|
Much has been made in recent weeks of the need to rejuvenate the traditional forms of cricket. In the case of Test cricket, there have been suggestions of Test championships, night-time games with coloured balls, and reducing the number of days from five to four. In the one- day arena, there have been an even greater number of “innovative” ideas, such as split-innings of 25 overs each, reducing innings to 40 overs a side, more Powerplays, less Powerplays, and removal of bowling and fielding restrictions.
To get to the heart of the matter, the force behind this drive for change - as so often is the way - is money. Every sport needs to grow to survive. The ICC’s route to growth has been to significantly increase the overall number of international matches played, particularly in recent times with seven-match one day series becoming more common.
It is a continuation of a trend, however. In the last ten years there have been on average around 140 games of one-day cricket played per year, an almost 50% increase in matches per year when compared to the ten years from 1989-99. Unfortunately for the ICC, the size of the traditional supporter’s wallet has not grown at the same rate, and perhaps neither has their enthusiasm. Hence, to fill the stadium twice as often, and retain the same number of TV viewers per game, probably requires a market comprising twice as many cricket enthusiasts.
So, how to broaden the appeal of cricket? The rejuvenation suggestions mooted above have all been made in the name of increasing the interest of the game to the masses. The goal has been to try and introduce more excitement into what has always been a purist’s sport - one complete with its own set of complicated rules, statistics, and jargon.
Looking at other sporting codes, some have done it well, others not so well. Baseball is an example where teams can now play more than 160 games per year, any night of the week. Matches are typically played in packed stadiums even though games can be long, boring, the outcomes predictable, and with a number of dead rubbers.
Football is the same. In the UK, the big premiership clubs play 60-odd games per season, and every year the same teams inevitably dominate. Still each game is passionately supported by thousands of fans. A third example, rugby league, also prospered in Australia well beyond its original “working class” fan base.
The formats and rules for these sports have not changed significantly in recent history, yet the crowds still show up, every week. The three examples above all have one major thing in common: simplicity. You can explain the sport and its basic rules to someone who knows next to nothing about it in around 60 seconds.
Cricket is not simple - say the words “dead ball”, “reverse-sweep”, “LBW”, “silly mid-on” and “batting Powerplay” to the average American and their eyes glaze over. That’s before you tell them games can last five days and be declared a draw at the end.
In its present form rugby union is not simple either. Like cricket, it has been dogged by dwindling support in recent years. Both codes have made repeated attempts to improve their respective spectacles, and whenever this has resulted in increasing the complexity of the game, they have failed. An easy lesson for cricket’s administrators is therefore if you must do anything, then simpler is better.
Realistically, simplification of one-day cricket and “commercialising” Test cricket (a euphemism for day-night excursions) will not be enough to allow cricket to grow to meet the escalating financial demands of the game’s administrators. Stadiums need to be filled, and games that last a minimum of seven hours simply won’t cut it - even in the most simplified form imaginable.
This is where Twenty20 comes in. Twenty20 is the only true vehicle to grow the appeal of the game beyond the niche market that is one-day and Test cricket. Administrators have made no secret of their efforts to be “careful” to not saturate the market with Twenty20 matches. Too much Twenty20, they believe, will result in a failure to preserve the sanctity of the traditional forms of the game.
I would argue that limiting Twenty20 puts unsustainable pressure on the traditional formats to meet growth targets. The only option available is to tamper with the traditional form of the game, pushing it further away from its roots. How do you cater to the marked demand?
Increase the number of Twenty20 matches. This is the money spinner that will effectively fund Test and one-day cricket for the purists.
Play less “meaningless” one-day cricket, with shorter bilateral series and points systems that contribute to tournament seedings.
Continue to play Test cricket as it is today, but ensure a spread of games where the top teams don’t only play each other as often, and the likes of Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand play more games.
Done this way, the masses would get to see the games they are interested in, and the purists can still enjoy the traditional formats the way they are.
Now here is where the radical ideas begin. I would propose that the way to rejuvenate the game is to completely restructure it around Twenty20, where games are played once or twice a week (like football) for six months across a nine to ten-month season every year. This would allow for specific windows for Test and one-day cricket to then be created, and there would be additional rest periods for players as seasons overlap. Tests would count towards a Test championship, with a final to be played perhaps every 2-3 years, and one-day matches would all count towards seedings for World Cup and Champions Trophy style events that alternate every two years.
The club-based format, that has worked for most other sports, including football, rugby league, rugby union, baseball, NFL, AFL, ice hockey and basketball, would be the logical platform to do this. Additionally, a club-based format will enhance the relevance of international fixtures between countries, again in the same way as it does in football. The increased number of short Twenty20 games, coupled with a lower number of ODIs and shorter Test series spread across the year will relieve pressure on players complaining of burnout (though again, the baseballers playing 160 games a year don’t tend to complain about burnout, neither do the midfielders playing premiership football who run up to 15km per game, 60 times a year. But that’s an issue to be dealt with another time).
A model for the new system might look something like this:
Three Twenty20 premier leagues operate across different seasons around the world. These might be in India, Australia, and England (as examples)
Players play primarily for their Twenty20 club, and there are clubs from each of the eight major nations in every league. (For instance, New Zealand has a few teams in the Australian competition; Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have teams in the Indian competition; and the West Indies and South Africa teams in the English competition)
Each club has a number of feeder “first-class” teams who play local Twenty20, first-class and one-day cricket throughout the season in an attempt to earn a place in both the club’s premier Twenty20 team and their national one-day and Test team.
Matches will be scheduled such that the top players are not always playing Twenty20 and there is time for some domestic first-class cricket.
International windows lasting three to four weeks (enough time for two-three Tests and three ODIs), occur at four points in the year, perhaps December/January, March/April, July/August, and October/November - whatever suits the seasons of the most international teams best. In between, the club Twenty20 and feeder matches are played.
There would be no requirement for a player to represent a club from his country, in the same way Europeans and South Americans play in the English Football leagues. Granted, this is quite a radical idea, and it is hard to see the ICC agreeing to its format and implementation, let alone the cricket boards and players of each of the major nations. There would be multiple obstacles to work out, including how to share revenues, player allegiances, salary issues, club v country debates and all the other things that sports such as football deal with today. But in football there is evidence that the idea can work, and work well.
No comments:
Post a Comment