Re-structuring the ICC Future Tours Programme

The ICC's President, David Morgan, has revealed that the Future Tours Programme (FTP) planned for the period 2012-2020 will relax restrictions around the concept. Teams do not need to play each other home and away over a six year cycle as is the case currently.

What is interesting though is that the current version of the FTP only spans 6 years, and was drawn up in 2006. I find it bizarre that the ICC will be coming out with an 8 year schedule (2012-2020) at a time when a lot of folks, including administrators and players, don't even know what's around the corner 2 years from now. In the last couple of years, cricket has gone through so much change with the advent of private leagues, IPL, Champions T20 league, questions over the relevance of ODIs and tests, etc.

Then again, I'd be stupid if I expected the ICC to actually make any sort of sense.

A two-tiered structure for test cricket, in the form of a test championship, seems a natural solution to rationalize player workload and have better more even contests. Sangakkara has every right to feel aggrieved that Sri Lanka was not included in the ICC's discussions over a 2-tier system. But, does a 2-tier structure mean that a team is shut out from the top tier forever? Of course not.

A 2-tier system does bring with it some uncertainty over whether a team being demoted to the lower tier could mean loss of spectatorship / TV audiences. I'm fairly sure that boards who are opposed to a 2-tier system are mainly concerned about the worth of their TV (& other media) rights if there's no guarantee that their team will play in the top tier instead of battling it out for the wooden spoon. There's no doubt that money from media rights finances the game. So it would be stupid to take on those who pay up the cash!

Yet, if the cycle lasted say 3 years instead of a promotion & relegation every year, TV rights owners have some amount of ability to predict who will play whom where and when. This could mean they are far more likely to dish out the cash than if teams were promoted & relegated every year. The other reason, which I wrote about 5.5 years ago, why an annual promotion / relegation should not be used is to avoid a situation where a team like (say) Ireland just happens to top the 2nd tier in one year, gets promoted to the top tier and gets thrashed by all and sundry.

Assume there are a total of 12 teams - Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe (it is likely that at some point of time, if the West Indies 'splits' and individual island countries compete by themselves, we will need a 3-tier system). There would be 2 tiers of 6 teams each (Based on the current rankings, it would look like - Tier-1: India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia, England & Pakistan; Tier-2: New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland & Kenya).

Only test matches played within the tiers would count for any points. If teams that played for test trophies (Australia-England, England-South Africa, Sri Lanka-Australia, India-Australia, Australia-West Indies etc.) ended up in different tiers, they could still play their 'marquee' series. But the result of the tests and series wouldn't count in the ICC test championship points system. Boards would of course need to remember that if players got burnt out playing the marquee series, then their team's prospects in the test championship could be impacted.

If each team had to play all the other teams in the same tier in test series (of 3 tests each - not more, not less) home and once away, they'd need to play a total of 30 tests (15 home & 15 away) over a 3 year period. That's not much. In the 3 years spanning 2006, 2007 and 2008, 7 of the 9 test teams played more than 24 tests.

The points structure could be fairly simple (10 for a test win, 5 for a draw, 0 for a loss, with bonus points for winning by an innings or anything more than 7 wickets) and also factor in the series result as well as whether the it was a home or away fixture and adjust the weightage accordingly.

There would be no concept of 'Super Eight', 'Super Six', knock-out games or a grand final. At the end of the 3 year window, the team with the most points would be declared the winner of that particular tier. The team that ended up last in the 1st tier would swap places with the team that topped the 2nd tier. In case of a tie, number of series wins away, number of test wins away, points from away wins, etc. would be used to determine who should be ranked higher.

There would also be individual awards for bowling, batting and fielding.

In fact, this sort of 2-tiered structure with equal matches for all would satisfy the demands from the likes of Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies, Pakistan, etc. who claim that a 2-tier system would not benefit them.

For the boards, the TV revenue from 'marquee' series is a much bigger factor. So how do they reconcile themselves to it? Perhaps with the knowledge that if they manage their players well, create a large enough pool to pick from and create sane schedules, their best players would still be available for the marquee series.

