Does India need International Cricket?
I say that the costs outweigh the benefits and that channeling our attention and energies towards domestic cricket will do India a world of good.
Ideally, I would like the Indian domestic scene to be structured like the NFL. And like the NFL, the game will be played on our terms, devoid of any outside interference, including the ICC.
As the two editions of the IPL showed, the BCCI has the capacity to organize and to market the game like no one else does.
And given the narrative of the Ranji Trophy over the last 4 seasons, there is a ready product available for the BCCI to exploit if they can only get themselves interested.
No more having to kow tow to all and sundry within the ICC, no more being held hostage to the whims and fancies or Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia or anyone else who wants to take a pot shot at us for the heck of it, no more of having to comply with rules and officials despite our reservations.
No more trying to shore up the ICC by contributing up to 70% of its monies while having to incur all the opprobrium for its inadequacies.
We have the talent, and the visible talent is but the tip of the iceberg. We have the fan base, we have the infrastructure. More can be done and should be done, but on our terms alone.
Our game, our terms, our way.That's all.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The case for isolation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Every now and then there used to be people calling for a summer in Australia without a touring international team - the Sheffield Shield would be the main attraction of the season. Then a couple of years ago, we had a summer start with about two months of domestic cricket, and most people hated it.
I can see glitzy T20 tournaments working domestically, but surely the 'India' brand brings in many many more eyeballs to Test matches than Ranji Trophy games would bring to first-class matches.
Even IPL won't work without international cricketers. We had Ranji Semis and finals with Indian stars participating. How many came to watch those matches? None at all.
It is true that even Indian cricket won't survive without international cricket. And international cricket certainly won't survive without India cricket.
So we both need each other. And trying to understand each others POV will only help.
What is your context though?
I would stick my net and insist India does need international cricket. As the novelty factor wears thin, I'm afraid a law of diminishing return would soon hit IPL. Ranji trophy is in tatters, Duleep or Irani Trophy simply go unnoticed and it's simply a mistake to call IPL domestic tournament. I doubt how many people would watch IPL if you take away the foreign players.
Simultaneously, that would mean no Australia, no South Africa, no England or Pakistan in India. Cricket would be rather dull, substandard and boring.
Are u serious?
For one international cricket will be poorer without team India.
On the flip side, Indian cricket will be poorer without international cricket.
A UP vs Railway match will not have the same level of passion or intensity as a match between India and Australia or India and Pakistan..
Without the same level of competition, India will not produce the world-class players that it does.. India today boasts of some of the best cricketers in the business and that is so cos of the competition they come up against and the motivation.. all that won't be there without international cricket...
Sachin, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni are household names cos of their exploits in int'l cricket.. not cos of what they did on the domestic scene..
Sure the IPL was a grand success and it showed what India is capable of and the huge amounts of talent India has BUT the IPL still needs the int'l cricketers to remain an attractive proposition.. if India isolates itself from int'l crkt, why would int'l cricketers continue to play in the IPL?
This is just the tip of the iceberg for the case against isolation.
Are you Seriously serious? or out of your mind?? or just pulling our legs???
Q has said most of what I want to say but i would like to add that the Indian domestic circuit is no where near professional level as that of the Australians and the English.
Just look at the Aussie circuit. They produce well tried and tested talent as North, Symonds and Hussey while what do we produce??
SO International is a must.
David,
Given that Test Cricket is "dying" in India because of poor attendance, it will not be such a bad idea to use T20 as a means to sprad cricket amongst the masses.
Also, if positioned and marketed properly, the Ranji Trophy has a lot of good going for it.
Cheers,
Homer,
BCCI is the richest cricket organization of the all,this cannot be a reason that they should get partitioned from world cricket.When young cricketers of India will see different type of cricketers playing on their own ground then only they will learn the right cricket.Cricket is just not all about money it's about behaving cricket and living cricket.
Chandan,
Fair point. Butt remember that domestic cricket was positioned under the shadow of international cricket, not as an entity in its own right.
As regards the survival of cricket in India, I think its an exaggerated threat. Indians need their cricket fix, why else do we have the English and Australian domestic seasons beamed into our living rooms?
And if half the effort is put into the IPL is channeled into domestic cricket, and the international option is no longer an option, dont you think the crowds will come?
