‘Get over it. Get over it quickly because it is happening right now’
January 29, 2008
Atherton paints quite a scary picture of the future of world cricket in his latest Sunday column. What surprised me most was this: “Had you been in India last week, you could not have avoided the issue: every day the Indian Cricket League, India’s domestic Twenty20 competition, was front-page news, and this despite the national team’s resurgence in Australia and another century from the game’s greatest current player, Sachin Tendulkar.”
Now, I’m currently living at the diametrically opposite end of the globe from India but I can’t imagine the ICL grabbing viewer attention in preference to India’s tour of Australia especially with Tendulkar having his most prolific series to date. I always believed that cricket fans would rather watch their ‘national’ teams (as debatable as that adjective is) than artificially concocted teams. Indeed, that’s one of the reasons that could be put forward to explain the failure of the Super Tests or the Afro-Asian contests. Cricket has been so inured to the idea of contests between teams formed on the basis of regional contiguity, be it international cricket or first-class cricket, that spectators may not be able to accept this new football-clubbish paradigm of franchise teams. The weight of history and the intangible benefits of naturally-formed cricket teams is a substantial (if perhaps impermanent) safety net against the IPL and ICL.
Which is why Atherton’s article is scary. If what he says is true, then my supposed safety net is being over-run at an alarming rate by these new Twenty20-fed beasts.
January 29, 2008 at 5:35 am
I make it a point of mine, never to agree with anything Mike Atherton says.
He was an admirable cricketer but as a journalist he is caught in a time warp.
You can almost bet on the fact that he will complain about anything that is slightly connected to change.
He is opposed to technology for umpires, 20/20 cricket, and rather pompously, the notion that other nations should be allowed to play top level cricket apart from the Imperial old guard.
One wonders why he bothers to turn up at cricket matches at all. Still, at least the cricket gives him something to complain about and best of all for him, he gets paid to do it.
January 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ben, I think you are being a bit harsh on Atherton.
In any case, this post deserves an elaborate counter. For now, let me say that the notion that only cricket matches played between provincial sides will be taken seriously is very wrong. Await with trepidation.
January 29, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Well, this is a topic that I want to expand on further. Not so much Atherton but the attitudes of the mainstream media, particularly the old guard who view everything from the past with an unhealthy admiration.
I’m not saying that everything old in cricket is or isn’t good. That is a matter of personal taste.
What I don’t like is that these commentators try to pass off these attitudes as being in the best interests of cricket.
Far from being good for the sport, these attitudes are simply a reflection of men who constantly harp back to a time when they first fell in love with cricket.
They want cricket to be just like they remembered it- not better, not worse It brings them personal comfort just as memories of their mother’s Sunday roasts do.
In actual fact, the best thing for the game is that more people watch it, greater numbers of kids want to play it and a larger number of countries are encouraged to participate and enjoy it.
January 30, 2008 at 12:46 am
Ben, great to hear from you. I agree with your last paragraph that it’s more healthy for the game to have more kids play and be part of it and get more countries involved.
However, as is evident from my post, I am also disconcerted by the possibility of cricket being overly dominated by the Twenty20 game. Now, thankfully I am still in my early 20’s and I hope you will believe me when I say that I do not belong to the old guard that you characterised as having an unhealthy attachment with the past. My fears have more to do with the fact that I believe cricket is enjoyable as a contest between bat and ball and Twenty20 seeks to diminish the bowler’s skill greatly. The art of wicket-taking is marginalized which I see as a gross perversion. The contest can be at its most fascinating (at least for my taste) during Test matches where the full range of cricket skills is on display over a sustained period of time. I fear that those skills might be relegated to the periphery if administrators don’t maintain an essential balance between different forms of the game, not only in international cricket but also at lower levels.
Also, just for the record, let me just say that I admire Atherton’s writing and commentary. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
And Srivaths, yes, I do await with trepidation!
January 30, 2008 at 3:32 am
Hi Yatharth
Yes, I also enjoy test cricket just as much as the other formats.
I truly believe that the three formats can compliment each other.
I don’t believe that the future of test cricket is under threat. Far from it! 20/20 cricket is introducing new fans to the game in droves.
In time, once they become familiar with the nuances and more importantly, the great players and interesting characters, they will take an interest in the longer versions.
Not all which watch test cricket religiously. Some are busy earning a living.
In my country, Australia, cricket was under threat before World Series Cricket was born. Crowds were dropping off and junior participation rates were at an all time low. Fortunately the new form of the game ushered in a new era of young cricketers. Test cricket was subsequently revitalised on the back of the limited overs success.
At the time, the old guard said one day cricket would kill of test cricket. They were wrong.
We must be mindful of the fact that in many countries baseball, basketball and other sports are taking root and competing with cricket for fans and junior players.
Cricket has to fight back otherwise we may not have youngsters queuing up to play for their country as we do now.
We should also be giving our support to the emerging cricketing nations.
In countries like Afghanistan, Uganda, Tanzania, Namibia, Kenya, Bermuda, Papua New Guinea, Nepal, Malaysia, Vanuatu, Ireland, Scotland and Nigeria, cricket is now a part of the daily news coverage and for many, a sport that is heralded with as much passion as it is in our countries.
Others such as Thailand, Indonesia, China, Japan, Argentina, Chile, Mozambique, Zambia, Bhutan, Myanmar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Cuba, to mention but a handful, have launched large junior development programs in a bid to improve standards. They should be applauded and encouraged, not cast aside as uninvited gate crashers.
Atherton has made it clear that he doesn’t want these unfashionable newcomers to join the fold. His condescending commentary during the 2007 World Cup was offensive and inappropriate.
Caring cricket fans should not let his archaic mutterings and utterings to go by unchecked. Michael Holding, Mark Nicholas and Ian Botham are others that fall into this category.
Instead, they should take a leaf out of one of cricket’s grand statesmen, Richie Benaud, a man who encourages innovation and participation and is an honourary patron of cricket in France.
January 30, 2008 at 6:03 am
Ben, I am pleasantly surprised and heartened to hear that in the countries you mentioned cricket is part of daily news coverage and there are junior development programs in place. Each nation brings its own unique flavour to the way the game is played and diversity of styles will only help the game apart from giving it strength in numbers. The key is to ensure that standards continue to improve and that will happen naturally over time if there are good development programs and a fundamentally strong structure at all levels. I guess here the ICC has an important role to play.
The point that I am trying to make is that there must be a balance between all three forms of the game. Twenty20 does have its place; indeed, it can be a great tool for globalising the game as you mentioned. But the dangers are that the administrators may throw up a surfeit of T20 games at the cost of the longer versions (and by extension, some of the skills of the game) because its a faster way of making a buck. And thereby end up killing the proverbial hen that lays the golden eggs.
I have been following Indian cricket for a long while and know how the BCCI functions. There were times in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when there would be a slew of one-day games and hardly any Tests. Australia toured India after a gap of 10 years in 1996 and there was just one Test match (yes, just one!) and a prolonged triangular one-day tournament. Last year, when India toured England, the BCCI insisted that we play 3 Tests and 7 ODIs rather than 4 Tests that the ECB wanted. And now that Twenty20 is such a lucrative proposition in a nearly untapped and ripe market, the prospects are scary. And if the ICL got more newsprint in India while this landmark tour of Australia was on, then the market is riper than I thought and viewership for Tests could dwindle in India.
January 30, 2008 at 6:44 am
Yes, I admit that I am not familiar with the situation in India.
I don’t think 20/20 cricket will be over used in Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps India is different.
The current Indian tour of Australia has exposed many of us over here to the ways of the BCCI. It has been an eye opener.
The BCCI’s bullying tactics, firstly in the Steve Bucknor case and then in regard to Harbhajan Singh, was disturbing. Having said that, the decision to overturn the penalty given to Harbhajan was the correct one. A court of law cannot favour one man’s version of events over another’s without evidence.
The BCCI’s attempt to deprive two associate nations their, rightful and previously agreed upon, place in the 2011 World Cup, in the name of larger profits, is another concern.
In case you didn’t know, the regional qualifying stages for the next World Cup have already been completed. 30 associate and affiliate nations remain in the hunt and now move into the five World Cricket League divisions which will narrow the field down to the final six.
They were guaranteed that six nations would qualify for the 2011 World Cup long before the qualifying tournaments began. The BCCI should not expect a long standing agreement to be shelved half way through the process.
With all that in mind, perhaps you have good reason to believe that the BCCI may kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Let’s hope they put greed aside.
February 2, 2008 at 8:42 am
Ben, I agree with you that a long standing agreement cannot be shelved. However, the format of the World Cup does need to be re-thought. The ideal situation would be to have all the teams but still keep it short enough to maintain everyone’s interest and keep it competitive.
Also, I wonder about the future of that strangely conceived “ICC mini World Cup”. Now that we have a Twenty20 WC (which looks like it’s here to stay) apart from our regular one-day internationals World Cup, I see no reason to continue with that mini World Cup thing. It’s just overkill.
February 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Yes, a shorter tournament with the same number of teams would be the ideal solution and it is easy to formulate. The Super 8 stage lasted 34 days. It was way too long. The group stage only lasted 12 days so it wasn’t the fault of the emerging nations.
Unfortunately, it seems the main priority of the host countries is to find a formula that ensures their longevity in the tournament. It’s not too far off from fixture rigging.
Yes, the Champions Trophy has become a bit pointless.
Strange then, that certain commentators want the World Cup to feature less and less teams. If they get their way, we will have two Champions Trophies with two different names.
On another point. I’m enjoying watching Sreesanth and Sharma bowling.
I think Sharma has the potential to reach the 150kph barrier and I like Sreesanth’s attitude and aggression.
February 4, 2008 at 2:50 am
Sharma’s emergence on this tour has been quite dramatic. He has improved by leaps and bounds between Sydney and Perth by adding a lot more to his bowling. He is a really exciting prospect now.
Sreesanth’s talent was never in doubt. His on-field antics sometimes tend to overshadow that. If he’s bowling well, he can be extremely dangerous. In fact, if everyone was fit and firing, India’s first choice pace bowling lineup in the Tests would’ve been Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth and Munaf Patel/RP Singh. That’s a big ‘if’ though.
February 22, 2008 at 4:19 pm
[...] time to dispel the notion that cricket fans are too inured to seeing matches between national teams to appreciate a franchise based arrangement. To do this I will resort to making the somewhat [...]
February 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm
[...] time to dispel the notion that cricket fans are too inured to seeing matches between national teams to appreciate a franchise based arrangement. To do this I will resort to making the somewhat [...]