English Cricket Welcomes the Enemy

Monday, 23rd March 2009

The news that England hope to host the IPL is as unsurprising as it is depressing. After all, what better way to start an Ashes summer than with the distracting influence of a cricketing circus? Never underestimate the greed of those charged with looking after the game, howver. As soon as the Indian government declined to offer satisfactory security guarantees it was inevitable that English cricket administrators, dazzled as always by the prospect of raking in more cash, would prostitute themselves in a mad dash to grab a piece of the action.

It is hard to see any advantage in this. Better by far if the circus were taking place in South Africa. But apparently the thinking in England is that, while of course the idea of protecting the first-class game must be paid some form of lip-service, the only thing that really matters is cold hard currency and anything that advances the ECB's bank balance is Good for the Game. So, far from considering the best interests of cricket, more and more Twenty20 tournaments are proposed. The best that may be said of this strategy, I suppose, is that it may hasten the day when a large part of the cricketing audience becomes tired of Twenty20, appreciating that it is, for all the flamboyance and razzamatazz, a joke form of the game. We can but hope so.

Indeed, all the noise and colour associated with the Twenty20 "spectacle" is a clue to its essential emptyness: you need all this nonsense to distract the audience and prevent it from realising that that there's very little that's interesting actually happening on the pitch. High church cricket fans might be depressed if the game were sold to an abbreviated format that was, nonetheless, superior to the traditional forms of the game, but it's quite another thing entirely for the game to be bought and soldto promote a markedly inferior, less compelling, less textured and varied form of cricket. And yet that is where our current masters are taking us. It is madness.

Then again, cricket has often - perhaps even most of the time - been in crisis before. And yet the old game finds a way to muddle through and still thrive. That may be more difficult in a crasser, more commercial age in which the sport incresingly seems sold to marketing experts and dubious consultants of one sort or another, but one must hope that, in the end, the sport will find a way to rebalance itself once again. But it will probably have to do so in spite, not because, of the efforts of its administrators.

Of course, it's April in England. Which means rain. Probably a lot of rain.

UPDATE: Good news! Patrick Kidd suggests that MCC (with an assist from the climate) have helped kill this nonsense and South Africa can have the dubious pleasure of hosting this farrago instead. More here.

Filed under: Cricket (97 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Paul B

March 23rd, 2009 2:06pm Report this comment

Howzat that for an article? Out- standingly good. Agree with every point you make Alex. I am now wishing for wettest spring/early summer since records began, sorry just cannot help myself.

Fergus Pickering

March 23rd, 2009 2:19pm Report this comment

You're not old enough to remember cricket before the one day game. In the fifties it was VERY SLOW. The tests were VERY SLOW indeed. A scoring rate of three an over was EXTREMELY UNUSUAL in Tests. Now the Australians regularly score at four. Centuries in as many balls are scored IN TEST MATCHES. And leg spin bowling thrives. It's really got a lot better, trust me.

Alex Massie

March 23rd, 2009 2:30pm Report this comment

Fergus,

There's certainly something in what you say. Yes, test cricket had become turgid and yes, the great Australia vs West Indies series in 1960-61 helped rescue the game (not the least of Ritchie Benaud and Garry Sobers' contributions to the sport). That's one reason why I accept that the game has often - perhaps most decades - faced a crisis of one sort or another.

Featherbeds in the 20s and 30s, then Bodyline, dull cricket in the 50s, Apartheid and the D'Oliveira affair in the 60s, Packer in the 70s, the near death of spin bowling in the 80s etc etc.

But because many of the problems in the past were problems in test cricket, they could be fixed in and by test cricket. Now we have a rival form of cricket that is a competitor to test cricket just as much as it is a companion to it. And while the game's guardians promise to defend first class cricket, their actions continually undermine it. Which leaves us in a different, even unprecedented situation.

But yes, there's still some very good cricket being played these days. Now if only there were more good fast bowlers around. But that's a post for another day...

Yarrow

March 23rd, 2009 5:24pm Report this comment

There was a lot of very good cricket played in the 50s - the 1953 Ashes series being every bit as gripping as the 2005 one.
There are two reasons why scoring is faster now: a shortage of good bowlers - who scored at 4 an over off Glenn McGrath, Malcolm Marshall or Curtley Ambrose? - and heavy bats which mean that a defensive stroke often goes for 4. Add to this idiotic captains who refuse to position a fielder at Third Man.

tommyt

March 24th, 2009 7:27am Report this comment

I would like the IPL to come to England I would glaly trundle down from Scotland to watch the best bowlers and batsmen on the planet go at it hammer and tongs for 3 hours. The climate however means this would like as not lead to a wasted journey. It is however laughable tht cricket is on teh verge of moving two events to crime riddne South Africa FOR security reasons whereas FIFA actively considered moving the World Cup away from that country because of security concerns !!

I am afaid I dont buy into the argument that Twenty20 poses a risk to test cricket, they are fundamentally different disciplines, akin to rally driving and F1, fifteen a side and seven a side rugby or snooker and pool. Sure there is a crossover of skills required but they are distinct enough to survive side by side.

There has been an explosion of test cricket in recent years, in the 90's England would play roughly 10 tests a year - now the average would be about 13. Certain counries toured others sparingly (Aus to NZ, Pak to Ind, Non Asians to SL etc). However the demands of the ICC future tours programme means we have to have a home and away series between all full memebrs within a four year timeframe. That borders on overkill. I suspect that this is now accepted and I suspect that there will be less test cricket from now on. That isnt Tenty20's fault though.

The shortest version does however pose a real and immediate threat to the 50 over game, which many will come to regard as turgid by comparison.

We will soon move to a model where T20 games are not just the curtain raiser to an over long ODI series but series in theri own right regarded as teh equivalent to or superior of the 50 over format. Given the travails of the 50 over game recently I doubt many will mourn its demotion/passing

Paul B

March 24th, 2009 9:28am Report this comment

Fergus, my earliest memories of cricket (I believe you are a Kent man) are of Deadly Derek, Knott and others from that fine Kent team. Tests were slower in those days,(although the over rates were higher) with many(far too many)ending in draws.

Was one day cricket responsible for changing test cricket to the game we recognise today? The great Aussie side would aim to score at 4+ an over, get 500 by lunch on the second day if possible, and then set Mcgrath & Warne to work, married with aggressive field placings. To a limited degree one dayers were partially responsible -not 20/20 hit & giggle though. I would argue that it as more to do with the random coming together for a moment in time, of a golden age/generation of Aussie players,namely Hayden, Langer, Rickie Dickie Darlin, the Waugh Brothers, the sublime Gilchrist, McGrath and simply the greatest of them all,Shane Warne.

The rest of the world have been playing catch up since, we were nearly there in 2005, although the Aussies losing McGrath was a massive bonus for us and now the South Africans are challenging. I believe that Aussie side was an epoch making team, the benchmark from now on, how we judge sides, we were priveleged to witness it, we will not see its like again for many a day.

Post comment