Labels: burnout, fatigue, future, future tours programme, icc, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:33 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Are 50-over ODIs in danger actually?

Asking if the 50-over game is in danger sounds timely considering the following:

• I, and I suspect several others, yawned after realizing that two 50-over ODI tournaments will be in progress simultaneously (the 7 ODIs between Australia & England and the 4-match tri-series involving New Zealand, India & Sri Lanka.
  
• Sachin Tendulkar has a proposal to save the format from becoming irrelevant.
  
• The ECB announced that domestic games would be 40-overs a side from the 2010 season.

The ICC keeps bleating about how it is proud that there are 3 viable formats of the game, and that all three can co-exist. That's actually rubbish. If the scheduling of tours & tournaments doesn't change significantly, one form of the game (and I'm willing to bet that it won't be T20) will gradually disappear until there's nothing left of it, except for silly-looking administrators (to paraphrase Lewis Carroll).

Let's assume that there will be 3 formats of the game, and that a typical series would have 2 tests (sadly), 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Factor in ICC rules (can't locate it) that mandate at least 3 days gap between tests, 2 warm-up games (1 before the tests and 1 before the ODIs), at most 1 back-to-back ODI, 2 days gap between the other ODIs, 1 day gap between the T20 games and at least 1-2 days gap between each leg (Test, ODI & T20) legs of the tour. We're talking of something like a 40-day tour, with 21 playing days. Nearly half the tour's duration would be devoted to the 5-day game (either the actual playing days or the warm-ups or the time between first-class games). It definitely does seem like the softest target. Remove the tests from the tour, and you can easily squeeze in at least 5 more ODIs.

Now, on an average, each team plays around 3 test series during a year. Let's assume that all these series are 2-test, 5-ODI & 2-T20 affairs (which is a very simplistic & minimal assumption). So we're talking of a total touring time of 120 days, out of which just over half are playing days. If only it was so simple.

There are ICC tournaments to contend with, each lasting 30-40 days at least, on an annual basis. Then there are some series that don't fit in to the minimalistic 2-5-2 model. They may have 3 tests, 5 ODIs and 2 T20 games. Others like Australia's tour of England have 5 tests, 7 ODIs and 2 T20 games. That tour started on June 24 (excluding the T20 World Cup) and will end on Sep 20 - nearly 3 months, with nearly 50 playing days! Then there are some other meaningless tri-nation tournaments. Then there're the new leagues - IPL and Champions League.

So, players could be "on-the-road" for something like 220-250 days a year, playing on around 120-140 of those days.

Isn't it still obvious that if the ICC continues to harp on retaining 3 formats, something is going to give?

Yet, will it necessarily result in T20 driving the 50-over game out of existence? I suspect not, primarily for commercial reasons.

Assuming that other factors are identical across both the formats (i.e. teams play out the entire allotment of overs, and lose the same number of wickets), TV viewers watching a 50-over game would see 60% more ads than when they were watching a T20 game (figure it out - 49 over-breaks v/s 19 over-breaks per innings).

Even though you can squeeze in 2 T20 games within the duration of 1 50-over ODI, the number of ad-breaks between overs is reduced by 22% (49 v/s 2x19). We haven't even got to the possibility that more wickets are likely to fall across 50 overs compared to 20 overs, thereby increasing the number of ad breaks!

Even the ECB's (and Cricket South Africa's) moves to 40-over cricket will fail for the same reason - 20% less ad-breaks. The BCCI is unlikely to support the ECB & CSA on this. Cricket Australia moved away from the tri-series format only this year. So they're unlikely to take a plunge without having evaluated the benefits of staging 2 bilateral ODI series compared to the ODI triangular format. There's probably not too much of a point in discussing what other countries will do.

In any case, the ICC had already announced the venues for the next 3 World Cups over three years ago. This doesn't imply that a change in realities won't make them change the format of those tournaments. After all, the 2010 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy (hosted by West Indies) was converted into the T20 World Cup. Such a move would need the BCCI's backing (and by implication a few other boards that kow-tow to them), and that seems very unlikely at this point in time.

