Cricket: Six Big Reasons Why More IPLs Are Good

A lot of literature has been doing the rounds on the World Wide Web recently regarding the Twenty20, and the Indian Premier League in particular.

From tosh from Indian politicians about using the money involved in the IPL to build a couple of cement factories (good luck trying to convince investors about that!) to the fear of Test cricket being reduced to a museum relic (a reasoning that’s clearly been induced due to misunderstanding of the dynamics of the game), have dominated the discussion among the skeptics.

So here, let me throw in my own two pennies’ worth! This party is getting too exciting to keep out of!

My biggest problem with cynics is the fact that they always turn out to be people with the least credibility!

Certainly huge names in international cricket rose in unison against the format, and I too needed convincing if this format would do any good to the sport. But slowly that fear has been proven to be nothing but a creation of the “fear of the unknown” factor.

With personalities like Ian Chappell and Sachin Tendulkar supporting it, how anonymous, self-proclaimed critics continue to chastise it, escapes me!

Well, putting aside all my distrust of the ICC, utter apathy towards BCCI and feelings bordering on savage towards Lalit Modi and his gang, the IPL has been, and yes I have said this before, a huge eye opener, and a historic milestone in a long journey of cricket!

So here are six points why the cricketing world could do with many more IPLs, even if it comes at the cost of One Day Internationals.

1. Bringing Down the Gap
   
   Today’s Asia Cup draws, Pakistan against Hong Kong, and Bangladesh versus United Arab Emirates, revealed the difference between the full member teams and the member nation squads.
   Clearly, the more the number of T20 leagues, the more exposure the players from these member nations will get of playing competitive cricket, and the better it will be for creating a pool of competitive teams at the international level.
   As Prthvir Solanki rightly pointed out, the Asia Cup is a three-way affair. Even Bangladesh finds it difficult to match world standards, and they are busy trouncing U.A.E. at the moment. Shows where the U.A.E. stand.
   Do they even deserve to play at this level against three of the best teams in the world, who even the best of players struggle against?
   You need look no further than the three big leagues of Europe: The Premier League, La Liga and the Serie A, to see what the effect of a bigger stage, accommodating more players in a mixed bag of excellent, good, and rookie players can do to a game.
   Having excellent players pitted against one another (example Kaka against Ronaldinho) instead of on the same team improves their quality. Putting the average guys along with these wizards of the sport gives them the experience required to become bigwigs, and the not-so-goods the inspiration they require.
   Today England, the Czech Republic and more recently the Netherlands find themselves biting the dust in front of relative novices of the sport. England not making due to Croatia in the Euro is equivalent to Sri Lanka being kicked out of the Asia Cup by U.A.E., a scenario that is unlikely to occur even in dreams of cricket enthusiasts across the globe.
   A few more leagues, aided by a few more Stanfords and Ambanis can change the way cricketers view competition.
   
   
2. Maximum Utilisation of Talent
   
   The greatest achievement of the IPL, and a fact for which I’m actually willing to doff my hat to Modi, is the policy of allowing only four foreign players per team. The fact that this masterstroke has inspired FIFA itself speaks volumes of its ingenuity.
   Playing four foreign players gave teams quality; playing seven local lads, and the fact that most of these were unknown domestic players gave the IPL that much more excitement. It's the kind of excitement that comes when you see a Piyush Chawla getting Sachin Tendulkar stumped!
   Asnodkar, Dinda, Nair, Goni. These names were unheard of in Indian cricket. Now their presence in the cricket field evokes as much excitement as that of the most popular international stars.
   When Dilip Vengsarkar took over as Chairman of Selectors, he made the famous statement, “Where is the talent?” That sentence still rings in my ears every time I see a Chawla or an Ishant Sharma in Indian colours.
   The IPL has single handedly increased the apparent bench strength of the Indian team ten fold! And that’s just from what we have seen. The IPL saw only eight teams take to the field. That was due to the lack of time available to stage the event. With time, if the league spreads out like the football leagues of the world, imagine the abundance of talent that will come to the fore.
   Of course, there’s the argument whether this talent will be Test match standard.
   In India, under-21 players are not allowed to play limited over formats in any official tournament. This rule has also stood the national squad in good stead, and is often the reason why the country is able to produce strong five-day squads not withstanding the utter lack of initiative the Board often displays at the grass root levels.
   Also, if selection to Test match squads is only based on domestic first class games and tournaments such as the IPL are only used to select T20 players, that dilemma can be totally solved. The challenge will, therefore, be giving these guys enough incentive to accommodate the four day Ranji Trophy along with the slam bang format.
   Currently all junior cricket comes under the jurisdiction of the BCCI, a fact that gives me nightmares at times.
   With privatization of the teams in the IPL, scouting may not be too far away, and this may give a better quality base for juniors to display skills and learn some new ones too!
   
