On maintaining the foreign player cap

Having missed the semi finals and finals of the IPL thanks to the Memorial Day weekend, I am in no position to comment on the whats and the wherefores of the same.

But perusing through the blogs, I gathered this much

1. The Closing ceremony sucked
2. The finals was worthy of the tournament.
3. Andrew Symonds continues to be the agent provocateur and likes bullying people.

That said, the reason for this post is this - post the IPL ( and even during it), there have been questions/discussions/queries on various media sites on the merits or lack there of of the 4 foreign player cap in the IPL.

Some see this as impinging on displaying the best talent there is available within the teams, others see this as racist.Others point to the FTP, citing that if the IPL wants its own window, it must do more to accomodate the interests of the other Boards ( and players).

I completely endorse the cap.

Whats more, I would strongly advocate reducing the number of foreign players per team as the franchises expand. For the reasons listed below

1. I had, in a previous post, alluded to the fact that in Mumbai, club cricket was slowly petering out, replaced by age group cricket. And I believe this is true for the rest of the country too. And
I had written this

And because of this, there is no "mentoring" a la club cricket wherein a 40 year old grizzled veteran of many a skirmish would be around to guide a 16 year old colt on the intricacies and vagaries of the game.

And because the "mentoring" no longer exists, there is a lot less cricketing savvy on display - kids have all the skills coaching can get you but implementing those skills and thinking about the game is a whole different story altogether.

The IPL is resolves that problem. It is the only real forum where a Manish Pandey can rub shoulders with an Anil Kumble and learn what it means to be a Test cricketer. It is also the only forum where real mentoring happens - it is in every one's interests that players perform and given that there is a requirement to field kids from the U-23 age group, the onus is on the veterans to guide them to perform at their very best.

2. Domestic cricket in India suffers because the marquee players do not participate, thus lowering the standards of play. Lower standards of play implies there is no real gauge of the talent of the player - is Cheteshwar Pujara the real deal given that he scores heavily at Rajkot and not so heavily elsewhere? Is Abhishek Nayar a journeyman cricketer or does he have it in him to step up to the next level? Does Rohit Sharma have bottle and can he construct an innings?

The intensity and the standards of play of the IPL answer a lot of these questions. While the ability to construct an innings may be up in the air, the IPL does give a window to the temperament of the player in question and his ability to perform when under the microscope. It also is the only avenue where an up and coming player is tested against an established one.

The IPL helps separate the chaff from the wheat.

3. Pre IPL there were two aspects of the game where the foreign players trumped the Indians - pre match preparation and training. Pre match preparation as in the mental aspect of the game with emphasis on how to approach the nets while batting, bowling and fielding. The training emphasized on the physical aspect of the game - the fielding drills, the game situation simulations etc.

With the legions of trainers and fitness instructors and dieticians and coaches that tail each of the IPL franchises, the gap that separates the Indians versus the foreign players is fast closing.

4. Coalescing 30 Ranji teams into 8 franchises implies that the best of the Indian talent is available for selection - the onus is on the franchises to make the smart picks. And with the ICL players returning to the fold, the options available to the franchises only increase - imagine a Stuart Binny playing for the Royally Challenged and an Ambati Rayadu for the Chargers.

5. The IPL gives unheard of players an opportunity to show case their talents - who had heard of a T. Suman till IPL 2009? And they deserve it because, having done the hard yards in the domestic scene, they merit their place in the sun.

6. The argument for the best available talent to be fielded is a tenuous one, at best. No one doubts Ricky Ponting's skill as a batsman. But is he really going to augment the KKR batting when he averaged a measly 9.75 when the IPL was played in 2008? And what about Jesse Ryder, Kevin Pieterson and Andrew Flintoff. Or Jacob Oram. No one can argue that they were amongst the best available talents there are. But how much did they really supplement their team? And wouldn't increasing the foreign player cap have meant that Sudeep Tyagi never got an opportunity to bowl. Ditto Shadab Jakati?

7. The racism charge - is laughable at best. England caps its Kolpak players and has a limit on the number of foreign players participating in County cricket.Australia's domestic season is dominated by Australians, give or take a Pom or a Dutchman. The same is true of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. South Africa has a cap too on its foreign imports. And yet, no one calls them racist.

8. There are 9 Test playing nations. Which equates to 135 players ( considering 15 players per team). Of these, the number of players equipped to play T20 cricket ( temperamentally. technique wise, or otherwise) is probably less than half. Even if allowance is made for fringe players , the number of total available foreign players wont top 100. Which equates to around 12 players per team ( given the current franchise breakup). Of those 12, having 4 players in the game amounts to a 1/3rd quota of foreign players playing per game. With expansion, the number of foreign players per team will diminish and the proportion of foreign players playing for a given team will correspondingly increase.And the numbers will remain skewed in favor of the foreign players vis a vis the Indians.

So arbitrarily increasing the number of foreign players serves no purpose at all.

Finally this - the IPL will not be accommodated in the FTP until 2011, when it comes up for review. So a window for the IPL for the next 2 years is out. Furthermore, when the FTP does come in for review, cognizance will be taken of the primacies of the English and Australian Cricket seasons. And not just because the ECB is contractually bound to host 7 Tests and 15 ODIs every year. Likewise CA ( and hence its reluctance to compromise with CSA on hosting the Boxing Day test). Add to this mix the emergence of the P20 and the SPL ( Southern Premier League) from 2010 onwards and there is just no way in hell that the ICC will accommodate a 6 week window for the IPL.

Given this, and given player availability, wouldn't it be prudent for the BCCI and IPL organizing committee to focus inwards and work on raising the standards of the Indian pool instead of focusing outwards and increasing the cap on the foreign player pool?

Sudden Death

or how I want the remaining matches to pan out

53rd match - Kolkata Knight Riders v Rajasthan Royals - KKR to win.

They have been getting their act together in the last 3-4 games and despite the losses, they have pushed the opposition hard. RR, on the other hand, look brittle with the bat in hand and their fielding effort against Dilli left a lot to be desired.

The RR loss will be deeply satisfying for me. Especially after a Mumbai girl was all ecstatic after a Mumbai loss. And because there is the possible prospect of a catfight between SRK and the Shetty babe.

54th match - Chennai Super Kings v Kings XI Punjab - KXIP to win.

The Whistle podus are in the semis even if they lose ( it will take some phenomenal batting by the other contenders and some abject batting by Dhoni's men to close the gap between the run rates). And a win against the Kinks keeps the KXIP alive for the semis. Which means more Zinta. And more Zinta hugs. And whats not to like about that?

55th match - Delhi Daredevils v Mumbai Indians - Mumbai

For obvious reasons.

56th match - Royal Challengers Bangalore v Deccan Chargers - BRC

This is the match.The sudden death encounter between the Dhakkans and the Royally Challenged.Win here and the semis beckon. Lose and its all over.

I prefer the Royally Challenged because I like Anil Kumble. And because Adam Gilchrist bitched about Sachin not shaking his hand. Does that make me anti-Aussie?

DD, KXIP, BRC and the Whistle Podus in the semis. Whistle Podus to play DD, BRC versus KXIP.

Whistle Podus and the Royally Challenged to win.

IPL2- The Battle for the Kaveri, cant come soon enough!

PS:- Just realized - I am rooting for two southern teams. Does that make me anti-north too?

The Wordsmith

The Old Batsman - a master at work!

Manjrekar-speak

Mumbai Indians, like Kolkata Knight Riders, have also disappointed their fans for the second consecutive DLF IPL season. Whereas the Mumbai Ranji team's exploits over the years in Indian cricket, have been well documented. They have won the Ranji title a record 38 times. Their latest triumph coming this year. The Mumbai Ranji team obviously do something right and critically know how to win matches. It may not be a bad idea for the Mumbai Indians bosses to pay a visit to the MCA, who happen to be in their neighbourhood and pick up a few clues on building a champion team.

"Who writes the script for this tournament"

exults Danny Morrison. And for once, it is not hyperbole.

44th match: Royal Challengers Bangalore v Chennai Super Kings at Durban - May 14, 2009
Royal Challengers Bangalore won by 2 wickets (with 2 balls remaining)
Chennai Super Kings 129 (19.4/20 ov); Royal Challengers Bangalore 132/8 (19.4/20 ov)

Scorecard | Commentary | Bulletin | Articles (3) | Photos (12)

45th match: Mumbai Indians v Rajasthan Royals at Durban - May 14, 2009
Rajasthan Royals won by 2 runs
Rajasthan Royals 145/7 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 143 (19.5/20 ov)

Scorecard | Commentary | Bulletin | Articles (3) | Photos (11)

