Bahrain
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Print
Email
Discuss this article (0 Comments)The future of cricket
by This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it on Monday, 09 June 2008
Listening on the steps of the pavilion at Lords, the home of world cricket in London, you will hear an increasingly loud murmur of discontent interrupting the snoring of members who have enjoyed a good lunch.
The dusty old Lords brigade cling to their tradition as ruthlessly as they cling to the privileges and protections of their membership.
They tutted when the five-day format of test cricket was challenged by the limited over game; frowned when floodlights, white balls and colourful uniforms enabled day-night games; and positively grimaced at the three-hour, baseball-like pace of the twenty-20 game. (None of their reactions required flexing of any muscles below the neck).
They have failed to recognise that every new development in cricket has made the game more popular, more widely played, and more commercially successful.
Rather than applaud these moves, the old school tie brigade appear to hanker for the days when turgid test match cricket was played in half empty grounds that were rapidly going bankrupt.
I adore test match cricket: a five-day examination that tests teamwork, physical ability, robust technique and strength of mind like no other form of the game. But all other faster forms have their own appeal, and I firmly stand in the camp that welcomes progress.
Traditionalists assert that shortened forms of cricket do not prepare players for the rigours of test matches. I take a controversial line on this. Why should limited overs cricketers be good at test cricket? We don’t expect 100 metre sprinters to be experts at the marathon.
The current structure of cricket encourages one team to play all forms of the game. There are a few specialists, but essentially the same batsmen and bowlers will be asked to master both limited over and 4/5 day versions of the game.
Why?
If there is sufficient money – and there surely is now that the IPL and Champions League have been born – why not have two types of players for the long and short versions of the game.
Both could play for the same club in the same way that athletic clubs develop specialists in every sport.
A fringe benefit of this would be that it would relieve fixture congestion. You could hold an entire Twenty-20 tournament in the time it takes for a test match.
Test match cricket would probably have to survive without the big-hitting stars like England’s Kevin Pieterson and India’s Mahendra Dhoni. That might require evolution, for example shortening the game to four days so that it maintains crowd interest.
The game cannot resist the power of Asian money, and must learn to move with the new times. Hosting the Twenty-20 Champions League in the UAE would be a shrewd move. The country can be relied on to put on a great event, and it would provide a useful neutral ground for the inaugural tournament.
Cricket has dragged itself into the 21st century, and the UAE will provide a contemporary setting in which to enjoy its newest big money event.
READERS' COMMENTS
Disclaimer: The views expressed here by our readers are not necessarily shared by ArabianBusiness.com or its employees.
Mobile