Labels: burnout, fatigue, future, odi, prediction, test cricket, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:00 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

• Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
  
• Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
  
• Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
  
• Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
  
• Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
  
• Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
  
• The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
  
• The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
  
• Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
  
• The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The 2009 T20 World Cup - quite eventful

Yesterday, England and Pakistan won the women's and men's T20 World Cup titles.

Both teams played excellently throughout the tournament, and really peaked when it mattered - in the semi and the final. The England women's team was unbeaten in the tournament (and in fact set a record for the highest successful chase in Women's T20 internationals) while Pakistan's men lost 2 games (against England [men] & Sri Lanka). While Sri Lanka seemed to have run short of motivation yesterday, Pakistan's short-pitched bowling ploy early on was wonderfully executed.

It is so ironic that players from the current World T20 championship winning team will not be part of the Champions Twenty20 League. Oh, have you ever seen a more 'broken' official site?

Aside from Australia's early journey to Leicester, the other stories that captured everyone's attention were (in no specific order):

• India's exit at the Super Eight stage following losses to England (!!!) and West Indies. As is usual, multiple theories started doing the rounds, such as player fatigue, infighting, lack of skills and overly focussed on ad-shoots, to name a few. The truth, as usual, probably lies in-between everything else.
  
  Fatigue is an ever-present reality in modern sport, especially when new forms of the game keep getting invented and commercialized. Players are supposed to know when their minds and bodies can't take it any longer. If India's players want a break, they always have the option of opting out, preferably an entire series/tournament so that there's some stability in the squad. If they believed that the IPL was far too lucrative to miss out on, then they could have opted out from the ODIs in Sri Lanka or the games in New Zealand. They could have also opted out of the upcoming [pointless] ODIs in West Indies.
  
  The fact that they chose to not do any of the above indicates one of three things:
  1. They are not fatigued
     
  2. They are fatigued but fear that they'll lose their place to someone who steps in while they're away
     
  3. They are fatigued but are in a 'will play for money' mode
  
  Last May, when Pieter$en revealed that he was almost certainly signing up for an IPL team a few months after complaining about burnout, I wrote

  My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

  Gary Kirsten, India's coach, had already voiced his excuse warning prior to the tournament that fatigue would be India's biggest challenge.
  
  He was only partly right. I don't think India failed to make it to the semi-finals because of fatigue. They failed to make it to the semis because they couldn't cope with West Indies and England using the short ball to great effect. They had no plan-B. They failed to make it to the semis because the batting order bizarrely got revamped. In 'easy' games against Bangladesh and Ireland, Dhoni came in at #3. But when it was time to face the music, Raina was sent in. Where's the leadership?
  
  
• If its Pakistan in England, there must be some dark arts involved. Vettori's "informal approach" to the match officials (the umpires and the match referee, presumably) and his post-match interview comments after New Zealand got their arse whipped by Pakistan were totally unwarranted. Umpires, especially those standing in Pakistan games, will undoubtedly be examining the ball far more closely after the events at The Oval in August 2006.
  
  
• Messrs. Duckworth & Lewis made an entry during this tournament after West Indies were set a ridiculously easy target of 80 from 9 overs, with the luxury of all 11 batsmen available to have a hit, against England. Frank Duckworth, who along with Tony Lewis, devised the system, has revealed plans to rework the numbers by incorporating Twenty20's duration and far more frenetic pace.
  
  I'd really love the rules to be changed to allow only 6 players to bat and allow a maximum of 6 overs per bowler. I really don't see the possibility of this happening (because of the stupid sanctity around 11 players making up a cricket team). So I'll probably settle for the D/L method tweak restricting the [additional] number of wickets that can be lost by the chasing team. Just compare a team knowing at the start of the innings that it has 10 wickets in hand to chase down 80 in 9 overs with the team knowing it only has [say] 6 wickets to play with.

Labels: ball tampering, burnout, duckworth-lewis method, england, fatigue, india, pakistan, sri lanka, twenty20, twenty20 world cup, vettori, women

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:17 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Squad announcements: India's tour to Sri Lanka & Champions Trophy

The BCCI announced the Indian squad for the test series in Sri Lanka today. Since Dhoni had opted out, citing overwork, there is no designated vice-captain. I guess Sehwag, who was sacked from the role during India's tour of South Africa in 2006, will step in when required. In any case, Kumble has more than enough people to chip in with suggestions (Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Laxman, Zaheer & Harbhajan).

Dhoni had opted out since he was obviously tired, stressed & probably getting burnt out from having played out his multiple roles as captain, wicket-keeper & star batsman almost continously for over a year without ever getting a chance to sit out a game or two. He has done the right thing. On his personal website, Gary Kirsten touched upon the necessity to give Dhoni a break.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni is probably the most obvious example of a man needing a break. In my own experience, by the time a player is feeling tired or 'flat', it is already too late to rest him. The rest needs to happen before fatigue sets in. MS is a brilliant cricketer and the sort of man who is happy to play every game, but he knows that it is not practical. Fatigue can lead to loss of form as well as injuries, both of which can adversely affect a player's long-term career.

Like I've mentioned before, the responsibility and right ultimately rests with the player. Unless the players have a mechanism to be actively consulted when the board draws up schedules, they have to play when required to.

My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

Thankfully, the selectors have lost patience with Yuvraj. After his blazing century against Pakistan at Bangalore, he has been quite hopeless. He'll keep saying all the right things about the need to make an impact in test cricket, but personally, despite the fact that he is only 27, I think he should just stick to limited overs cricket. I'm sure he'll do a very good job.

Presumably Dravid & Ganguly have been 'rested' for the ICC Champions Trophy later this year, since they don't feature in the list of 30 probables.

Labels: bcci, burnout, champions trophy, dhoni, fatigue, india, squad, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:34 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Pieter$en to play in the IPL next year?

Kevin Pietersen's interview to the Daily Mail last week is sure to shake up the ECB. He has apparently been approached with a £ 2 million offer for a three year contract with one of the franchisees.

Since the ECB does not yet allow its centrally contracted players to play in the Indian Premier League, he does have the option of turning down an ECB contract offer so that he can play when and where he wants. Unlike other cricketers, he can be pretty safe in the knowledge that the absence of a central contract won't result in him not being considered for selection.

Yet, it's funny how his views have changed over the last year, like Will Luke too points out. Sample this chronology of quotes:

• June 2007 (during West Indies' tour of England):
  'Burnout could cut short my career.'
  
• October 2008 (during England's tour of Sri Lanka):
  'When I said I was tired in the summer nobody said anything to me, nobody backed me at all.'
  
• Feb 2008:
  'I know there is interest and, yes, there have been offers, etc etc, but it's not something I'm particularly interested in.'
  
• April 2008:
  'You want your best players playing both for their country and for the IPL. You don't want them choosing between the two. It's silly to think that you're losing up to a million over six weeks.'
  
• May 2008:
  'I am disappointed and irritated that England players have been stopped going so far, and I definitely want to go next year.'

It can be no-one's case that playing in the IPL is like a walk in the park. From what I've seen, these Twenty20 games need as much, if not more, focus as one-day internationals primarily because the situation changes so rapidly, on a ball-by-ball basis. In a fifty over game, you can recover from 60/4 and put up (or defend) a 250-260 score. In Twenty20, under most circumstances, you might as well concede the game at that stage.

So clearly players will experience burnout of some nature or the other. Obviously the money is good. But in today's cricketing setup, appearances for country and sponsorship deals are the only avenues for players to make money from their skills (and looks!). So, it can be no-one's case that players are mercenaries by playing for money.

Yet, like the chronology indicates, Pietersen has been far from consistent in his take on the IPL. He can't complain of burnout and sign on the IPL dotted line!

My take on there being too much cricket is that players always have the option of opting out of series. Typically the only players you'll see complaining about too much cricket are those that play the most often, and hence are the 'star' players. Surely they've performed well enough to risk skipping a game or a series and not face a piquant situation where they won't be included next time around. Also, if a sufficiently large number of players keep opting out of tournaments, cricket administrators will realize that they may be doing a lot of damage to the golden geese.