46th match: Delhi Daredevils v Kings XI Punjab at Bloemfontein - May 15, 2009
Kings XI Punjab won by 6 wickets (with 5 balls remaining)
Delhi Daredevils 120/9 (20/20 ov); Kings XI Punjab 123/4 (19.1/20 ov)

Scorecard | Commentary | Bulletin | Articles (3) | Photos (12)

47th match: Chennai Super Kings v Mumbai Indians at Port Elizabeth - May 16, 2009
Chennai Super Kings won by 7 wickets (with 5 balls remaining)
Mumbai Indians 147/5 (20/20 ov); Chennai Super Kings 151/3 (19.1/20 ov)

Scorecard | Commentary | Bulletin | Articles (2)

48th match: Deccan Chargers v Kolkata Knight Riders at Johannesburg - May 16, 2009
Deccan Chargers won by 6 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
Kolkata Knight Riders 160/5 (20/20 ov); Deccan Chargers 166/4 (20/20 ov)

Scorecard | Commentary | Bulletin | Articles (4) | Photos (15)

and now, this

19.6

Pathan to Harris, 2 runs, Punjab have won this. Fulltoss on off stump, Harris crashes it through the off side, Lee fields at sweeper-cover, there is a fumble that allows them the second. Jaskaran Singh wants the third, but Harris is so disappointed he is not even looking. Jaskaran would have had a fair shot at the third run that could have tied the game. This still would have been a run-out in all possibility because the throw was on target, but Harris should have run the third. Even Sanga, the keeper, can't believe it

Last ball coming up, four required, my money is on a slower ball

All this, in the last 4 days. After a damp first week, who would have thunk?

Correct Call?

13.1

Yuvraj Singh to Symonds, OUT, a lovely stumping, what recovery from Sangakkara. Lovely bowling to begin with, drawing Symonds out, turning it across Symonds, Sanga doesn't collect it cleanly, but gets it on the rebound, falling down at the same time, and whips the bails off. Replays show he had flicked one bail off while falling down, and he didn't have the ball in his hand then. The third umpire has given it, the rules say if only one bail is off, you can remove the second bail and get the stumping

A Symonds st Sangakkara b Yuvraj Singh 25 (25b 1x4 0x6) SR: 100.00

1. Wicket put down
(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by
(i) the ball.
(ii) the striker's bat, whether he is holding it or has let go of it.
(iii) the striker's person or by any part of his clothing or equipment becoming detached from his person.
(iv) a fielder, with his hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.
The wicket is also put down if a fielder pulls a stump out of the ground in the same manner.

(b) The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.

2. One bail off
If one bail is off, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of putting the wicket down to remove the remaining bail, or to strike or pull any of the three stumps out of the ground, in any of the ways stated in 1 above.

--

Problem is, the rule does not talk of the mitigating circumstances under which the bail is dislodged. I was always under the impression that if the bail(s) is(are) dislodged by the fielder, it is imperative to remove the stump completely out of the ground.

Apparently not!

Get it

while stocks last!

Tension free cricket

19.1	Bravo to Dhoni, FOUR, what a way to finish! Dhoni disdainfully drives the full ball over mid-on for four to seal a seven-wicket win for Chennai and that seals Mumbai's exit from the 2009 IPL

And with that, Mumbai's 2009 IPL campaign is over. No more waking up at 5:30 AM, no more donning the team colors, no more sitting in the same position so as not to jinx the team even though the legs cramp, no more forays into testing bladder control, no more praying to an assortment of gods, no more finger biting, no more palpitations, no more defending Mumbai, no more cursing Mumbai, no more defending Tendulkar, no more cursing Tendulkar, no more"what could have beens", no more"what ifs", no more to all that.

No more caring. Period.

Now that the emotional investment is no longer there, I can kick back, relax and watch the cricket.

Whoever wins, whoever loses, I could care less.

No tension!

For Mumbai, just one question. The same one as the last season. Where is the bottle in crunch situations? Where is the khadoos cricket that is the hallmark of the city? Why are we so mentally brittle?

The Karachi Sound Machine

If the IPl is a joke, why bother?.

If it is not, can you substaniate the innuendo about match fixing?.

If not, what price zipping that lip?

Excuse me Mr Modi

but here is a little something to jog your memory

Jaipur: The IPL on Friday took to task the captains of Kolkata Knight Riders, Sourav Ganguly, and Rajasthan Royals, Shane Warne, for breaching the ICC Rules and Code of Conduct.