   
3. Fielding
   
   This, to me, will probably be the greatest effect on Test cricket that T20 will, or rather should, have.
   How often have you seen brilliant fast bowlers having a miserable time in the outfield? How often have you seen men as master batsmen at the crease, but as portly figures in the field who struggle to compete with a speeding ball?
   Not the T20 generation! Take a look at the top run getter in the IPL: Shaun Marsh. Well, his batting may be awe provoking, but his fielding at point, the famous Jonty’s corner, is almost as breathtaking as his sixers over long off!
   Jayasuriya was probably the first of the top order batsmen (well he was one eventually!) to also be a brilliant fielder. He did have predecessors in people like Viv Richards, but he was probably the one that caught the world’s attention more with his fielding than Richards and his predecessors, simply because of the importance given to the art in their respective eras.
   Ricky Ponting has been the best example of awesome batsmen being even better fielders.
   The fast bowlers are catching up, too! Glenn McGrath may have struggled to dive around with a lot of athleticism, but not the likes of Brett Lee, or even Ishant Sharma for that matter!
   
   
4. Globalising the Game
   
   This is the most cited point by the supporters of the format. Their argument is that global audiences will appreciate this game more than the five-day version. However, I find that this argument further drives away people who aren’t sure of its impacts on the game.
   To those listening, it clearly sounds as if, this task of taking the game to a global audience will mean sacrificing the Test for ever.
   This is not the case.
   This is how I look at it.
   Take T20 to the Americans, Germans, French (who have won an Olympic Gold in the early 1900s, for those who don’t know), et al. The ICC can build a pool of international T20 sides, making the T20 Championship the global event of cricket which will rival the football World Cup.
   But limit the Test game to the ten, or rather eight, (a much better option; Bangladesh and Zimbabwe just don’t cut it, for me) existing Test sides.
   Test cricket is more than a game. It’s a tradition. Over the last hundred and fifty years, it’s gone on to become a Commonwealth Tradition, rather than just a British one. To do away with it will be to do away with cricket’s soul. And who wants a zombie?
   The biggest difference between football and cricket is, more than anything, the number of quality teams. While a football World Cup qualifying sees over a hundred and fifty teams participating, cricket barely sees ten, barring the ten full members.
   More the leagues, more the talent that will seep into the sport through the spreading of the game, and the more quality players in international squads of the likes of United States and Canada!
   
   
5. It’s All About the Money, Honey
   
   I’ve never been happy with what our cricketers make, really. Indians are supposed to be the highest earners in the sport. Tendulkar, the cricketing world’s equivalent of Pele and the world’s richest cricketer ever, still makes a fraction of what a third grade footballer would make at Queens Park Rangers!
   Great cricketers are difficult to find. The average career span of a player is as long as that of a footballer. So why the disparity? Cricket gets as many viewers, a majority from the sub-continent, yes, but viewers nevertheless!
   On India’s tour of Bangladesh in December 2004, the Man of the Match got $500 in the Tests! That’s like canteen money for Cristiano Ronaldo!
   M.S. Dhoni, the most expensive buy during the IPL, was paid $1.5 million. That's a good beginning indeed. Rumors are doing the rounds that Kevin Pietersen has been offered more than three times that amount by the Mumbai Indians for next season!
   Of course the IPL board and Modi himself have denied any removal or changing of the limit of $15 million per team for its players, but it may very well be the case once the format spreads out to other countries and competition to get the best talent in the world heats up!
   
   
6. Taking the Load Off
   
   If the league format does catch up with the rest of the world and spreads out over a whole season, instead of packing everything in for a month and a half, we could see very interesting developments in the international arena.
   More leagues would mean greater amount of games would be played within the geographic limits of a country; as a result less jet lag for players, who currently are on an international flight for four to five hours, every other week!
   This would of course mean lesser international games. But on the positive side, it could mean more Test match cricket than before.
   Last year, the Indian team played about 11 Tests. Now imagine a structure akin to the football one, where, instead of international games being all about friendlies or qualifiers, international cricket literally means only Test match cricket.
   Picture this:
   5^th May, 2020
   Headlines: “Five Indian internationals and three Aussies will be made unavailable to their respective sides in the Australian Super League, as the two countries prepare for the quadrennial Border-Gavaskar Series in India!”
   With One Dayers out of the picture, and international T20 reserved for qualifiers and other such ICC events, the road is paved for more international Test games. Say the ICC allots 100 days of a calendar year to be used for Test matches, per team. Even if 70 percent is utilized and the rest taken up for rest between two games, it makes for an average of 14 Test matches per side every calendar year!
   And T20 was supposed to be the end of Tests? Get outta here!
   
   

This is just a take on what I think may happen to cricket if the current events continue at the current pace. These are just the positives. Of course, there will be the down-sides to all these points. Over commercialization is one example.

I guess the best we can do is to learn from football's mistakes, and make sure we incorporate only the good points.

I know I haven’t been able to cover all the points regarding the subject. So feel free to leave a feedback! It’s highly appreciated!