Sports

Toss That Pink Ball

The future game will demand change. The ICC better hang on.

Advertisement

Toss That Pink Ball
info_icon

What would cricket be like 80 years from now? Now that’s a tough one. Perhaps, the US and China would become the two superpowers of international cricket. With the ODI already on its way out, T20 leagues would rule the roost. HawkEye and its fancy cousins might claim superiority over umpires, while fielders (and spectators) would be asked to dress up in rugby-styled protective gear. Of course, all that’s hypothetical, but things are only impossible until they are not.

To answer that question though, seriously, I think it’s best we rewind and look at how this sport was 80-odd years ago. The year was 1932, that fateful year when cricket, for the first time, lost the tag of ‘gentleman’s game’ and changed forever. In 1930, Douglas Jardine had found a rare chink in Sir Don Bradman’s armoury, which was his discomfort against the short-pitched ball right into his ribcage. When Jardine was appointed captain of the English team for the return leg of the Ashes in Australia in 1932, he planned something sinister to counter Bradman’s genius, but well within the rules. He devised a strategy to bowl short and fast into the body of the batsmen with a ring of catching fielders on the on-side. Since there wasn’t any restriction on the number of fielders one could deploy behind the square-leg umpire, the theory worked well in practice and produced the desired results. Lack of sufficient protective gear compounded the batsman’s woes, for there was very little he could do against a barrage of bouncers aimed at his body. The series was called ‘Bodyline’ and brought relations between the two countries to the brink. While corrective measures were taken in the following years, this marked the beginning of a new era.

Advertisement

There was something else, equally significant, that happened in 1932—India played its first-ever Test match. We may have lost that match to England at Lord’s but successfully embarked on a journey that changed the way sport was played not only in India but also in the world. C.K. Nayudu happened to be the first of many fine batsmen India produced, including the world’s best, Gavaskar and Tendulkar, in the next 80 years.

The game of cricket has advanced and altered enormously in the last 80 years. From a game played between ‘poorer professionals’ and ‘richer amateurs’ in which the latter always enjoyed a more venerated position (owing much to their status in society), it has become a thoroughly professional game. The fabric has changed so much that professionalism is considered mandatory, while an amateurish attitude finds no takers. The flipside of this change is that it has sucked out player loyalties based on a pure love for the game, replacing it with crass commercialism. Today, games are moulded, formats are formed to interest sponsors and rake up TV viewership. Yes, it has meant more money being pumped into the game, players becoming richer and the sport becoming more popular, but it’s come with a price. (Media tycoon Kerry Packer envisaged this change way back in the 1970s, showing the world the power the game could wield and the money it could yield.)

Advertisement

In 2012, we stand at the cusp of a new era in cricket. While the ICC is trying hard with its innumerable changes to hold onto its cash cow (read ODIs), by not acknowledging the real bane of one-dayers, the format is being pushed to the point of no return. Instead of realising that meaningless bilateral matches are the real threat to international cricket, the ICC is focusing on peripherals, like the number of players inside the circle in the non-powerplay overs. When they should be thinking on the dwindling numbers in the stadiums, they are focusing on the numbers generated by selling broadcasting rights.

With the growing number of T20 leagues in the world, the change has already begun. The funny thing about change is that it’s quite possible to not acknowledge it until it’s too late. By not acknowledging the effect of T20 cricket on international cricket, especially the ODI, the ICC is being as blind as a bat.

Not surprisingly, I see domestic T20 leagues across the world conveniently overtaking the 50-overs format in the near future. It may not be the best thing to happen to the game but that change seems inevitable. By not becoming a participant in the leagues around the world, the ICC is likely to find itself in a corner where they may still own their favourite format but with no takers.

Advertisement

Currently, it’s the absence of Indian cricketers that makes the other leagues less viable (India is a big chunk of the viewing audience) but for how long will the BCCI be able to control its assets? The day a player of Tendulkar or Dhoni’s stature expresses interest in participating in other leagues (likely to happen only after their international career is over), the floodgates will open. It may not happen in the next 10 or even 20 years, but it’s rather naive to believe that the status quo will stand even in 2092. I dare say, I sincerely fear for the future of ODI cricket unless the ICC, once again, makes it a premium product that isn’t available 24x7, 365 days in a year.

Advertisement

Test cricket is also likely to experience a makeover. Day-night Test matches is the way forward, for what’s the fun in playing a sport sans an audience? By capturing the prime-time slot on TV, Test cricket is likely to revive the good old charm of watching the act unfold over a few days. The excess of T20 cricket is likely to benefit the popularity of Test cricket, just as an appetiser is likely to make the real meal more enjoyable. Since T20 cricket is one-dimensional, people who like watching the game of cricket will crave for finer battles, offered only by Test match cricket.

Advertisement

Another change that I foresee in the next 80 years is that we may go back to where we were 80 years ago when India played its first Test match, which was a three-day affair. We may find a couple of hours added to each day’s play and pruning down of the Test match by a day or two. While we are almost cynical and at times even quite closed to most changes, I’m quite open to these if they make the longer format even more enjoyable to watch.

On a lighter note, if the US and China do actually become Test champions in 2092, perhaps India too will have a Wimbledon singles champion, a football World Cup trophy and many Olympics individual golds too. Now, is that wishful thinking?

The author is a former Test cricketer

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement