The Death of Test Cricket?

Sangakarra says 20-20 will make Test Cricket more interesting as batsmen will get more positive and adventurous/innovative. Oram, currently in England for the Test Cricket Series, says Test Cricket is the real thing and everything else comes second. Similarly, other players have sung praises about Test Cricket but hey, is everyone missing a point? Ultimately it is about money isn't it?

Will a youngster in India want to be like Tendulkar (many 100s and many runs in test cricket) or like Dhoni (an average average in Test cricket but commanding the highest in the IPL auction)?

Being romantic about test cricket is one thing. But one has to be practical. The only way test cricket can survive is by paying the test cricketer as much as an IPL player gets in IPL. Otherwise what is the motivation for playing test cricket? I am not suggesting that cricketers are greedy and would choose IPL over Test Cricket just because of the money to be made in IPL.

The question is: Why should a player risk injury and shorten his career by playing Test Cricket when he can just concentrate on 20-20 and make more money than he can ever make by playing Test Cricket?

Cricket team formation: Different nationalities can bond and play for a common cause - this has been happening much before ICL or IPL

Much before ICL and IPL happened, cricketers from different nations have played for the same team and bonded quite well. It happens all the time in English County cricket where players from Pakistan, Australia, West Indies, New Zealand, Australia and to an extent, India play for the same team. On such occasions, the player gives his best to ensure his county team wins. His nationality does not come into play at all.

Singapore clubs have always had players of different nationalities playing for the same club. When I first played cricket for Singapore Chinese Recreation Club in 1997, my opening batting partner was a Pakistani. (At that time tensions between the two countries were rather high. But we celebrated good cricket and ensured that our team won.) Other than the Pakistani, our team had a couple of Aussies, a couple of English men, Sri Lankans, South Africans, Indians and some Chinese as well. We played hard, we enjoyed each other's company and we wanted to win.

At the end of the day we had a good laugh over a chilled beer and that was that.

In other words, when you play for a team, you identify with the team, and little else.

ICL v/s IPL: The story of Kapil Dev, Aamir Khan, Allen Stanford and Lalit Modi

When BCCI and IPL turned ICL and everyone who had anything to do with ICL into outcasts, no one said anything.

I can't recall the current players (A Tendulkar or Ganguly for example) saying anything about the way BCCI and IPL were flexing their muscles and affecting the careers of ICL players.

I don't remember the media coming out against BCCI and IPL for their dictatorial behaviour.

The ICC did not raise a murmur at their behaviour either.

I don't think that the commentators - M/S Ravi Shastri or Gavaskar or Arun Lal said a word against BCCI/IPL for the way they were behaving.

All these guys knew which side of the bread was buttered. All these guys knew who called the shots.

So much so that no one minded the fact that Kapil Dev, one of India's true heros if ever there was one, was reduced to a social pariah by an ambitious businessman.

This is when my wife wondered how Aamir Khan would behave if he had anything to do with Indian cricket. Would he have supported Kapil Dev or would he, like so many others, be lured by the greenbacks?

And the bigger question is this: If the Texan billionaire Allen Stanford ties up with Kapil Dev and ICL, and offers more dollars as prize money, will all the players, commentators and umpires and media who are now aligned with IPL, come running to join ICL? The answer unfortunately looks like a resounding YES.

20-20 cricket - the right way to bring cricket to the world including Groucho Marx

The purists might still yearn for test cricket, but one thing is for sure - 20-20 cricket is here to stay. And why shouldn't it? I remember tennis ball cricket matches we played back home in Ahmedabad. They were all of 20 overs a side and played with great passion and commitment and we had a result in less than 4 hours. Then again, there is place for test cricket too - the real test where you have a bit for everyone - batsmen, bowlers - seamers and spinners.

But this post is not about which format is better - after all both have their merits and they can co-exist.

This post is about how 20-20 cricket can help ICC take the game of cricket to the rest of the world - especially big markets like the US, Europe and China. Whenever I talk to my Chinese friends about cricket they baulk at the very prospect of players playing a match over 5 days after which a game could still not have a result! So they stay away from it - they don't even want to try and understand the game.

20-20 on the other hand has everything the game has to offer and also guarantees a result in 3 hours. It is more comprehensible for people totally new to the game - 3 hours is all they have to invest. Then again 20-20 promises much more - there are the dancers and singers and acrobats who make the game of 20-20 an interesting outing. My Chinese friends will not mind joining me for a game of 20-20 cricket.

There is this story about comedian Groucho Marx who was once taken to a game of test cricket at Lords in England. The players had been playing for a couple of hours when Groucho turned to his host and asked, "So when does the game start?"

Groucho would have appreciated the 20-20 version.

Sourav Ganguly - another match winning performance

Who writes his scripts? Will he ever stop proving people wrong? A hunger to do well is what sets this man apart. Not the perfect technique, but the sheer will to stick it out and hang around come what may. That sums his 87 against South Africa on a crazy pitch.

That he has to fight for his place before every test match shows how much the Indian cricket selection think tank understands him or does not understand him.

How much different would his performances be if he had the assurance of the captain and selectors that he would be given an extended run come what may. Imagine the insecurity with which he and the other seniors are currently playing. Any talent needs security to flower.

With this kind of grit and determination, will he also not fight back into the one day team?

A contest to savour and settle a longstanding debate

There is a lot of talk as to whether the Indian seniors really have it in them to make it to the One-day 11. The selectors did not think so and hence did not include them in the one-day CB series down under which India won.
What would be great for Indian cricket and what would also help settle this debate is a 3-match one day series between the victorious Indian one day and an Indian team made of seniors and other players who could not make it to that team.
Dhoni's victorious Indian team from:
Tendulkar
Uthappa
Gambhir
Rohit Sharma
Yuvraj
Dhoni (Capt/wk)
Pathan
Ishant
Harbhajan
Praveen Kumar
Sehwag
Indian team made of seniors and others not considered for the CB Series from:
Jaffer
Ganguly
Dravid (wk)
Laxman
Mohd. Kaif
Rohan Gavaskar
Anil Kumble (Capt)
Dinesh Mongia
Murali Kartik
Agarkar
Zaheer Khan
Balaji
The senior team would give Dhoni's boys a run for their money. Now imagine if Tendulkar was to play for the seniors.