1726Diluting the elements of Cricket

By Harsha Bhogle
It has been a week to forget. Cricket didn't have to suffer from a war or a bombing but it stooped.
World cricket is the poorer for the first week of the Champion's Trophy and the world is laughing at
India over the television rights issue. Both could have been avoided.

The Champion's Trophy should have been a seven-match event, at most eight matches with Kenya
and Bangladesh playing a pre-quarter final. Remember it was originally meant to be a knockout
event, high-thrills, concentrated affair where every match had an exit route for one team. It was a
brilliant idea, so different from the more leisurely World Cup, which starts off being an exhibition
and reaches a climax four weeks later. But the irresistible lure of television money drove this into an
insipid fifteen-match structure. Cricket was hurt this week because greed was the dominant motif.

When the number of people in the dressing room is a significant ratio of the number of people in the
stands, it cannot be good for the game. It means the spectators have passed their verdict. People
do not pay money when there is no contest and that is why Ricky Ponting is so right to have
castigated the event- If cricket seeks big money, then cricket must provide just returns. The week
proved that cricket wants money but is hesitant to deliver value.

Ponting was right in saying as well that for a team to qualify for the big league it should be
significantly better than those in the little league. If different teams qualify each time, it means
there isn’t much to choose between them, that no team is striding ahead of the others. And he was
right in questioning whether the exposure actually does any good to the teams that come and get
whitewashed. When Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe used to qualify from the little leagues for the World
Cup they were far too good for the others and it showed in their performances. In 1996, we had
UAE and Holland at the World Cup, in 1999 we had Scotland and in 2003, Canada, Namibia and
Holland. They haven’t looked like being better teams as a result.

Even more alarming is the way Bangladesh is playing. At the Asia Cup they were pathetic and here
at the Champion’s Trophy they have been no different from the other qualifiers and they must now
ask hard questions of themselves. The ICC has been extraordinarily generous to them, they have
played more cricket and received more money than any of the teams they have been traditionally
clubbed with. By contrast, Kenya has been the stepson and in spite of the exit of Maurice Odumbe
puts out three players (Ravindu Shah, Steve Tikolo and Thomas Odoyo) better than anyone
Bangladesh has. An auditor would have questioned the expenditure on Bangladesh.

And cricket lovers need to question the staging of this tournament in September as well. If the
Champion’s Trophy was meant to be a showpiece event it should have been played at the best time
in the English summer- end July and early August. But England chose to, and were allowed to, put
their own schedule ahead of this tournament. In doing so they have been able to protect their own
commercial arrangements and dilute those in which they have a smaller stake. That is why teams
have to play in cold and wet weather, making cricket look even gloomier than it is. It will be sad if
everyone decides to play a similar game and India could, for example, host the next edition in April
in hot weather and on used pitches. If the Champion’s Trophy has to go the established nations,
then they must be willing to make room for it.

Currently the World Cup is too long and the Champion’s Trophy is too long; a bit like expanding a
half hour plot into a three-hour movie; like using one spoon of coffee over eight mugs of water. The
World Cup has a developmental role to play; the Champion’s Trophy doesn’t- if indeed it can still be
called that. In the first week, it didn’t seem like it was an event only for champions.

Published: September 17, 2004