THE ongoing ICC Champions Trophy in England has not been a great advertisement for the game. I know the tournament will have gathered much more momentum by the time these lines appear in print, but the initial week was a great turn-off, with hugely one-sided matches turning people away instead of luring them in.
Australia beating the United States in a match that in its entirety lasted no more than thirty-one overs, Bangladesh’s standard scoreline being five wickets down for thirty-odd runs, Zimbabwe falling like the proverbial nine pins, and the Kenyans getting bowled before they could move their feet or the willow in hand ... this is not the kind of stuff that people can associate with a tournament that is titled the Champions Trophy. If nothing else, the ICC needs to change the title and do away the ‘Champions’ part.
But the basic question is, why ‘nothing else’? Why can’t we have a better format to the tournament. The argument about popularizing the game is understandable and acceptable. I don’t think there would be anyone who would oppose efforts to spread the game to more and more parts of the world and make it a truly global phenomenon, like, for instance, football.
However, by hurrying the process unnecessarily, the ICC may actually be harming the cause of the game rather than promoting it. While I do not insist that the ICC is doing that, I do plead the case for reconsideration of strategy. By scheduling games on the official agenda that do not even need to be played in order to have a result does not exactly promote the game. As it is, the followers of the game keep having more on their plates than what they can ever consume. Mainstream teams play so much of cricket round the year that it is downright impossible for even the most diehard of fans to keep a track of them all. The public audience is already weary of constant cricket, and has gradually started to be choosy about which games to follow and which ones to miss out.
That being the case with mainstream entities, it is anybody’s guess as to who will be following games involving Kenya and the United States, even Bangladesh and a low-strength Zimbabwe. The number of people watching such games in the home country of respective teams would be much less than those skipping it in countries where cricket happen to be a craze. The ICC must give the issue a serious, hard look.
I guess it would be better to have more and more tournaments arranged for the second-tier teams, and proper sponsorships arranged for such undertakings to meet the cost. Even First Class games of certain countries now get television coverage, and there is no reason why the ICC cannot arrange the coverage of games involving second-tier strings. These games will give them the exposure that the ICC wants to give them, and will keep the players engaged more often than not, which, in turn, may help them hone their skills further.
The exposure of such teams to the World Cup that happens every four years is fair enough, but any increase in frequency is not advisable, as I see it. In fact, there are many who believe that the time has come for the ICC to actively think about having a two-tier calendar of international activity, with the top six Test-playing countries playing among themselves, and the remaining four facing each other under a proper mechanism of promotion and demotion between the two tiers. Over to you, ICC!
POSTSCRIPT: Just as I was signing off for the week, came the newspaper report that members of the Senate Standing Committee on Sports have demanded a probe by the National Accountability Bureau into the affairs of Pakistan Cricket Board. I just want to add my voice, feeble though it may be, to the demand. If it happens, it will certainly given everyone an opportunity to set the record straight. So, why not?
THE ongoing ICC Champions Trophy in England has not been a great advertisement for the game. I know the tournament will have gathered much more momentum by the time these lines appear in print, but the initial week was a great turn-off, with hugely one-sided matches turning people away instead of luring them in.