Cheers,
Som,
Cricket is dull, sub standard and boring - and this is international cricket that we are talking about.
The domestic scene in India is an afterthought for the BCCI.
As regards the IPL, it is the contest that makes the stars, not the stars who make the contest. And as the emergence of Manish Pandey, Shadab Jakati and Virat Kohli shows, give the players a platform and they will perform.
So why not domestic cricket?
Cheers,
Q,
Between 1993 and 2002, England did not visit India once. Between 1986 and 1996, Australia visited India exactly 0 times. India and Pakistan have a blow hot blow cold relation where they wont play each other for 10 years and then play each other every other day. And none of this dented the levels of interest in cricket in India.
And you will be surprised about the level of passion - surely a UP versus Railways match will geneate more interest and more passion and more eyeballs than a Zimbabwe versus Australia contest.
As regards competition, you can have an extremely rivetting series between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh where both teams, hungry for success will go all out to win. At the same time, you can have a snooze fest between India and Pakistan because both teams are more interested in not losing than winning.
And as regards world class players, it is domestic cricket that hones the cricketers, not international cricket.
And about the IPL, I would much rather have Indians playing it than Dale Steyn, who thought the IPL was nothing more than a paid vacation.
Cheers,
Christopher,
As serious as I can be.And as regards where our domestic cricket stands, the onus is on the BCCI to make it better, isnt it? There is the money, there are the resources, how difficult is it to marry both and enhance the domestic scene?
Also, in the past 4 years or so, the Ranji's themselves have become a riveting affair. In a different context for a different sport, there would be commemorative books and DVDs released to celebrate these.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in India.
Cheers,
From a purely business angle, this makes a lot of sense. From a sporting point of view...
Homer, don't really think "contest that makes the stars, not the stars who make the contest."
I still insist we saw more intense contests, on a more frequent basis in ICL but that went virtually unnnoticed. And bearing the likes of Virat Kohli throughout the year would be too much for my nerve:)
I don't see it making much business sense. It'll be obvious to the fans that the highest-quality cricket will be played outside of India.
The relevant comparison is not between UP-Railways and Australia-Zimbabwe, it's between UP-Railways and India-anyone.
It may well be possible for the BCCI to run a profitable domestic tournament and remove India from world cricket. But they'd make way more money with India playing.
Actually, the BCCI seems to be on it's way to withdraw from international cricket!!! Only 6 tests in the curent year for a team reported to be gunning for the top spot???? (Sachin can bid his 15000 runs ambition good bye with this kind of scheduling). On the other hand, why have a hastily scheduled tri-series in SL or SEVVVVVEN ODI's vs. Oz? Maybe BCCI should cut down international T20s and ODI's while insisting that all Internationals play in the Duleep/Ranji/Deodhar trophies. Oh! and invite a team or two from abroad to boost competition levels/attractiveness. This is already being done in the Dupleep Trophy, but without the participation of the Indian internationals and no marketing efforts from the BCCI, it falls flat. A well organised test championship alternating every other year with ODI and T20 world cups will boost the attractiveness of international cricket.
Vikas,
Agreed... But cricket can be nurtured within the confines of India too, - we have hardly started tapping into the talent we have.
Cheers,
Jonathan,
Thats a good starting point :).
Cheers,
David,
As long as the game can sustain itself, thats all that is needed - a hark back to the good old times, if you will.
Also,, given the quality of cricket that is on display, I doubt if the Indians will be missing much staying away from international cricket.
Cheers,
adverbin,
Didnt Idia play about 15 tests last season?
And I agree, the bCCI needs to do more with turning the focus back on domestic cricket. Marketed well, there is a money spinner right in house.
As regards the Test Championship, thats a pie in the sky.
Cheers,
Som,
Thats where the BCCI comes in. And given that domestic cricket is the only cricket fix people will get, it wont be so hard to market the whole thing, will it?
Cheers,
Not just because India will not loose title of highest earning cricket organization it cannot be separated from world cricket.
BCCI will never think of this.
David, I suppose the business sense of such an idea depends on exactly how the potential value of domestic cricket compares with the value of "Team India" after subsidisation of the rest of the world is taken into account. I don't think it's clear one way or the other, but in any case such a plan would drastically change the world scene.