Labels: burnout, fatigue, indian premier league, ipl 2008, pietersen, twenty20

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:30 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Afridi's "retirement"

Shahid Afridi shocked a legion of fans, bloggers and columnists when he announced his decision to take a break from test cricket until the bloated World Cup.

In his column, Andrew Miller wrote

And the demands just keep getting worse. Last week, for instance, the BCCI announced it would be adding 25 offshore one-day internationals to India's already rammed itinerary - the majority, undoubtedly, will be against Pakistan. It was a move greeted with understandable dismay by the men whose duty it is to stick to that treadmill day-in, day-out. Cricinfo has learned that not even India's 4-0 clean-sweep was enough to appease their taskmasters, who were concerned that to rest key players in the dead-rubber matches that followed would offend the relevant hosting associations.

I think it is actually becoming quite fashionable to blame the BCCI for all the ills in modern cricket. The fact of the matter is that every cricket board is trying to do its best to milk the players' far in excess of what they're being paid. It just happens in different ways.

Some schedule tests against Bangladesh a few days after a tour of South Africa. Some play in Abu Dhabi. Some just appoint a non-controversial captain who puts in his papers a year later. Some agree to play seven ODIs in the span of less than three weeks and are more than keen to have India & Pakistan play on their grounds just for the money.

Labels: burnout, fatigue

Thus spake Jagadish @ 4:39 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

PCB and BCCI to put golden goose on life support

If you aren't aware, the PCB and BCCI recently made an agreement where by the two boards decided that they'll make their respective teams play 15 games against each other within the next five years on a neutral venues in countries with large expat communities.

This is in addition to the MoU the two countries have earlier signed in which they decided on a frequency of once every two years for full tours to each other's countries. All of which means that barring miracles no year will pass without an India Pakistan cricket game of some sort.

The News suggests the purpose of these games is to put the affects of player burn out to test make money although they do point out that some of the money generated from the Abu Dhabi games at least is going to be donated to charitable causes (75% from the first game goes to Pakistani earth quake victims and the remaining to India's).

50% from the next game will go to the BCCI and PCB each. All the remaining revenues, including a small matter of $ 1 billion that will be earned through a TV contract, Shehreyar Khan insisted to Dawn will be held exclusively with the BCCI.

Fears in certain quarters that that two boards might fight like two little kids wanting the same ice cream have differences over the monetary issues can be safely dismissed on the evidence of history (Pakistan insist to date that India still hasn't given Pakistan its due share from the revenues of the 1996 World Cup).

Skepticism by others that too many India-Pakistani games will be akin to killing the goose that lays gold eggs has been countered by the two boards with their suggestion of keeping the goose on life support after it's been opened to take out all the gold eggs at once.

In other news related to these games Pakistan have aannounced their squad, dropping Arshad Khan, Salman Butt and Umar Gul. Umar Gul was instead picked for the Pakistan A side that also goes to Abu Dhabi on April 22 to play in the Euro Asia Cup also featuring the Sri Lanka A, India A and the national teams of Ireland, Scotland and UAE that one can presume will generate yet more money.

Prominent names missing from the A-squad was the once-upon-time reliable middle order batsman Asim Kamal and the former blind-love interest of Pakistan Cricket Mohammad Sami. I have earlier frowned upon the new records set when observing loyalty by way of giving Sami an extended run in the national side when he did not merit such loyal treatment, but dropping him even from A-squad?

That's probably a bit harsh you have think. A new record set in observing disloyalty? Strange that Imran Khan -Sami's biggest fan on the planet- hasn't protested about this as yet, he probably will not before long.

Labels: bcci, burnout, fatigue

Thus spake Unknown @ 8:32 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Too much of India-Pakistan cricket is also perhaps a bad thing

India and Pakistan have played very frequently in tests and one-dayers ever since the two countries decided to re-establish cricket relations.

The PCB, and not the BCCI, is concerned that this could amount to killing the geese which laid the golden eggs since spectators, audiences and cricket followers would become sick and tired of watching these two teams in action.

Read my comments at the Corridor of Uncertainty when reports first came out about the possibility of the two countries playing test (and ODI obviously!) series on an annual basis.

Labels: burnout, fatigue

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:15 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]