Shorter the format of Cricket, more role random events play in determining the course of the game, rather than the skills of the players. For instance, in T20 it does not matter if you are a regular bowler or just some part-timer. We do know the difference between Glen McGrath and Ashish Nehra, but that difference was brought out by longer versions of Cricket (Tests and ODI).
Sports are great equalizers, players come from different backgrounds, and are treated alike (process of mixing) to find out a new order in the players (process of re-ordering), which is skill based not background based. And the players in the new order emerge as the Heroes and inspirations to others. It is absolutely important for a game to perform the two processes and provide heroes to the public, and thus to remain an important activity in the public opinion.
But every game has its own dynamics and every game needs some minimum amount of time to do the process of mixing and re-ordering. If two people compete for a very short duration, there is no way to determine who is better.
Imagine if tennis matches were to last for only game, instead of there/five sets, would we have great tennis players such as Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Andre Aagasi, Boris Becker, Roger Fedrer, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf. In all likelihood the answer is no...
Same applies to Cricket, if a game were to last for one over each (just because its short and will attarct more audience) would soon fall out the public imagination as it will not be able to find out the best among the better player. We can do the statistics to see if the Twenty20 has produced any hero who was not already considered a great in the longer form of the game. In fact all the most successful players of the Twenty20 cricket are excellent players of the longer form of cricket.
If a game is reduced to some arbitrary short duration, it will not be able to do mixing and re-ordering. How can it do it, if the inherent randomness are stronger than the players influence. In Engineering we call such a situation as low signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). If a game does not allow players sufficient time to really influence the course of the game, the game will be severely deprived of its heroes.
So in the shorter form of cricket (Twenty20) about which everyone (including the former players and administrators) so excited about, and suggesting that soon all forms of cricket be replaced by the 20 over format, in fact, is unlikely to produce Heroes and hence I conjecture would fall out of the public imagination.
It is possible a dis-interest in cricket triggered by the Twenty20 format, might bring back the longer forms of the game. However, Cricket is not an easy sports, it takes generation to develop a nurturing culture for Cricket. There is a reason why ICC is struggling to generate interest in traditionally non-cricket playing nations about Cricket.
So, in a more likely scenario current attraction with Twenty20 is in fact start of the eventual demise of Cricket. This time around there wont be any Ashes left this time around to play for.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
How To Save Test Cricket: Teach the audience
After the success (mainly monetary, at least that what was told) of IPL, everyone in the cricket world is discussing the future of cricket. The shortest form of cricket has presented the biggest threat to the cricket in its purest form that is the Test Cricket. Kevin Pietersen thinks that Test cricket would be dead in about 10 years. Brian Lara is more pessimistic and said that the game of Cricket it self would be dead in next five decades or so. Most former players think that 50 Over cricket would suffer most and perhaps would be the first victim of Twenty20 cricket. Not that Cricket players are know for their gray matter but their statements can definitely sway the opinion and the game can go their predicted way.
The lack of spectators, even in the international matches (primarily in Tests and also in Limited overs) led to the advent of 20 Over games in international cricket. The administrators argued that even the 50 over match lasts too long (and gets boring) and the game is not compatible with the fast paced age we are living in. They thought that reducing the overs would bring back spectators to the stadiums. I think it did happen to some extent but results are far from the expectations.
Why test cricket is losing its appeal
But is it true that spectator do not turn up because the game is too long and the do not find time to watch the matches? I do not agree.
I can safely cite my own example. My academic interests required me to spend long hour on my study desk, in my school and college days. But I still found time to watch Test matches, at least read about those and discuss the progress of the matches, and of course cricket statistics. As the pace of my life increased the access to technology also increased. So now I work even more than I used to in my college days, but I watch more cricket. Technology has tremendously helped me in saving time and use that to watch cricket.
I think that in this fast paced life, supported by technology, everyone has more time at hands. So I think people do have time to follow cricket matches even the Test matches.
The real reason
In my opinion the main reason Test cricket is losing its appeal is because we do not have people who can understand Test cricket properly.
As the game became popular, media interest increased and with that came the sponsors. Who very rightly chose to focus on the important but rather rare events in the match that is 6's and 4's and also wickets to some extent. The younger generation that grew up watching cricket on TV, assumed that cricket has to be all about boundary shots. This started a kind of a viscous circle. Cricket administrators started to go for batting friendly wickets, took away effective weapons from the bowlers and shortened the boundaries, thus, sent the message that cricket indeed is about 6s and 4s.
A potential solution to make test cricket appealing
Mathematics is very intensive and its not easy to appreciate its essence. But then we have a system to train students so that they can understand and appreciate the Maths.
Similarly, Test cricket is very intensive not only for the players but also for the audience. So it is important to train and teach the audience to appreciate Test Matches. Both media and the cricket administrators have an important role to prepare a generation of audience that can understand Test Cricket.