The real problem is how this fits with the whole psychological drivers of sport. An integral part of aany sporting culture is the readiness to take on all comers. This doesn't mean that international competition is necessary, as shown by the NFL, AFL, etc. However, to ignore people who are playing the same game elsewhere goes against the grain. I'm not sure that translates into problems with dollars (or rupees) in the medium term, but I doubt that it's sustainable.
This is a point I have been making for years on various fora, including Cricinfo, rec.sport.cricket, and even on my now-defunct blog: http://aralikatte.blogspot.com/2008/02/be-patriotic-support-ipl.html
And the cost of continuing with this international cricket is not just kowtowing to ICC, other boards etc. Millions of dollars are going out of Indian economy to these various boards which is just a waste. It is much better to pay the players directly and get them to play in our domestic tournaments. Not to mention that many more of our own cricketers will get an opportunity to shine. Think of it this way - SL is no bigger than any of our states and they are no better than India in any of the economic parameters. If that island nation can produce a Test class team, why can't each of our state? As you said, the visible talent in India is just the tip of the iceberg.
jonathan: no need to ignore players who are playing elsewhere. Best players from all over the world can come and play in the Indian domestic league, as they are doing in IPL.
Another possibility is to create more Test teams within India, but continue with the other national teams. It increases the number of teams, more potential rivalries and reduces the amount of money going out of Indian economy.
Vikas,
But it will still make enough to sustain the game and the interest in India.
Thats a good enough starting point.
Now what the BCCI does is a whole different discussion all by itself.
Cheers,
Jonathan.
If we were to follow convention,the ICC should have remained the Imperial Cricket Conference and should have been a body deep in the red, as was the case when Dalmiya took over in 1996.
Thing is, the sustainability is hinged upon the investment - in terms of money, time and effort. And given that there is a ready audience, short term sustainability should not be a problem. And once the initial road blocks get taken care of, the product per se will take a life of ts own.
There is history, tradition and a narrative for domestic cricket in India. All the Boards needs to do is build upon this
Cheers,
Mohan,
I agree, not so much about the flow of capital as much as the talent that is available..
And thank you for the link, its a pity I did not come across your blog sooner.
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the blog.
Cheers,
Homer, I'm not talking simply about convention. I think the desire to play alongside everyone else is a fundamental part of the sporting psyche, and only the details of co-operation are argued over.
Of course, just as in childhood games the one with the money/equipment usually has more influence over the conditions. While isolation can be justifiable, there is a reason why the kid who takes his bat and ball and goes home is the most despised, and why he usually still comes back the next day.
The fact is that it isn't history that calls for international cricket - it generally takes a strong history of other competition to supress the natural desire for representative sport. In the long term, it will be part of the deal one way or another.
As you say, the investment put in is key, and either way there is the economy and talent to make much more of Indian domestic cricket. The question is whether short-to-medium term isolation is necessary to achieve this.
Mind you, we also shouldn't underestimate the power of international cricket even in the short term. The BCCI probably would have been able to counter the emergence of a competitor such as the IPL even without the international trump card, but it would have involved a lot more effort and planning, don't you think?
Jonathan,
Your last point first - For all the supposed co-operation the BCCI received vis a vis the ICL, the fact remains that in the two seasons of the IPL, both the CA and the ECB have done their utmost to prevent their contracted players from being party to it. And when they haven't been doing that, all the ills that plague world cricket inevitably find their roots in the IPL.
Coming to the details of co-operation, isn't the argument fostered by this the root cause of most of world cricket's problems? Excessive appealing gets immediate sanction from the ICC, sledging does not. A test match at Kanpur that lasts a little under 9 sessions gets censured by ICC appointed match referee while a recently concluded Test at Headingley, that could barely make it past the 7th session, escapes all censure.
Inderjit Singh Bindra is not elected Chief Executive of the ICC because he is Indian. The argument being that with Sharad Pawar as President, too much power will be concentrated in the hands of the Indians. While conveniently side stepping the fact that on two different occasions, Australians held the post of both President and Chief Executive simultaneously.
What co-operation are we talking about then?
And forget all of that - the fundamental argument is that world cricket is not big enough to showcase India's talent.As the IPL has proven, given the platform, there is enough talent in India, there just aren't enough avenues to show case that talent.