Ganguly has been charged under 1.3 (showing dissent at an umpire’s decision) and Warne under 1.7 (public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match-related incident or match official) in the course of the match and after the match at the Sawai Man Singh Stadium here on Thursday. Both have been fined 10 per cent of their match fees.

Now, in the just concluded Mumbai Rajasthan match, there happened this little incident

17.2 Patel to Nayar, 2 runs, low full toss outside off, bends low and drags it to deep midwicket, poor fielding, or so it seemed, Smith throws it straight into the umpire and they steal another single, it's all allowed

Following this incident, Shane Warne was visibly querying the batting team about fair play and fair play points and such like, a clear violation of 1.7 (public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match-related incident or match official).

So my question to you is, will any action be taken? And if it is, will cognizance be taken of the fact that this is a repeat offense?

Or are we to assume that given your ties to Rajasthan, the Rajasthan players ( and specifically her captain) are above reproach?

It aint over yet!

Rally on, Mumbai Indians!!

The brittle master

Really? Is Sriram Veera the conjurer of that other famous phrase "Endulkar"? "The Tendulkar shadow refuses to leave Mumbai." he writes.

But for his shadow what was the Indian team, Sriram? All through the 90s, but for him India were but a pack of cards, ready to be blown by the slightest breeze. He gave the team spine and he was its Atlas.

But for him, the nation would have completely lost faith in cricket in the aftermath of the match fixing scandal ( and your little raggedly website would still be housed in London and you would be a two bit beat reporter for some rag).

How old were you when the boy-man hit back to back to back hundreds - in his debut Ranji, Duleep and Irani Trophy outings? Where were you when he hit his first double hundred in first class cricket, the innings that propelled Mumbai to a first innings lead in the Ranji semi finals against Tamil Nadu? And did you know that but for his 96, Mumbai did not stand a chance in its failed run chase against Haryana in the 91 Ranji finals?

Between his debut in 1988/89 till date, we have won 8 Ranji Championships - thats 8 out of 21 Ranji's finals. No one comes remotely close.

What that man means to Mumbai, Mumbai knows. And Mumbai is proud of the fact that Sachin is ours.

The rest of the world be damned.

The Heartbreak Kids

8th match: Chennai Super Kings v Mumbai Indians at Chennai - Apr 23, 2008
Chennai Super Kings won by 6 runs

45th match: Mumbai Indians v Kings XI Punjab at Mumbai - May 21, 2008
Kings XI Punjab won by 1 run
Kings XI Punjab 189/4 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 188 (20/20 ov)

50th match: Delhi Daredevils v Mumbai Indians at Delhi - May 24, 2008
Delhi Daredevils won by 5 wickets (with 1 ball remaining)
Mumbai Indians 176/8 (20/20 ov); Delhi Daredevils 179/5 (19.5/20 ov)

53rd match: Rajasthan Royals v Mumbai Indians at Jaipur - May 26, 2008
Rajasthan Royals won by 5 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
Mumbai Indians 145/7 (20/20 ov); Rajasthan Royals 146/5 (20/20 ov)

20th match: Kings XI Punjab v Mumbai Indians at Durban - Apr 29, 2009
Kings XI Punjab won by 3 runs
Kings XI Punjab 119/8 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 116/7 (20/20 ov)

45th match: Mumbai Indians v Rajasthan Royals at Durban - May 14, 2009
Rajasthan Royals won by 2 runs
Rajasthan Royals 145/7 (20/20 ov); Mumbai Indians 143 (19.5/20 ov)

Why?

Why cant it be, that for once, it is Mumbai at the winning end of a close game? Either lose heavily or close the damn game.. This edge of the seat, here comes the cardiac arrest tension is not on.

And not fair.

This is so not right. On so many different levels.

Sfx on cricket

(Dated April 29, 2008 - relevant today - reproduced in full)

Cricket is dead. Long Live Cricket…

Jump to Comments

Its not just a game, they say. Its an artefact which we must preserve. And they’re right, of course. Cricket is a game of immense skill and strategy. Of ebbs and flows. The essential cricket battle is not just about which side scores more runs – but the manner in which innings are constructed and bowling strategies countered. A drama of ability calibrated to such high levels that everything extempore seems beautifully choreographed. The time honed skills when on peak display are a rivetting spectacle – their spontaneity making it better than theatre.

But what good is that theatre if it isn’t watched? And how far can we go to make it watchable ?

Thankfully for us, cricket has always been up to the task.

