World Cup produces a world champion. The winners of the Champions Trophy, what are they? Not world champions, to be sure. And what remains? The only thing to be won is a trophy
 

Without Kevin Pietersen, Jonathan Trott and Andrew Flintoff, England's batting looks second-rate. Incomparably worse, West Indies have sent a second-string team, an insult to the host, the game and spectators. It's high time this cricket community was called to account. The ICC ought to have withdrawn their invitation. Australia ought to cancel West Indies' forthcoming tour and ask someone else to fill the gap. The incompetence of the administration and the selfishness and arrogance of the players ought not to be tolerated a moment longer. A great tradition has been betrayed. Nor can past players be exonerated. Most of them spend their time swanning around, milking the system. The current problems began 20 years ago, in the conduct of headstrong heroes. Bad habits took hold, and despite the efforts of a few good men they remain intact. It's a cultural malaise that involves the team and their surrounds. The only way forward is to split up the West Indies and rely on national pride to restore dignity.

Even the second rung of countries have their complications. Uganda has made enormous progress in the last few years, leapfrogging many nations along the way. And then came a heavy blow as half the Under-19 team absconded while taking part in an event in Canada. It's enough to make grown men cry. The ICC's attempt to spread the game deserves not the unimpressive cynicism of the narrow-minded but the praise of the enlightened. In the end cricket endures because it is an extraordinarily good game, and a bond between nations that have so much to fight about and so much in common.

Accordingly a few headaches are to be expected whenever cricket nations get together. If anything, this Champions Trophy has fewer than might have been feared. Despite the bombings and wars, and struggles between first and third worlds, and the ever-changing balance of power as the dollar weakens and BRIC flexes its muscles, the top eight teams have reported for duty, though West Indies is present in name only.

The Champions Trophy is struggling to capture the imagination. Not even the arrival of the great players and the powerful teams has been enough to send a frisson of excitement around the cricketing world. As far as most observers are concerned, it's just another tournament.

And that is the problem. It is just another tournament, one among many. Slowly the Champions Trophy is finding its feet, establishing its identity.

This year's version will be the best to date, not that it has much to beat. It will be fast and furious and will last less than a fortnight. So why the downbeat atmosphere? Partly it is that followers of the game are not convinced about the relevance of the tournament. What does it signify? Everyone understands that a World Cup produces a world champion. Even that is more confusing in cricket than other games because the supposed champions merely have bragging rights in a secondary form of the game. No other sport bestows remotely as much status upon a compressed format. Still, they are champions of some sort. But the winners of the Champions Trophy, what are they? Not world champions, to be sure. And what remains? The only thing to be won is a trophy.

But there is another reason for the lack of feverish anticipation. The period beforehand was not marked by preparation and speculation. Sri Lanka and India were playing 50-over matches in Colombo. Until Sunday night England and Australia were still bemusingly going hammer and tongs in Durham, the local stronghold. Then they all hop onto a plane and play the next gig, the Champions Trophy. Our cricketers resemble a rock band dashing from concert to concert. Accordingly it is difficult to create a sense of occasion. Everyone in South Africa and elsewhere has been talking about the forthcoming soccer World Cup for years. Comparatively, cricket lacks anticipation.

Floyd Reifer takes questions from the media, Potchefstroom, September 17, 2009
The ICC ought to have withdrawn West Indies' invitation. Australia ought to cancel their forthcoming tour and ask someone else to fill the gap © Getty Images

Nor is the matter easily resolved. Other sports can limit the number of internationals because the club or provincial competitions can sustain interest. Soccer and rugby are in this happy position. Until the advent of the IPL, cricket was almost dead domestically, in financial terms anyhow. And the IPL is an exception in that it's really an international competition in disguise. Cricket depends on international stars and matches. Nothing else makes money or holds the audience. Accordingly the game comes under pressure to arrange as many internationals as possible. Inevitably the currency is compromised. The same thing has been happening to the US dollar.

The Champions Trophy can flourish. It has a different role than the World Cup, which is used to encourage rising nations and stimulate the successful. Cricket has been lucky that India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have all lifted the Cup. The Champions Trophy is reserved for the elite. Every match is a corker. But it cannot merely be another stop on the train journey. It needs to become a destination. To that end, cricket needs to improve its programming. The old idea of every nation for itself, and more recently every man for himself, is unsustainable, for then the trivial and the telling become confused. Cricket needs to isolate and highlight its grand occasions and reduce the distractions.

Usually the Indians are blamed for everything (a policy once pursued in the Wild West), but England and Australia have been the worst offenders this time round. They have given the Champions Trophy little respect. It's a question of priorities. Cricket has lots of tournaments but lacks the concept of majors. It's high time that changed. Tripling the ranking points for World Cups and Champions Trophy matches might help. After all, it's rare for cricket to get together. All the more reason to celebrate when it does happen.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

RSS Feeds: Peter Roebuck
Comments: 11 
Email Feedback Print
Posted by dragqueen1 on (September 25 2009, 17:02 PM GMT)

this encapsulates the whole problem international cricket finds itself in. as the atricles title says Cricket needs its grand occassions, its majors, its slams but unfortunately the calander is so crowded with meaningless games its almost impossible to tell whats important. in fact if you asked what are as PR puts it what those "grand occasions" are, would you get a consenous. the ICC need to define what they are & structure the calander around them. the other problem for the CT is that is a sport where the ranking system only recognises 12 countries(which is streching it a bit) inviting the top 8 is hardly a "Champions" trophy.

