Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

Better to Fall Divided than to Stand United

by Mahek

At least that's the way cricket is run in the 21st century. In an age where American politicians are calling for a more sensible method of determining the national champions (It can be argued that they have bigger issues to worry about) the cricketing world is determined to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. From 2012 we will get to see a lot more of the top sides playing each other while the rest have to make-do with scrapping among each other. It's not too different from the two-tier system a lot of experts have proposed, but since boards can't afford to antagonise each other without losing votes at the ICC table they've decided to do what was the norm until the 90s. FICA has had a role to play in these matters too - Tim May and his lawyers can't stop talking about how hectic the international schedule is but they have no problem with their clients lending their services to multiple Twenty20 teams.

One might argue that test cricket at its best is a contest between two even teams, but the definition of even has blurred over the years. It seems the parity is decided on balance sheets and not on the cricket field. And since the ICC is as powerless as the United Nations, it can do nothing to bring some sanity to the sport. Can you imagine the English FA ratifying a Premiership schedule in which Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United play each other four times a season and every other club just once? Of course not, but India can play Pakistan four years in a row and not play New Zealand even once during that period. The same can be said about Australia, England and South Africa playing each other more often than they play Sri Lanka, Pakistan, New Zealand and West Indies. Can you imagine Cristiano Ronaldo play for Sporting Lisbon, Manchester United and Real Madrid? And yet, players like Herschelle Gibbs, Farvez Maharoof, Andrew McDonald were eligible to play for more than one team in the Champions League.

I proposed a Future Tours Programme at BCC! about a month ago. While I don't consider it to be perfect by any stretch of imagination, I certainly believe it is the template to a systematic and balanced cricketing schedule. Here's why:

1.The best teams play each other often enough over a reasonable period of time (Twice in four years is good enough, as such the Ashes and most other marquee series have a four-year cycle.).

2.For the most part, each country plays at home during its cricketing season. South Africa tour Australia during their season but they're doing it even now in return for monetary compensation from Cricket Australia.

3.Cricketers need not worry about choosing between club and country as there are separate windows for the Indian Premier League and the Champions League, and they only need to be available for three-fourths of their international commitments. This should go a long way in minimising player burnout.

I'd love to have the bored brains here pick holes in this arrangement and help fine-tune it, and if someone has connections in the ICC they can do the right thing and arrange for a meeting between me and Mr. Lorgat.

7 comments:

Dileep said...

You think the ICC and Haroon Lorgat don't want things to be different? You overestimate how much power the ICC has. I spoke to Lorgat at length during the Champions Trophy, and he's as keen as anyone to have a more equitable schedule. But what can he do to implement that? The boards, especially the cash-rich ones, do as they please.
Your FTP is good in theory, but hopeless in practice. As is the idea that the BCCI or CA would ever share profits or put something into a common pool.

Mahek said...

I'm very well aware of the ICC's limitations, but it's these limitations that need to be eradicated. Haroon Lorgat is only a product of the system. A few years from now there will be someone else incharge and if he's from one of the Big Boys I'd like him to see the bigger picture.

There is no reason for India, Australia and England to be averse to a revenue-sharing model. The problem is everyone is intent on getting a bigger share of the pie when what they should be doing is increase the size of the pie itself. With a more organised schedule you have a lot more leverage when it comes to negotiating TV deals because the schedule is set in stone. You can also plan marketing campaigns to maximise ticket sales and sponsorships well in advance.

It isn't a coincidence that the best leagues and sporting bodies in the world follow this model.

straight point said...

the two tier system is already in place without naming it and rightly so...

let nz, srilanka, west indies or even pakistan win test series against 'top' teams more regularly irrespective of away or home and you will see 'money' flowing in there too to be equated with so called top teams...

Mahek said...

SP

And how are they supposed to win when they're already hampered by lack of exposure to test cricket? Sri Lanka are doing well enough, it's not like teams are queuing up to play them. We can't stop complaining about how the Aussies hardly ever played us and even when they did they didn't send their best team and now we're treating other teams with the same condescension. If anything, India should take the lead in ensuring this doesn't happen. Instead, we're just joining Australia and England in doing what they've done for decades.

straight point said...

india is not joining oz and eng mahek... india is leading...

its other boards who wants to play us to fill their coffers not other way around...

and why the onus is always on us... let (allegedly) best and systematically managed boards with powerful domestic structures take the lead... :)

as for not winning... pakistan will be playing oz away and 'home' and if they win... will spur the interests of moneylenders in them... ditto for sri lanka and nz... to make start somewhere they will have to seize in the limited opportunity they receive... rest will follow... be assured of it... is all i wanted to say...

Mahek said...

I don't see why the onus shouldn't be on us. We're in a position to lead the cricketing world and we can either repeat the mistakes made in the past or focus on growing the sport, which will only benefit us.

There's this new movie that came out last night. It's called Invictus. Give it a shot.

straight point said...

mahek you can not be serious...

while preparing FTP i thot you would have given due deliberation to past and future tours...

india has played srilanka twice in two years... would have played pakistan but for the terrorist attacks but still we are the most frequent visitors to their place... india will be playing nz at home after visiting them at their home... have played south africa home and away and ditto with england as well as australia...

everybody wants to play with us...

yaar we have only just one test team and we cannot be at two places at same time...

so i am sorry mate i can not bite this 'onus on us' pill... :)