Domestic cricket is the only place where this talent gets its opportunity on a regular basis - so why not go back to basics and focus on this alone.
"the kid who takes his bat and ball and goes home is the most despised, and why he usually still comes back the next day." - there are reasons too for the boy to take his bat and ball to go home. One and the most obvious one, is that he can. The other, because despite providing the bat and ball, he is made to field all day long and gets to bat last. And has to fight every time he wants a bat.
At the end of the day, the kid has to weigh the cost and the benefit of playing at home versus playing outside. And if he can be challenged at home to the same extent as he is challenged outside, why venture out?
And finally this - Post 26/11, more and more international teams are reluctant to play in India. And we cannot keep waiting for the benevolence of the teams concerned to play us. Plus we cannot be held hostage to the whims of countries like Pakistan whose Board is ready to scuttle the 2011 World Cup because of its inability to provide adequate security to the Sri Lankans. We will be better off focusing inwards, building our institutions and playing cricket on our terms.
Cricket in India will survive the isolation.World Cricket, I don't know.
Cheers,
Homer, as I said, it is the details of co-operation that get argued about rather than walked away from, even when they are not that satisfactory. I'm not saying the boy with the bat shouldnt' ever walk away, simply that he usually doesn't want to.
In my experience, unless he is completely unreasonable, he usually ends up getting his way. Sometimes this takes threats, or even actually walking away a few times. But very rarely does he actually want to stay away.
(As for ICL - even ignoring other boards and international players, wasn't "Team India" a useful weapon against "rebel" Indian players? That's what I was getting at.)
Jonathan,
It was Team India that was the prime motivation for the creation of the ICL in the first place.
When Zee could not get a piece of the Team India pie in the form of broadcasting rights, that prompted the formation of the ICL.
Had there been no Team India, there would have been no ICL, and ergo, no rebel players :)
Cheers,
It is the pie that led to the ICL, Team India or not, and your whole point is that the pie will still be there without Team India. When you have removed Team India and the BCCI is making zillions from doemstic cricket, will they suddenly have a different attitude to broadcasters who want in on the action? If everyone is happy with domestic cricket, then the BCCI and other players will have to work hard to make sure that their "product" is the presitigious one, or somehow share the money round.
Looking even further - we saw Zee miss out on Team India rights while BCCI were ignoring T20, giving them an obvious opportunity. In the world of this post, if Zee aren't happy with their slice of the domestic rights while the BCCI have ditched Team India, what happens next? There are many possible twists and turns.
A few scattered thoughts:
1) Can BCCI make as much money without Team India brand in an economy looking outward? Would NRI's (I speak about the average NRI, not the Homerian fan) be as interested in Ranji / Duleep et.al. as in Team India?
2) I remember that in 1977 I was all excited about the the seaon's curtain raiser (Karnataka vs. Rest of India) to the extent of cutting classes to go to the Chinnaswamy stadium only to run into my lecturers who thenselves had applied leave to watch the match in the stadium. Can any one from the current generation say they will do the same thing if International standards of play / players are visible in the Irani trophy for 2009? Is it even feasible to do so, given the kind of competitive pressures at work and studies (the kind neither I nor my lectureres then faced)? If not, is a domestic season really financially viable?
3) Players like MSD and Sachin are given Z category security (the same as the President and Prime minister, among others). Would their security people not object to easy availability of their whereabouts even when they are not scheduled to make public appearances? Still a lot of people, including plenty of Indians, denigrate them and the BCCI for raising concerns about WADA's whereabouts clause. Will refusal to comply not lead to international isolation simply because of "overpaid, spoilt brats" of cricketers as the rest of the world (and much of India as well) chooses to view them? Can any one tell me if, Gordon Brown / Asif Ali Zardari apart, if any other head of state / government of a cricket playing nation has to submit to the same level of security as Sachin /MSD (forget cricketers or the the unknown administrators)?
4) While everyone seems to think that the security situation in India is bad enough for Pak to refuse to allow it's players in IPL, for Oz to pull out it's players from Championship cup, for England to pull out from the world badminton championships (currently on at Hyderabad), and the terrorist threat only likely to become worse, can India sustain international cricket? In this context, would not marketing and raising the standards in the domestic tournaments be a sound policy as a back up for forced isolation?