In its early form, Test Cricket was a timeless fight to the death, so to speak. Once a game began , it would end with a result. No rain nor storm could force a draw. It was a Test of many things, not the least of which was patience.

Then, the “I-have-to-catch-a-boat” Test happened and Timeless Tests morphed into those with an end date. 5 days (with an interspersed rest day) was a major innovation which fiddled with Test cricket’s fundamental traditions and actually set a deadline for when a match would finish. Now that one thinks about it , it must have been fairly blasphemous when first suggested but it brought a new set of nuances in. Now you had to construct and pace your innings, strategise (occasionally declare) and develop plans with time constraints. The idea of this first major – and all subsequent – innovations was to retain the sanctity of the inherent skills while also respecting the time of those involved ; spectators, players and administrators alike.

By the 1960s, having tasted the aggression of people like Don Bradman earlier, even that was beginning to seem long – and in response to growing demand for more action , One Day cricket was first introduced in England. This not only reduced the format from the existing 6 days to a single day but also brought it to one innings per side ! With limited overs !! As with all things which are built in response to market needs, it was (despite its fair distance from the traditions of the game), a resounding success. In 1971, somewhat by accident , a Limited Overs international was born and although it was the first time that national sides were playing each other in this form, it captured the World’s attention enough for the World Cup of One Day Internationals to be born a few years later.

Test cricket meanwhiled trundled alongside. It had travelled a long way from the Timeless Test age when it all began and now cohabited the sports’ stage with a compressed form of the game which increased the sports popularity as more countries joined in striving to compete with the best. Surely it could only be downhill from here. And for a while it seemed like thats what it would be.

Kerry Packer came and with him came the World Series Cricket circus. Not only were players not playing for the establishment, but there were other breaks from tradition to infuriate and sadden the purists. Night cricket , coloured clothing (pyjama cricket, if you please), white balls, players wearing double entendre’ T shirts (Big / Bad Boys play at night), Tina Turner videos and players playing (gasp !) for money rather than nation. Kerry Packer’s crew played Tests as well as Limited Overs Games and admittedly they were not well received initially but soon, the concept of the Day-Night game caught on. And Kerry Packer became legend. “There is a bit of whore in all of us, Gentlemen. Name your price”, he said to the Australian Board. And ultimately they did. In the words of Dr Greg Manning ” Packer paid $12 million not to buy cricket but to turn the cricket into something he could buy. The real meaning of his victory was that the game would never again be beyond price.”

At the height of the dramas surrounding World Series Cricket, Packer vouchsafed in a press conference that cricketers had long been exploited by authorities, and that they deserved better pay and conditions because of the pleasure they gave to millions. A journalist took up the thread for his remarks and wondered if the businessman was saying that his enterprise was “half-philanthropic”. Packer’s realism was too embedded for him to agree. “Half-philanthropic?” he said. “That makes me sound more generous than I am.”

Kerry Packer was the “commercialisation of the sport” as we now know it.

And yet, Australia now consider him the second biggest influence of the game (in a good way) for the sport in Australia after The Don. On his passing , the MCC observed a minute’s silence as a mark of respect for his contribution to the game.

Justifiably so. For Kerry Packer not only provided a much larger audience for a sport, and money that made the crumbing finances of cricket worldwide viable , but with the influence of his initiatives and the growing popularity of one day cricket – Test Cricket changed forever as well.

The ODI inarguably enhanced Tests. More results , more entertainment (of the pure cricket kind) and more revenues made it a bigger audience attraction than ever. Most importantly, in terms of skills – Better running between the wickets and fielding standards were natural offshoots but techniques went outside the textbooks and worked ! Of course, players of aggressive intent were part of the sport before the advent of ODIs but clearly that aspect of the game got more widespread.

So why this big hue and cry about Twenty20 in general and the Indian Premier League in particular ? How different is it from the Limited Overs game and how different is the inherent commercialisation from what Kerry Packer was doing ? Why are we so keen to dismiss the format at its very inception ? Why is there a school of thought that considers it so sacrilegious that they won’t watch ! Why are some so upset that obits of Test cricket are being considered and no positives – absolutely none can be seen ?

Equally importantly, why is something that was invented (yet again) by the British (in 2003 in response to the “Man and his dog watching County Cricket” syndrome), suddenly now Brutish ?

