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.