The Great Irony of the T20 Revolution
July 21st, 2008 by Michael Jeh in Indian Premier League, Twenty20Let’s open the batting with some real intent then. Fearless or foolish – let’s take the bowling by the scruff of the neck and make our intentions clear. What do we think T20 cricket will do for the game in the long run? Is this cricket’s ultimate revenge, slaves selling off their masters?
I’ve got to admit that I’m nervous. I’m not sure if that nervousness stems from excitement or fear. There’s a part of me that loves what T20 is doing for the athletic spectacle that cricket has now become, putting cricketers on notice that they are now supreme athletes on par with global performers in other sports. It is now entertainment, barely disguised as a game of ancient tradition and rituals.
This is also what scares me. Are we about to hand feed a beast that will one day feed on itself? Will T20 cannibalise itself to the extent where the origins of its ancestry will be barely recognisable in twenty years time?
In many ways, the emergence of T20 is both poacher and gamekeeper. It has not only revolutionised Indian cricket but it has swept like a tsunami through the other major cricketing nations, bringing with it a tidal wave of rupees and new traditions. Left largely in India and managed carefully, it will probably safeguard cricket’s integrity over the longer versions of the game.
But money, large sums of money, has the power to break down barriers for good and bad. India is the new Mecca for international cricketers, shedding old prejudices, embracing new cultures and prepared to trade in representative caps for pots of gold.
What will happen to cricket’s future if the ultimate honour of representing your country is diluted? Test cricket and World Cups still feature in boyhood dreams. Will that soon be replaced by dreams about shorter careers and multi-national franchises with international team-mates? Already we’ve seen a hint of the future with Dhoni’s decision to not tour with the Indian team and the Sri Lankans refusing to tour England because it clashed with IPL. Hayden managed to play IPL cricket but was then too sore to play in the coveted Frank Worrell Trophy – who would have thought that possible 10 years ago when he worked so hard to nail down a spot in the Australian team?
With other countries now talking of their own rich T20 events, it seems that money alone is the prime motivating factor. Ignore the rubbish about “this is a great challenge” and “I really want to test myself against the best” – how many of these players would honestly sacrifice a Test series for T20 if big money was not on offer? Players who used to talk of the ‘burn-out’ factor and complained about too much cricket are now the first ones to sign lucrative T20 deals and beg for ‘windows’ in the cricket calendar so they can squeeze in another trip to the bank. The only burn-outs now are the wheels on the tarmac as they jet off for another game, mate against mate.
I’m not saying that T20 is necessarily bad for the game. Millions of new fans can’t be wrong. IPL has shown us the blueprint for high-quality entertainment that doesn’t compromise integrity. Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket started the ball rolling when they tried to empower cricketers but it’s taken all of 30 years before the wicked humour of irony bites cricket administrators where it hurts most. Finally, the cricketers are deciding which master they serve and in which country they will ply their thrilling trade. Perhaps, even more ironically, even the skin colour of the slave/master relationship is being reversed to some degree.
What will that do for the future of global cricket?
July 25th, 2008
We need to give maximum support
July 25th, 2008
Hmm - I think the skin color comment regarding ’slave-master’ relationship might be a bit distasteful and a bit out of touch here - but, moving on, I don’t think it is correct to somehow suggest that cricketers wanting to earn money for themselves is a bad thing.
Think how hard, how competitive it is to become a top class player. Think of how many players don’t make it, for one reason or the other. Having ability is not enough, they need opportunity, and luck.
So, when a player gets to the level where they can become a top class cricketer, do you think it’s fair to deny them the opportunity to earn the maximum they can for themselves?
In any case, the players that earned the most in the IPL were mostly those who had built up reputations in the international game, so the incentive to perform well internationally is still there.
The free market reflects what people want, if they want more T20, give it to them. So we’re in a good place. I suspect that a balance will be found between T20 and the traditional cricket calendar, too much of one and the spectators will stop coming.
September 27th, 2008
The huge influx of money into the game can only be a good thing, or is it ? Look at whats happened to the English Football Premier League, to much money in the hands of too few!