Better Cricket for All

Reader Michael Fernando writes:

Cricket is changing. That's the understatement of the decade. Cricket is the last sport to recognize that it is the people with money who ultimately finance the sport. There are lots more people with money plus 4hrs of entertainment time than those with money plus 2 months of relaxation time. Sure, the TV companies, the sponsors etc fund various series. But, those of us who purchase products are the people who, in turn, fund those sponsors and advertisers so, at the end of the day, it is the consumers and fans who fund the sport.

Most test matches aren't being watched --either at the grounds or on TV-- in their entirety. People will catch a couple of hours of TV time here and there, the highlights at night, or a day or two at the grounds. Contrast that to T20 matches. They are being watched completely. They bring in more fans (more women and children). In turn, T20 matches bring in more money to the game. The more money the sport gets, better athletes it is going to attract and improve the game.

So, then why do we still have 5-match ODI series? Isn't it time to re-work the format of the tours? I offer this:

1 practice match
3 T20 matches
3 T20 Test matches
1 Test match

Okay, okay, I get it. Test match cricket is the pinnacle of the game. So, what I'm saying is that let's have more of them per year; more tests between more teams. That way, you can have a league of test matches. The above format will be a 3-week tour by one team at another team's home ground(s). ICC's job should be to maximize such short tours, and schedule them so that maximum number of viewers in various time zones can watch them. Given such a short tour, more people would be willing to take their 2-week vacation, either at the top of the tour (those who like more T20 cricket), or at the bottom of the tour (those who like more test cricket).

Okay, so what's this T20 Test cricket? Simple. That's the combination of T20 slog-fest and the 5-day-long tests. This is to help switch everyone (mostly the players, but fans too) into the test mode. I suggest T20 Tests to be something like this:

2 innings of 20 overs each per team (80 overs in total) 6 outs per innings (specialized bowlers won't bat) 6-8 overs max per bowler per innings no field restrictions (like in real tests)
That 6 outs per innings mean the top of the order needs to bat carefully because effectively they come in at a 4-down-for-0 situation. Specialist bowlers should be given sufficient overs to do their magic. Two innings per team means they have to switch to test match strategy. 80 overs means it will be done and dusted in about 6 hours ... ie: bit shorter than an ODI, but without all that 20 overs of boring stuff in the middle of both innings.

Okay, now let's see why IPL was interesting to a lot of folks. That's because any given team could have beat any other team. The teams were, roughly, evenly matched. Some teams had the right combination while others struggled to gel together. But as a whole, every team had super stars, players from various countries, etc.

We all know that Bangladesh cricket is struggling to come up to par. But as long as their team loses pretty much every match with stronger opposition, they are not going to get enthusiastic young players coming down the pike. Other countries like Kenya and Netherlands may be able to produce a couple or three (or five) really good players. But they will not be considered for highest level of play if the entire team is not at a high level.

What I'm getting at is that, the ICC should franchise top level cricket. Countries should play special series, friendlies, etc, but the highest level of cricket should be a league system (or several geographically closer, smaller leagues) of teams of equal strengths. This will mean each team will have an equal following, and a growing fan-base. Steve Tikolo and other good players from otherwise weak countries will be able to play at the pinnacle of the game--Test cricket.

Combine the league system(s) with the above 3-week (3xT20, 3xT20-Test, 1xTest) format. If you come up with the right number of teams for the league(s), you can have each team play each other twice (home and away) within a given year. So, in a given year, you can have three teams winning the league titles in each of the categories. More people will be interested, more watching eye-balls, more advertisers, ...

The South Asian expatriate communities around the world is strong. And, among various South Asian communities, that's the group with the most disposable income. That means, cities like Toronto, New York, and Los Angeles should be able to support above mentioned franchise teams. Singapore, Amsterdam, Dubai, Nairobi etc should also be able to support such teams? It is a global sport. Then let's have 4 leagues of 5 teams each, spread over the globe. Or, 2 leagues of 10 teams each.

We will get more Test matches. Evenly matched teams. Sell-out crowds. Family-friendly games. League titles. Possibly a lot more than 11 each from Australia and India playing at the highest level of the game in a given season.

League Cricket and the Zimbabwe Issue

I have often wondered why Cricket has not gained the popular appeal of Soccer. Granted that it is considered the second most valuable sport in the world, but it trails far behind the revered game of Soccer (I will call it Football lest someone get offended).

 

One of the reasons has always been commitment. Football is a 90 minute game, while cricket has been a 40 hour game cut down to 8 hours and now down to 4. So now that Twenty20 has gained momentum, can we expect Cricket to garner more fans? Perhaps.

