It is the year 2015. The IPL is in it's 7th year running. Sachin Tendulkar still makes the odd guest appearance for the Mumbai franchise. He only bats left-handed because of a tennis elbow. MSD still trades for $2 million (give or take a few in terms of his depreciating value). Ishant Sharma switches sides so he can bowl to Ponting every game. A greying ShahRukh watches from the pavilion with a scintillating Deepika Padukone, who's rumoured to be dating a slimmer, sexier Ramesh Powar who's made a comeback to the IPL. Shoaib Akhtar runs in steaming from the pavilion end and gets hit for a six by Rohit Sharma. ShahRukh picks his phone and the newspaper headlines read the next day "Akhtar transferred to Mohali franchise overnight. Deal price is a record low of $1200. Rahul Dravid planning to resurrect career in T20 after retirement."
I'm not sure if this is your idea of the future of cricket. It certainly isn't mine. Having said that, the Indian Premier League is a major victory for what Lalit Modi likes to term "free market economics". We understand the term and we understand how it works when it comes to deciding insanely high prices, which are based on even crazier speculative bids, for cricketers who are supposed to be inhumanly talented. And in a fair sense, one would really have to be a socialist or communist to not appreciate all of this.
But, serious questions need to be asked if the mad moolah that dominated the recent IPL auctions will take away what matters most - the beauty and variety of the game. The IPL is about a fast, quickfire, TV friendly format of cricket - the T20. In other words, it is about marketing a game that's slam-bang in variety and caters to the low attention span cricket viewer. Assuming that the market does exist for this variety, what could be the long-term consequences of the league?
Classically, Test cricket is still hallowed territory for the game and this is where batsmen and bowlers have an even chance of being successful. In my books, I find it tough to compare a Test scenario involving Sachin Tendulkar grinding it out in the heat against a steaming Brett Lee on a seaming Perth wicket or a Anil Kumble weaving his spell on a 5th day turning pitch Vs. a T20 scenario of MSD or Symonds hitting poor Piyush Chawla for sixes on a flat pitch. Yes, cricket needs the thrill and excitement but an even contest over 5 days on a sporting wicket is the true test of a cricketer's character. A free market economist would say "Let Test Cricket die a natural death". I'd probably say cricket will die in the process.
What does IPL mean for the smaller cricketing nations? A lot of players from smaller nations go to build up numbers and make quick cash in these leagues. Nations like Sri Lanka and New Zealand already have a very small player base to choose from. In other words, the national teams sometimes lose out on availability of players. Bottom line : The IPL needs to be sanctioned and controlled by cricket's governing body like a dog on a leash.
Does the IPL bode well for younger players? Yes and No. The IPL is a tremendous opportunity for under-21s to play with some of the best in a world. But one could also argue that the slog variety of the game is not apt for development of technique. One may get to see a lot of Dhonis enter the world stage, but not everyone may survive without adequate first class experience. The IPL is not a panacea for world cricket. On the contrary, it needs to be viewed as a sideshow that makes a lot of money.
What about corruption? Match fixing? No one's talking about it with all the money involved, just yet. Stringent rules being enforced and constant monitoring of inter franchise transfers is necessary.
I'm not sure if this is your idea of the future of cricket. It certainly isn't mine. Having said that, the Indian Premier League is a major victory for what Lalit Modi likes to term "free market economics". We understand the term and we understand how it works when it comes to deciding insanely high prices, which are based on even crazier speculative bids, for cricketers who are supposed to be inhumanly talented. And in a fair sense, one would really have to be a socialist or communist to not appreciate all of this.
But, serious questions need to be asked if the mad moolah that dominated the recent IPL auctions will take away what matters most - the beauty and variety of the game. The IPL is about a fast, quickfire, TV friendly format of cricket - the T20. In other words, it is about marketing a game that's slam-bang in variety and caters to the low attention span cricket viewer. Assuming that the market does exist for this variety, what could be the long-term consequences of the league?
Classically, Test cricket is still hallowed territory for the game and this is where batsmen and bowlers have an even chance of being successful. In my books, I find it tough to compare a Test scenario involving Sachin Tendulkar grinding it out in the heat against a steaming Brett Lee on a seaming Perth wicket or a Anil Kumble weaving his spell on a 5th day turning pitch Vs. a T20 scenario of MSD or Symonds hitting poor Piyush Chawla for sixes on a flat pitch. Yes, cricket needs the thrill and excitement but an even contest over 5 days on a sporting wicket is the true test of a cricketer's character. A free market economist would say "Let Test Cricket die a natural death". I'd probably say cricket will die in the process.
