Cricket must offer the public a variety of styles so that fans have a choice. However, players should also have a say in what type of cricket offers the best entertainment.
England bowlers celebrate a New Zealand wicket on day two of the second Test at Trent Bridge recently. Photo/Getty Images
When Jonny Bairstow played a miraculous end to help England secure an emotional victory on the final day of the Second Test, it confirmed Ben Stokes’ previously expressed thoughts on the captaincy.
Stokes said England needed to be more attacking. It also proved that even if a technical failure under Joe Rootit was a positive team attitude that England lacked most.
It was a glimpse of what future players and fans might miss if ICC President Greg Barclay’s words turn out to be prophetic. In an interview earlier this month, Barclay reasoned; “There’s not much we can do”, when asked about the rapid expansion of T20 leagues around the world of cricket.
Longer formats may suffer
In laying out his theory, Barclay felt that it would be two-sided cricket that would suffer from the popularity of the T20. It is both an indifferent and financial vision more than a vision of balance; if T20 cricket thrives, then, according to the administrators, it is the longer forms of the game that must automatically suffer.
This overlooks the major problem with most cricket administrations. They largely pay lip service to the opinions of current and retired players. To evolve for a positive purpose, cricket administrations must be [but aren’t] in close collaboration with FICA, the international association of players.
Also read: ‘We have confidence in ourselves,’ says Madhya Pradesh coach Chandrakant Pandit ahead of Ranji’s final against Mumbai
Association of players required
For instance, Indiaby far the biggest cricketing nation, doesn’t even have a players’ association.
This major problem was highlighted when Australia captain Meg Lanning rebutted Barclay’s claim; “We want to be ambitious,” she said.
Cricket administrations are anything but ambitious; they slavishly follow the money trail and often avoid moves that might be made in the best interest of the game.
A long time ago, the administration should have organized an inclusive debate so that the game was properly planned for its future. The play of the game still depends on the current players and its fans, not the old variety. If the modern version of Test cricket involves fewer playing days and a more attacking approach to providing entertainment, then the old brigade shouldn’t be crying and whaling.
Cricket must offer the public a variety of styles so that fans have a choice. However, players should also have a say in which type of cricket provides the best entertainment, and then it’s up to the administrators to properly sell each product.
Top level cricket is a professional game, but it is still administered in a very amateurish manner. The foundation of cricket’s administration often rests on age-weary platforms. Gaming has long been a highly media-dependent reactive and instinctual product and fans generally receive the type of gameplay that people prefer.
This has led administrators to schedule more and more T20 cricket with the longer formats naturally in a hurry. All this despite the fact that many young cricketers publicly say that Test cricket is the pinnacle and some fans are spectacularly entertained by the acts of the more enterprising players.
Test and 50-over cricket are both very good games; entertaining if played well. However, rather than spending time with cricketers to figure out how best to showcase their products, administrators reacted with financial best interests in mind.
Consequently, there’s more T20 cricket, a greater emphasis on power, as well as a ridiculous combination of better bats with shorter boundaries. Often bowlers are an afterthought, practically left to “try to figure it out”.
More T20 cricket probably
If the likes of Barclay are successful then more T20 cricket will be scheduled. If that happens, it will ultimately mean that young players will be practically forced to choose a technique that provides for a lucrative T20 contract rather than aiming for a full and solid game.
If that happens, the great sadness will be that teams, both men and women, will miss the opportunity to experience the thrill of Test competition. Sadly, fans will also be deprived of watching a match, despite its trials and tribulations, acclaimed for over a century.