The cricket admin. should not fall for quick money that the shorter form of the game are bringing now. It may not last. Further ICC should expect to see the game spread out in non-cricketing countries in a matter of few years. ICC should realize and accept the fact that cricket grows slowly. Even a country like Bangladesh that has been playing cricket since very long, has failed to produce a good side so far. It takes at least two generations of players to establish a culture for the game than can generate cricket player that can shine at international level.
The media should not favor one form of the game over other, just because one form (Twenty20) is likely to bring more money. Good things in life go beyond money. The test match telecast on the TV should be informative to the audience and should go deeper than just showing the match. There should be a way to bring out the process that goes in the preparation of the Test Match. The so called highlights should not just contain the boundary shots and wickets. Certain singles and defensive shots are sometime more critical than boundaries. Further, the former players, together with the media, should make an effort to bring out the psychological aspect of the game.
Once we have an audience that can understand the game, no form of Cricket would fall short of audience.
Do we need test cricket
Opinion will divide on this question. Those of us who understand the subtleties of the game would very like to see the Test Cricket to live on. Those who think that action in cricket means 6's or 4's would like to see Test cricket make way for the shorter and more action-packed forms.
However, anyone who cares a bit about cricket would not want to see the greats of WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Gary Sobers, Sunny Gavaskar to go into obscurity. For that it is important that we teach the public how to appreciate cricket.
Here I would like to sound a warning that all forms of cricket feed on Test Cricket. If we do not have players of Test Match quality, we will not have good consistent players in the shorter forms of the game. Notice that it is the consistent players who eventually become HEROES. A game that cannot produce heroes will soon fall out of the public imagination.
The lack of spectators, even in the international matches (primarily in Tests and also in Limited overs) led to the advent of 20 Over games in international cricket. The administrators argued that even the 50 over match lasts too long (and gets boring) and the game is not compatible with the fast paced age we are living in. They thought that reducing the overs would bring back spectators to the stadiums. I think it did happen to some extent but results are far from the expectations.
Why test cricket is losing its appeal
But is it true that spectator do not turn up because the game is too long and the do not find time to watch the matches? I do not agree.
I can safely cite my own example. My academic interests required me to spend long hour on my study desk, in my school and college days. But I still found time to watch Test matches, at least read about those and discuss the progress of the matches, and of course cricket statistics. As the pace of my life increased the access to technology also increased. So now I work even more than I used to in my college days, but I watch more cricket. Technology has tremendously helped me in saving time and use that to watch cricket.
I think that in this fast paced life, supported by technology, everyone has more time at hands. So I think people do have time to follow cricket matches even the Test matches.
The real reason
In my opinion the main reason Test cricket is losing its appeal is because we do not have people who can understand Test cricket properly.
As the game became popular, media interest increased and with that came the sponsors. Who very rightly chose to focus on the important but rather rare events in the match that is 6's and 4's and also wickets to some extent. The younger generation that grew up watching cricket on TV, assumed that cricket has to be all about boundary shots. This started a kind of a viscous circle. Cricket administrators started to go for batting friendly wickets, took away effective weapons from the bowlers and shortened the boundaries, thus, sent the message that cricket indeed is about 6s and 4s.
A potential solution to make test cricket appealing
Mathematics is very intensive and its not easy to appreciate its essence. But then we have a system to train students so that they can understand and appreciate the Maths.
Similarly, Test cricket is very intensive not only for the players but also for the audience. So it is important to train and teach the audience to appreciate Test Matches. Both media and the cricket administrators have an important role to prepare a generation of audience that can understand Test Cricket.
The cricket admin. should not fall for quick money that the shorter form of the game are bringing now. It may not last. Further ICC should expect to see the game spread out in non-cricketing countries in a matter of few years. ICC should realize and accept the fact that cricket grows slowly. Even a country like Bangladesh that has been playing cricket since very long, has failed to produce a good side so far. It takes at least two generations of players to establish a culture for the game than can generate cricket player that can shine at international level.
The media should not favor one form of the game over other, just because one form (Twenty20) is likely to bring more money. Good things in life go beyond money. The test match telecast on the TV should be informative to the audience and should go deeper than just showing the match. There should be a way to bring out the process that goes in the preparation of the Test Match. The so called highlights should not just contain the boundary shots and wickets. Certain singles and defensive shots are sometime more critical than boundaries. Further, the former players, together with the media, should make an effort to bring out the psychological aspect of the game.
Once we have an audience that can understand the game, no form of Cricket would fall short of audience.
Do we need test cricket
Opinion will divide on this question. Those of us who understand the subtleties of the game would very like to see the Test Cricket to live on. Those who think that action in cricket means 6's or 4's would like to see Test cricket make way for the shorter and more action-packed forms.
However, anyone who cares a bit about cricket would not want to see the greats of WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman, Gary Sobers, Sunny Gavaskar to go into obscurity. For that it is important that we teach the public how to appreciate cricket.
Here I would like to sound a warning that all forms of cricket feed on Test Cricket. If we do not have players of Test Match quality, we will not have good consistent players in the shorter forms of the game. Notice that it is the consistent players who eventually become HEROES. A game that cannot produce heroes will soon fall out of the public imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)