The origin of Twenty20 was really to bring cricket into a time “zone” which was comparable with other popular sport like Soccer or (Grand Slam) Tennis. The idea was, as most ideas are, a response to market needs as Cricket sought viewership. The idea was not to replace other forms of the sport – and just as the ODIs have not replaced Test cricket or other forms of first class cricket, its early if not erroneous to assume that Twenty20 will.

Initial cynicism is acceptable – and even welcome. After all, sixes and fours rain. Bowlers feel good with 7ish economy rates. Batsmen ostensibly don’t value wickets. Building an innings is almost a sin. Greed obliterates fear. Almost each toss has the losing skipper saying “conditions won’t change much”. With 3 hour match durations those are understatements. Things move lightning quick. Dot balls are gold. Risk is not a four letter word.

And without denying one’s own early cynicism , its also completely wrong to call T20 a parody, caricature or clone of the game. As we’ve said before , there are always those that will crucify themselves between regret of the past and fear of the future. Understanding the value of every delivery is an intensification of the game rather than a dilution of it. Striving to maximise returns and cut down errors from the word go is placing a big premia on performance.

As far as the IPL itself is concerned, the criticisms are many but the targets keep moving so they’re hardly easy to address. Is it the amount of money ? The source of the money ? Bollywood ? The T20 format ? Lalit Modi ? Loyalty ? Royalty ? Media ? All of the above ? There must be something right, surely.

How different are these concerns from the ones that were doubtless raised when Kerry Packer surfaced ? How long did that last and how much good did it bring ? These are questions which we are in the process of answering every passing day.

Somewhere the “off the field” entertainment, which is causing so much unrest amongst the connoisseurs, will find the right balance with the on field skills but as of now its doing the same job that coloured clothing, black sightscreens and their ilk were doing in the 1970s. And getting as much attention at the expense of the cricket from fans and critics alike.

Somewhere we’ll begin to realise and accept that Brendon McCullum’s 150 in 20 overs (an astonishingly good score for a team at the 20 over mark in the one day game) was an act of great cricketing skill and while the element of orthodoxy was missing , it was perhaps telling that Mike Hussey of the phenomenal Test average nearly matched it soon enough. For those that say that this does not adequately test enough to separate the best from the rest, its equally significant that at the time of writing , these two share the top batting slots with cricketers such as Matt Hayden , Sangakarra, Adam Gilchrist, Andrew Symonds and MS Dhoni. Isnt it a vindication of skill that 4 of those 7 are Australians and come from a team that are thrice World Champions ? Haven’t Glenn Mcgrath and Mohd Asif shown their class ? Haven’t the leadership bluffs of the weaker captains been called?

Another concern is that it pays so much that it’ll destroy the first class structure – already moribund in terms of spectator interest. And there are two aspects of this – money and format.
Money first : These are professional sportsmen and if they bring in the revenue, a share of that to them is really a matter of justice. How else would we like it to be ? But spectator interest for the longer version first class games is a concept that struggles because of the premium that we now place on our time. The ICC bravely tried a “Us and Them” Super Test as a concept and it failed from the start and thats because the problem isn’t one of quality, which is high enough to justify interest – but of time.
Perhaps the format itself will go through changes. Maybe we’ll now have 4 innings of 25 overs each instead of 2 innings of 50 in a One day game to get a hybrid of sorts. But either way, the better cricketers will adjust. Sachin Tendulkar was born about the same time that limited overs internationals were. As were Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Shane Warne and Glenn Mcgrath. They grew with, and indeed helped grow One Day internationals – but so seamless was their transition that its unlikely that any of them will be considered as having harmed Test cricket. If anything, they have embellished it.

And the performances will undoubtedly improve. And the IPL – and maybe other leagues of value – will contribute to them because they remove barriers to learning that geography created. First class cricketers and newbie internationals are rubbing shoulders with all-time greats. Getting encouragement, strategising along , playing in the nets , understanding preparations, celebrating victories and analysing losses alongside and imbibing mindsets. Even seasoned players see the value in competing with and against contemporaries that national duty would not typically allow them to.

Test Cricket has survived as long as it has because it has adjusted along with the times. Its monumental oceanic presence taking in the shades and shapes of all the new streams that joined in.

Test cricket is not going to die because the highest form of theatre lives on and because the art form is constantly evolving. It’ll probably get squeezed into an increasingly niche audience but those that are willing to carve the time to watch a performance will always stay. However, if we are to make time for it , then it too must keep with the times.

“Without tradition“, said Winston Churchill, “art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd“. Then, as with all things Churchillian, he added the punch line – “Without innovation, its a corpse.”