What does IPL mean for the smaller cricketing nations? A lot of players from smaller nations go to build up numbers and make quick cash in these leagues. Nations like Sri Lanka and New Zealand already have a very small player base to choose from. In other words, the national teams sometimes lose out on availability of players. Bottom line : The IPL needs to be sanctioned and controlled by cricket's governing body like a dog on a leash.
Does the IPL bode well for younger players? Yes and No. The IPL is a tremendous opportunity for under-21s to play with some of the best in a world. But one could also argue that the slog variety of the game is not apt for development of technique. One may get to see a lot of Dhonis enter the world stage, but not everyone may survive without adequate first class experience. The IPL is not a panacea for world cricket. On the contrary, it needs to be viewed as a sideshow that makes a lot of money.
What about corruption? Match fixing? No one's talking about it with all the money involved, just yet. Stringent rules being enforced and constant monitoring of inter franchise transfers is necessary.
How do the younger players handle money? Will cricket's rules change to accomodate more batting favourable rules (free hits, powerplay modifications) ? Will the T20 format encourage development of bowlers?
Many more factors come to mind before one could blow the trumpet on the IPL's tremendous kickoff. The money is good. The brand is good. Free market is good. But is it all good for cricket?
Time will tell.
I can almost imagine MSD getting introduced to his to-be in-laws by his girlfriend who says :
"Honey, whaddaya do for money? "
To which, MSD scratches his head and replies :
"It was Chennai till Thursday, yesterday I think I got transferred to Mumbai....Or was it Kolkata?"
Now that's insane.
Time will tell.
I can almost imagine MSD getting introduced to his to-be in-laws by his girlfriend who says :
"Honey, whaddaya do for money? "
To which, MSD scratches his head and replies :
"It was Chennai till Thursday, yesterday I think I got transferred to Mumbai....Or was it Kolkata?"
Now that's insane.
5 comments:
Spectator sport exists to entertain people. It does not exist for its own sake. So, if IPL entertains people more than Test Cricket, then it is obvious that IPL will survive and Test Cricket will die. This is not a bad thing because if it was not entertaining people, Test Cricket was not serving any purpose.
So, if IPL entertains people more than Test Cricket, then it is obvious that IPL will survive and Test Cricket will die
Not necessarily. Am sure both formats could exist side by side with their respective markets. My point was about Test cricket being a better developer of cricketing skills than the shorter format. Hence the necessity to avoid overdose of the T20 format.
This is not a bad thing because if it was not entertaining people, Test Cricket was not serving any purpose.
Test cricket just happens to entertain fewer people these days due to diminishing attention spans and less patience. That in itself is not a necessary and sufficient condition for Test cricket to be let go.
Yeah, I took my first argument to the extreme. I agree that Test Cricket will continue to command a market share proportional to its popularity vis-a-vis other formats.
In my second argument, I put emphasis on "if Test Cricket was not entertaining people" then it was not serving any purpose. But, yes, if it entertains people, fewer as they might be, its popularity will be proportional to that.
I don't agree to the idea that Test Cricket is a better developer of cricketing skills than T20. "Cricketing skills" are not a pre-defined set of skills. They are a set of skills required to play a game called cricket. That set changes as the format of the game changes. So, one requires different set of cricketing skills in Tests, ODIs, and T20s. None of the sets is superior than the other.
But, more important, cricket as a spectator sport does not exist for its own sake. Your argument about Test Cricket being a better developer of cricketing skills than T20 tends to assume that development of cricketing skills is an end in itself.
I don't agree to the idea that Test Cricket is a better developer of cricketing skills than T20. "Cricketing skills" are not a pre-defined set of skills. They are a set of skills required to play a game called cricket.
My contention here is that as the game period gets shorter (Test-->ODI-->T20) the subset of skills required gets smaller. The longer the game, the more the skill involved and the consequent challenge involved develops a "better" cricketer. That is, of course, not to say. In that sense, Test Cricket being preserved is directly linked to the game itself and not just cricketing skill as an end.
So, one requires different set of cricketing skills in Tests, ODIs, and T20s. None of the sets is superior than the other.
that is a rather simplistic distinction which on the face of it is an unbiased opinion. Having said that, we may need to analyze how many good Test cricketers adapt to T20 and the relative proportion of how many good T20 players will eventually make it to Test Cricket.
Your argument about Test Cricket being a better developer of cricketing skills than T20 tends to assume that development of cricketing skills is an end in itself.
You could take the argument one step further and say that cricketing skills being maintained at the standard they are in - cricket itself as a game will flourish. And given the period(5 days) over which Test cricket is played, it allow ample time for a player's natural technique and variety to express itself. T20 on the other hand does not allow this expression. Taking all these factors into account, one could argue that the variety and beauty of cricket rests on natural expression of cricketing skills -which develop "better" in the Test format.
Am not able to convey well my argument, through this channel. Would love to talk about it in person :) So, until we meet ;)
Post a Comment