 

Another reason why cricket has been a laggard sport compared to Football is the lack of international leagues – leagues that span many borders. Imagine an Asian league with Bengal Tigers, Colombo Warriors, Lahore Pacers, Hong Kong Lions, Dubai Dodgers and Dacca Daredevils. Throw in Beijing Bouncers, Singapore Dashers and Jakarta Jaguars and you’ve covered most of Asia. Teams could trade players much like Manchester, Real Madrid, Benfica and Munich. You might have Dhoni playing for Singapore, Asif for Dubai (although I seriously doubt that) and Murali for Dacca. This is the only way we will see cricket grow competitively beyond the 10 core nations that have been competitive since the 80’s. Even that, Sri Lanka really only became competitive in the 90’s and they were the first test team in over 30 years after Pakistan and India joined the fray.

 

Which brings me to my next point – we have a hard time getting good teams at the international level. Yet somehow, ICC and nations like England and Australia find it easy to ban Zimbabwe on political grounds and shun visits to Pakistan on the grounds of instability. I don’t get it. Why is sport being intermingled with politics? And if the Mugabe regime is the one coercing the cricket team and influencing team selection, I believe every country is guilty of that. If I recall, Sri Lankan government has long flexed its muscles to prolong the careers of their favorite sons - Ranatunga back then and Jayasuriya recently. Ganguly was added back to the side against the wishes of the coach (Greg Chappell). Alex Stewart hung around the English team longer than he should have thanks to his father Micky. The inclusion of a Hindu or Christian cricketer has never been a lasting decision in any Pakistani side. Yousuf Youhanna knew this and chose cricket over his religious beliefs by converting. In doing so, he probably saved his career. There is no shortage of hypocrites in the world and England and Australia are perhaps the biggest. Would this have been an issue for them if Mugabe had been a white man enforcing every single team member to be white?

 

Frankly, I am tired of reading about the Zimbabwe issue. I think they should be allowed to play – we need cricket to spread, not to be restricted to status quo.  I hope India, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka can throw their weight behind Zimbabwe on this issue.

 

FL

 

 

The Better Team Won the Asia Cup

The convincing nature of Sri Lanka's win over India leaves little doubt that the better team won the Asia Cup.


For India, bowling has been a long standing issue. They just dont have the quality of bowlers that can win you a long stretch of matches. Moreover, in this tournament, Dhoni and Sehwag were the only two that played consistently well against all opposition.


Speaking of Dhoni, what a great cricketer he is. On the international scene now for just about 3 years, he is one of the best wicket keepers, batsmen and captains in the game today. India is very lucky to have so much talent in one man. To me, he is up there with Gilchrist and Sangakara.


For Sri Lanka, Mendis is the man of the hour. It is only befitting that a telented spinner is ready to take over Murali. Sri Lankan fans would have been worried post Murali's departure, but this will give them some solace. But this brings up a valid point - succession might be an issue with Sri Lanka. Vaas, Jayasuriya and Murali have been the backbone of this side for well over 10 years now. When they depart (and I imagine it will be after the next world cup), Sri Lanka would be worried for there is no one like Jayasuriya and certainly no one like Vaas or Murali (although Mendis does have the potential to make up for Murali).


FL

Asia Cup Turns it Up a Notch

So far, the Asia Cup had been a pretty dull event. With teams batting first posting huge totals (unless you were Bangladesh, UAE or Hong Kong), and the favorite of any match up, winning with ease. Except last night, when Pakistan upset favorites India.

It is a rare occasion when Pakistan wins against India with such ease as they did last night. The match started with India as favorites, became even more one-sided when Pakistan lost the toss and their bowlers succumbed to the aggression of Sehwag and Gambhir. But somewhere along the way, Pakistan fought back with wickets and discipline. I thought Misbah was quite impressive as captain - in fact, I think and expect that within a year, he will take over from his younger superior Shoaib Malik. Then, chasing 308, Pakistan did so with 8 wickets and some 5 odd overs to spare. Younis Khan obviously was the Man of the Match with a brilliant 122 not out.

However, the two players that excited me the most were fast bowler Abdur Rauf and spinner Saeed Ajmal. Rauf with his height, pace and movement reminded me of the once promising and now discarded Shabbir Ahmed. Nasir Jamshed also looks like a good find for Pakistan although I don't want to jinx them by praising their opening pair - God knows they haven't had a good pair since the days of Saeed Anwar and Aamir Sohail.

Anyway, with the win, Pakistan actually has a chance to make the finals as long as Sri Lanka defeats India. Go figure. Within the span of one match, the entire series has come alive. Here is looking forward to a good week's cricket.

FL

Welcome to Innings Break

I have been an avid fan of the game of Cricket ever since I was a young lad of 6. I played it growing up and would like to think I could have made it to the league level if I had really tried. Now, in my adult life, I still play occasionally but competitively, and catch it on the telly or the internet.

My love for the game has finally prompted me to write about the sport and I hope readers use this blog to exchange thoughts, opinion and views on this second most valuable sport in the world.

Sincerely,

FL