Sportolysis – The World Sports Blog

A few months ago, Jagmohan Dalmiya made the point on Sportcentre India that this form of cricket is not in the agenda of India for the near future. The Reason? As its 40 percent of a limited overs match (in terms of overs and time involved), it results in 40 percent of income.

Tim de Lisle points out in cricinfo why a Twenty20 World Cup is the logical step forward:

It is the first professional cricket format to fit into the lives of people who have a job or a school to go to. A typical game starts at 5.30pm and is over by 8pm. For the first time, you can see a whole match without a meal break. Ergo, it attracts people who wouldn’t normally have the time.

Perfect for nations where cricket is merely a sport. In the subcontinent, however, cricket is more than just sport. So matches will be played to packed houses, revenues will come in despite the period of the match. Interest will not recede. In simple economic terms, the demand is inelastic.

The people who head the BCCI have changed. But the stance remains the same in this regard. Sharad Pawar has said:

The working committee of the board unanimously decided not to participate in that for a lot of reasons. The BCCI decided that it was not in the interest of the game.

Limited overs cricket is the duck which lays the golden eggs. No one wants to tamper with it. Virtually every one has at least heard of cricket in the subcontinent and who ever can be drawn to it has been sucked in. A pro-Twenty20 attitude can, however, lead to audiences in the subcontinent finally realizing that the limited overs game is mundane and repetitive. Add to it the attraction a new product, in this case, ‘the Twenty20 game’ will have and lead to a lot of attention, there is a real chance of a portion of the audience shifting allegiance.

There is genuine fear among the brasses which rule cricket in the subcontinent. Twenty20 cricket was marketed and shown with international standard broadcasting last year in Pakistan. Like in England, it drew record domestic crowds. Matches were played to packed houses. This year, Pakistan has continued with the successful experiment domestically. However, PCB Chairman Shahryar Khan has opposed Twenty20 for international cricket. Even The Bangladesh Cricket Board is expected to take the same stance. As India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are likely to bid jointly for the 2011 World Cup, their official view on this matter is unlikely to be different.

Different markets have different interests. We have to understand and then ask the real question though – Is the interest of cricket being affected in all this? Is the game of cricket really so weak that a new version will hamper future sources of income? Test cricket has survived nearly 130 years. If limited overs cricket is good enough in itself, it will hold its own. If it is not, it would have served its purpose. Open economies should prevail and Twenty20 should be allowed free existence and chance to capture whatever market it can. Sadly, the power games will not recede any time in the future and cricket will continue to suffer.

I will not elaborate further on the joke that has been the super sub. I wrote on it when it first surfaced which can be viewed here.

I am just glad that it is going according to reports. A Twenty20 world championship? Bring it on!

A very interesting discussion is taking place at Wicket to Wicket on racism.

Sport is about trying your best to succeed. If you do not, never mind. At least you tried your best. Applaud your opponent and try harder next time, learning from the experiences of the previous battle.

The sportsmen in the modern era forget this and try to win at all costs. The common excuse given is – sport has become more competitive, there is so much of money involved. Joey Cheek, an American speed skating champion who won gold in the 500 metre race at the Torino Olympics yesterday, donated the $25,000 he won for the refugees in Chad. Sadly, such attitudes are more exception than norm.

While sport simply meant a battle of skills earlier, it means much more today. The media attention, spectator interest, money, external pressures are all there. Players expect more. Spectators too want more in every regard. Expectations aren’t always fulfilled. As a natural consequence, anger results. Anger in displayed in various ways by various people.

I was at the Eden Gardens when the semi-final between India and Sri Lanka was abandoned. Some people threw bottles and oranges. Others hurled abuses at Azhar. Abuses were also hurled at Sangita Bijlani, the actress Azhar would marry after divorcing his wife. India had lost and Azhar was the main culprit as far as the emotionally charged crowd was concerned. In such a passionate state of mind, some people felt the above actions were excusable. Others felt bringing in their racial slurs were excusable as well.

Society has a lot of evils. As cricket grows, it is harder to resist such evils. Jagmohan Dalmiya wanted to globalize cricket which is good for the game. But a level of maturity is needed to deal with the evils which globalisation tends to bring with it. Without maturity, the evils take over and the significance of sport is lost. In the recent past the cricket world has dealt with quite a few issues with immaturity – The Zimbabwe issue, the ambush marketing issue.

I hope some maturity is shown to rid the game of racism or at least shrink it to its minimum.

I had brought this up in this post a few days into the 1st test. Rudi Koertzen agrees to an extent. He says:

There is nothing wrong if the ICC considers a change in laws that allows such Test matches to be called off at tea with the consent of both captains when a last-day result is not possible.

I wrote regarding it when it first surfaced. A lot of reactions have come up in the cricketing world regarding the same. Kamran Abbasi has written an authorative article on the subject.

I particularly like parts of the last two paragraphs:

Leadership, though, carries responsibility and requires values. India’s unilateral declarations of the past month – and importantly outside the sphere of the ICC – are an irresponsible beginning. Derogatory remarks about other countries, such as those about Bangladesh, expose a shortage of values other than pursuit of profit.. ..But the test of leadership really begins here. Unless cricket’s Age of India allows the minnows and the big beasts to thrive together – and works in partnership with those outside India and Asia – this month’s milestone may become difficult to celebrate. Cricket’s Age of Empire, ruled by Australia and England and governed by the clubs of Marylebone and Melbourne and the Imperial Cricket Conference, once seemed immortal too. It is now dead.

So the selection committee for Asia for the Asia vs South Africa.. ooooooooops Asia vs Africa contains one member from each of the 4 Asian test nations who is not a national selector as specified by the ICC.

Harmless clause if you look at it at first glance. But then why were the selectors from the current national selectors for the Tsunami Asia vs Rest of the World match? Why the difference?

ICC is on a mission to wield more power than ever on member nations. So ICC will decide that it should not be one of the national selectors. It should be some one else who is not best for the task in their own nation currently but should pick the team for Asia. ICC stop all this non sense.

All I can say is thank God series like the Ashes are still existent.