In an article in The Times last week (IPL auction likes Morgan a lot), Nick Hoult detailed the fact that only one English player attracted any bids in the annual scramble for overseas players to add star quality to the Indian Premier League. Swann, Bresnan and Trott languished penniless while Eoin Morgan went to Bangalore for $220,000.
Mr Hoult writes that “…as far as England’s players are concerned the future now looks to be a decision between Test cricket and the IPL.” The point he is making here is that because of the timing of England’s various tours relative to the world’s richest cricket competition, players cannot do both.
An inevitable consequence is that players will choose to specialise: to become expert one-day or Twenty20 players (presumably chastised for taking Indian coin) or to focus on “proper cricket” and the multi-day game. I believe this to be true, based on evidence much closer to home, where my 13-year old son recently announced his intention to reduce his limited over cricket for fear it will turn him into a batsman less effective at the three day game (which is as long as it gets for a 13-year old). Sage words, and I wish that more illustrious talents would abide by them.
Where my views diverge from Mr Hoult’s and, I suspect, from those of a great number of “purist” fans of cricket, is that I think it is a brilliant idea for players to specialise, to choose one format of the sport over another. In this way they will get better at what they do and provide greater enjoyment for us all. If this happens then it will hasten recognition from the game’s administering authorities that Twenty20, one-day and test cricket are essentially different “codes” of the sport requiring different skills, different players and different commercial models to support them. This means a greater range of opportunities for players, viewers and sponsors, and I think this is A Good Thing.
I point to rugby as evidence of this positive effect. Rugby union, rugby league and rugby sevens are different codes of the same game. Some fans enjoy all codes, others prefer one. Players occasionally swap from one to the other, or develop from one to the other, but most players choose to specialise. All shapes and sizes of player are accommodated across the three codes and sponsors enjoy a wider range of commercial opportunities. Rugby in its broadest sense is richer as a result; it’s even made it into the Olympics.
Twenty20 in 2020 has a nice ring to it. My only regret is that Garrett jnr, having made his choice, will not be opening the batting.
By Scott Garrett on January 29th, 2010
Tags: Cricket, ICC World Twenty20, Indian Premier League, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Sport
Find us on Google maps
Interesting article Scott.
Your rugby analogy does have a nice ring to it. One could also look at other sports such as athletics or tennis. The marathon is no less worthy than the 100m, or vice versa. They are simply different events within the sphere of running, and each attracts participants, viewers and sponsors according to talent and interest. Similarly in tennis, there has been increasing specialisation: while most of the top singles players do not play doubles, the best doubles players can now earn a healthy living on the doubles circuit.
As far as cricket is concerned, I personally enjoy all forms of the game. And it is clear that fans are voting with their feet and are supporting the 20:20 version of the game in increasing numbers. This in turn means significant opportunities for rights-holders and sponsors to increase brand awareness and loyalty and to generate more revenue.
And yet…Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I think the primacy of test cricket isn’t simply based on a romanticised notion of the game’s past. It really is the most exacting form of the game for the players, and remains the one where reputations of sporting greatness are forged (even though ODI cricket has been around for decades). And if Sachin Tendulkar for example had been forced (or encouraged) by an excessive workload, tight schedules or simply prevailing norms to limit himself to a single format of the game, would cricket, its fans and sponsors be better off? I don’t think so.
So while I agree with you that plurality of formats is here to stay and is indeed good for the sport, I think the game’s administrators should work harder to ensure a future where fans at the ground, television viewers and sponsors can see as many of the top players as possible play in all forms of the game. Of course this will be tough, and there are many competing agendas, but I believe it’s possible. Cricket doesn’t need to go down the rugby route just yet.