Homer, I'[m afraid events like Ranji Trophy or Duleep Trophy are beyond marketability unless you turn them into T20 events.
I'm a regular to all Ranji matches in Delhi and even when Delhi meets Punjab -- which means Sehwag Gambhir, Ishant, Nehra, Yuvraj -- it's basically four reporters, three policemen, two beggars and a stray dog, looking the othe way.
Jonathan,
My point is that there is enough money and interest to sustain cricket in India outside of the aegis of the ICC or international cricket.
The size of the pie may or may not be the same as before.Given a market of a billion, positioned properly with the right organization and marketing. domestic cricket has more than enough potential to have a life of its own.
And,unlike the first edition of the IPL where the BCCI had to create an entity out of nothing, the domestic scene within India has its own narrative. The BCCI has to but build upon this narrative.
And sure, there are many possible twists and turns as there are with World Cricket. Given the financial status of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Zimbabwe and given the level of interest towards Test Cricket in both South Africa and New Zealand, who is to say that T20 does not become the only format that sustains world cricket. And given that in England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, there are other sports that vie for the cricketing market ( in terms of audience and in terms of players), what is the guarantee that cricket will be able to draw the best talents in these nations? And if the quality of cricket on display is sub standard, how many people will be willing to front up money for pay per view on Sky Sports?
In Test Cricket, the only sustaining narrative is the Ashes. All other contests have to be artificially propped up - some when the cricket is of a level that it draws the audiences (vide India Australia in the last 90s and early 2000s) or when the administrators hard sell a game ( India in New Zealand). But none of these are sustained narratives. India Australia doesnt amount to much post 2008, India Pakistan was a contest built more upon nationalism than cricket and once the nationalism element was gone, there was nothing to sustain the interest.Likewise, there is no shared narrative to an India South Africa contest. And similar arguments can be made for other countries and contests. England West Indies may be special, Australia West Indies may be special, but are these sustainable?
Cheers,
adverbin,
If Indians not resident in any of the 8 metros that make up the IPL teams could be sucked in, along with the NRIs, in the IPL, why would a 27 team base ( or a 16 team base) not get atleast half that audience?
I know I was excited as hell when they broadcast the final days play of the Mumbai Haryana match in 1992 when both teams played their first teams ( and Mumbai lost by 2 runs). And this at a time when no one even knew that domestic cricket was being broadcast on TV! Now that there are dedicated cricket channels, it might be a good time as any to educate the people of the history of domestic cricket.
Plus, with no "Team India" playing international cricket, what exactly is the outlet for most if not all cricket fanatics within the nation?
If box cricket tourneys can attract a few hundred people to watch, surely domestic cricket will do better?
And your point 4 is one of the prime movers behind this blog post. If we have to look inward, why not now instead of waiting to be marginalized and then looking in.
Cheers,
Som,
If T20 is the vehicle, T0 is the vehicle.. Why be snobbish about the medium when the game, at its basic, remains one of a bat and ball?
Also, Delhi Punjab doesn't have an audience because nobody talks about Delhi Punjab when they have international cricket to talk about. But in the current circumstance where Team India is not playing, I will stick my neck out to say that you will probably see a few more. And if the advertisement is even a tenth of the scale of the IPL, probably a few more
Cheers,
I agree that that the profile of and playing standards of domstic cricket needs a strong boost.
I also believe that apart from ad campaigns, the presence of India's internationals is a primary requirement in any effort to boost domestic cricket.
Since India's International season plus the IPL takes up over 10 months of the year and 2 months of rest and recuperation are a necessity, the only way we can get international players into the domestic scene is to cut down our international cricket calendar at the cost of lower revenue (only lazy associations like AIFF will be adversely affected!). Personally I would prefer to see fewer ODI's (3 match series with the occasional 5 match series against prime opponents); T20 world cup held in alternate years and no T20 internationals at all apart from T20 WC - leave it to the IPL and other such leagues.
This way, in the event of isolation we will already have an attractive domestic season as an alternative.
Even if there is no such isolation, we will be having a strong base for Team India (without having to turn to aging discards to shore up our batting!).
adverbin,
It is in our selfish (self) interests to look inwards and if he BCCI ever thought similarly, I will be the first to laud their selfish motives!
Cheers,
Post a Comment