Posted by u3968841 on (September 25 2009, 01:00 AM GMT)

"The only bad patch came in the match-fixing period, but Sri Lanka were hardly alone in that. Mercifully, too, the best among them remained intact." ???? Please explain, Mr Roebuck. As others here have already pointed out, not aware of any Sri Lankan cricketer involved in match fixing. What makes it more absurd is that Mr Roebuck seemingly pulls out this reference from nowhere and sticks it to the paragraph on Sri Lanka. So not only is the statement wrong, but it is highly irrelevant and misplaced as well. Make a mistake with the stats or the cricket but pls be a litte more careful with serious issues such as this.

Posted by Sheky on (September 24 2009, 11:36 AM GMT)

ICC events like the Champions Trophy are necessary to bring the cricket-playing nations together at least once in a year. We will be having a T20 WC in 2010.Then a grand ODI World Cup in 2011. Let's have a Champion's Trophy in 2012 every two years.Then in 2013 a T20 WC or a World Test Championship. After the tournament concludes, the ICC must come out with a statement of how much it has gained from the CT.Depending on that we can decide the future of ODIs.

Posted by codswallop on (September 24 2009, 04:27 AM GMT)

As for spreading cricket,ICC is doing very good but very slow.Cricket largely remains a subcontinent game,much if not all of money and interest comes from the subcontinent,but the issue is how long will it be like this?.People here since from birth to death know only about cricket,not long after, when other sports start doing good cricket might fall in second seat.that would not be a good scenario.So the game has to be spread and T20 is the best way to spread cricket's excitement.and by setting up academies for the best and emerging players from associates and workshops for the administrators, for very close periods quality can be improved.Cricket cannot entertain with such huge gaps among top and bottom teams all in 10. It needs more teams higher quality better management.

Posted by dinith_sw on (September 23 2009, 19:05 PM GMT)

Got to agree with Devapriya, scandal is to still to taint Sri Lanka cricket; though Peter seems to be aware of such. I too would like to be enlightened on that particular aspect.

Posted by popcorn on (September 23 2009, 15:30 PM GMT)

I agree with Peter Roebuck that tripling the points for The ODI World Cup and The Champions Trophy will make them destinations, not "just another tournament". Identical to the increase in points a tennis player gets for winning one of the 4 Grand Slam Tournaments.

Posted by inswing on (September 23 2009, 14:41 PM GMT)

The point about increasing the number of ratings points for the WC and Champions Trophy is right on. They need to mean something more. By emphasizing the ratings and ratings points (by annual awards or similar methods), one can help one day and test cricket. I think ratings points are even more valuable for tests. A major problem in tests is that teams want series wins, but individual tests are not given enough importance. You have a 3-test series, one is rained out, you win one, and you just want to draw the last one somehow by playing negatively so you can win the series. This devalues tests. Ratings points should be associated with every test, so teams are motivated to win tests, not just the series. Points can also be used to encourage results (instead of 2 for win, 1 for draw, 0 for loss, give 3, 1 and 0). Of course, this will work only if people pay attention to the rankings. This can be done by awards, financial incentives, a series between top 4 ranked teams, etc.

Posted by Imran.Khan. on (September 23 2009, 09:32 AM GMT)

I agree, domestic games should be increased, and a proper system should be introduced, and i hope to see india, Australia, England, South africa and pakistan concentrating more on domestic system, it can be started with T20, Domestic competitions like IPL in india and in other countries i did mention, and a champions league for the top teams from these competitions. but again, it should be regulated in a proper way, players in IPL teams should not be allowed to play in other domestic leagues, or in a transfer season like in soccer , they could be exchange, to avoid mishaps in champions league,, well, its just food for thought, ICC can work it out :D

Posted by Gizza on (September 23 2009, 09:25 AM GMT)

Roebuck is spot on as always in his analysis. Regarding the point on how the ICC can raise the significance of the event, they have increased the prize money (which most cricketers would find more alluring than ranking points anyway). Also i would be good to keep the CT restricted to being held once every 4 years, compared to once every 2 years as it was before.

Posted by Devapriya on (September 23 2009, 08:08 AM GMT)

Peter, Can you enlighten us as to which Sri Lankan cricketer was involved in 'match fixing'? Your article seem to imply that they were involved in match fixing.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Peter RoebuckClose
Peter Roebuck He may not have played Test cricket for England, but Peter Roebuck represented Somerset with distinction, making over 1000 runs nine times in 12 seasons, and captaining the county during a tempestuous period in the 1980s. Roebuck acquired recognition all over the cricket world for his distinctive, perceptive, independent writing. Widely travelled, he now divides his time between Australia and South Africa.

'Collingwood is vital to England'     

Switch Hit: A look at England's win in the first completed one-day game in South Africa, and the new referral system

Laker's 19 and Gregory's catches     

Records that are vulnerable to the passage of time, and those that look safe forever. By Rob Steen

The captain's right-hand men     

The List: Players who've served longest, and performed prolifically, in Tests and ODIs, under particular captains

The dependables     

All-time XI: Six contenders for South Africa's three middle-order spots - none of whom was in the habit of letting the side down

Pietersen feels the pain

Shot selection: Never nice to photograph injuries

  • Twenty years of Tendulkar
Sponsored Links

Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.

Debate now on the new ESPN Soccernet Castrol Rankings Blog

Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store

on www.scrum.com

20 Years of Tendulkar

Cricinfo celebrates two decades of the maestro

Bodyline

Bowl a fast one

Cricinfo Mobile Site

Our brand new mobile site