Crunch time for the future of cricket
The success of the recent World Twenty20 has intensified the debate surrounding the future of test cricket and what needs to be done to maintain it’s position as the pinnacle of cricket. There is little argument amongst players (Chris Gayle excepted) and officials that there is where it should remain. But how to achieve this?
Adam Gilchrist, whilst delivering the Cowdrey Lecture at Lord’s on Wednesday, suggested that less is more and that the volume of test cricket should be reduced to ensure that the quality remained and that series took on more significance.
As a result of this Dave Richardson, general manager of ICC, has retorted that he would like to see a two-tiered system to ensure that the strongest teams are playing against each other.
Both of these approaches would risk marginalising the weaker nations and actually damaging cricket in those countries. If the number of test matches is reduced, then the likes of England, Australia, India, Sri Lanka and South Africa are likely to want to play amongst themselves to maximise revenue from these matches. Similarly, a 2nd division structure would face similar difficulties.
The upside to Richardson’s idea is that it could provide a natural structure in which leading Associate nations such as Ireland could become upwardly mobile and gain access to top-class cricket. This would then, in turn, stimulate further growth for cricket in these countries. Such a structure already exists within 50-over Associate cricket with the World Cricket League, but it is reasonable to say that Ireland have reached the limit of their potential but cannot realistically expect to be able to break into the test-cricket circle under the current structure.
With the Future Tours Programme due for renewal in 2012, administrators have the opportunity to devise a radical new system to replace it. But will they be strong enough to carry any changes through should they face resistanace from the cricket’s financial powerhouses such as India and England? They will also need to allow for the inclusion of the IPL and fledgling Champions League which have the financial lure to encourage the changing of priorities amongst players and domestic teams alike. Indeed, the IPL is the biggest catalyst for the emergence of this debate.
So where do we go from here? Is it time to recognise that some nations will need to satisfy themselves with a lower grade of cricket for the greater good of the game? Should we accept the current status-quo even if Twenty20 becomes the prime format in the long term? Are the ICC competent or brave enough to tear up the current structure and start again? What is the best system to put in place for the future?
Interesting times lay ahead.
Comments:
0