|
ICC should learn short game lessons
It
is hoped the International Cricket Council has learned some lessons
from the proliferation of 50-over games before the cricket world
is saturated with its latest limited-over reincarnation, Twenty20.
Judging by the success of the inaugural world tournament in South
Africa, which has many of the things the 2007 World Cup in the Caribbean
did not, it is full steam ahead for the shortened version.
It has many things going for it for the general public – all
over in three hours, plenty of big boundary hitting and it broadens
the game’s appeal to a bigger base.
But the ICC need to be mindful of not killing the goose that lays
the golden egg after the 50-over game spawned countless mind-numbing
tournaments, usually among the teams from the sub-continent, that
had little going for them apart from the opportunity for Indian
bookmakers to fix matches.
That could arise again with Twenty20 with its even more hit and
miss nature – who would know if a player is trying to get out
for a low score?
The ICC should ensure the tournaments it runs are meaningful.
Countries should play fewer 50-over fixtures, which are losing their
appeal, perhaps just three-game series instead of six or seven,
with a three-match Twenty20 series.
A balance between the half-day game and day-long contest seems sensible
as the ICC comes to terms with the almost instant explosion of Twenty20.
The chance is there, though, to pare back 50-over events without
threatening the players’ livelihoods, for they would earn similar
match fees.
The worry is the ICC is already promulgating a league series which
does not directly involve countries but a mish-mash of players from
different countries in various teams.
That is just shamelessly seeking to cash in on the sport’s
quick fire success, admittedly under pressure from the emerging
rebel Indian Cricket League (ICL) set-up, without thinking the issue
through. Often less is more but there is the need to take the new
game around the world.
Instead of a “club”-style leagues concept why not promote
a Continental Championship which features teams from Oceania, Asia
(2), Europe, Americas and Africa.
There should be a maximum of players from one country, say eight,
thus several players from other regions in the continent must be
included. Asia would be allowed two teams because it has four test-playing
nations and that would appease the television giants of the subcontinent.
Perhaps Pakistan could team with near neighbour Bangladesh while
India link with Sri Lanka. West Indies would dominate the Americas
with a Canadian influence while England would make up the bulk of
a European team complemented by players from Ireland, Scotland and
the Netherlands. South Africa would be backed by Zimbabwe and Kenya.
A tournament could be played in each of the six regions with a round-robin
and then semis and a final. Points would be carried through like
sevens rugby to find a champion.
Already there are Africa and Asian confederations operating –
why not formalise the whole thing? [The Press]
|
