Cricket Overkill!

 

 

For the lovers of all things cricket, it would not have escaped your attention that there has been a competition taking place on the Indian subcontinent. I cheekily dumb it down but for those not in the know, the ICC’s (50 overs) Cricket World Cup is currently being contested amongst fourteen of the game’s top playing nations.

As the tournament began in February and will span the course of three months, we are now getting to the business-end of proceedings with semi-final places at stake for the remaining nations. The tournament has been a relative success, with a number of matches being keenly contested that have produced tight finishes; some games have literally gone down to the last ball being thrown to decide a winner or a result. With a partisan cricket crowd that the subcontinent is notoriously known for, the event has progressed as a festive showcase, and celebration of the game to its fans and to the televised public watching around the world.  

From my perspective, one of the positive features that competition has created is it has helped rejuvenate a flagging interest in the 50 overs version of the sport. The excitement and events of the tournament in Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka has shown that 50 overs cricket too can command its own spotlight. Particularly when compared to the storied intrigued of the Test match arena, and the relatively new and shorten version of Twenty20 cricket.

With the growing emergence of the latter and its perception of bringing concise razzmatazz to retain and attract new fans of cricket, some have dubbed the 50 overs game as a dying relic that has no relevance in today’s sporting world. A world were sport could be now defined as providing instant entertainment where onlookers get more for their buck, so to speak.

But with all three cricket forms actively and tentatively taking place within the game, are all three versions in direct competition with each other? If so, should we be asking the question, is there too much cricket on show?

This is line with recent suggestions that the England camp who are currently still competing at the World Cup and face Sri Lanka this weekend in a quarter final showdown, have had such a long winter of competition many of their players are physically drained and mentally fatigued.

With the tour of Australia and successfully retaining the Ashes which is always an eagerly watched test series, insinuations have been made that the England players have been unable to prepare adequetly to compete in such a showpiece event that the World Cup is. With only four days off in returning to the UK from Australia before jetting off to try to win the World Cup, the injures and withdrawals of top players that include Kevin Pietersen, Stuart Broad, and now Michael Yardy, perhaps there is merit for such a suggestion.

Presenting the argument that some players are lukewarm about the competition and rather than giving their all and compete for what after all is the sport’s pinnacle event, are looking to go home at the earliest opportunity. But if such talk does hold true, it casts a major shadow over cricket’s premier event and poses the question, what are the most important competitions in cricket and where are the priorities?

With endless tours and series that tend to feature all three versions of the game that the teams play in throughout the year, not to mention ICC’s own international tournaments and the big money Twenty20 franchise-based competitions such as the Indian Premier League (IPL) and Champions League, shouldn’t less be more?

If all three are going to have its place on the cricketing calendar, should now be an opportune time to revise and preserve the quality of what we see on the field by minimising the quantity of matches? The IPL was dubbed the apex of Twenty20 cricket and a crown jewel of cricket in general where we as fans get to see the game’s top players all under one exhilarating banner. But then what is the relevance of the Twnety20 Champions League tournament and the ICC Twenty20 World Cup?

Using England’s tour of Australia as an example, after a gruelling highly competitive test series between the historic rivals contesting to win the Ashes, were seven one day 50 over matches. Was this really required on the eve of the 50 overs World Cup tournament?

Obviously all these contests are staged to generate and maximise revenue for key parties involved, but to me it just simply devalues the relevance of certain encounters and is more likely to encourage the watching public to switch off.  Surely that’s not beneficial to all concerned in the game.

Naturally as top professionals I do not think that the players involved want to miss out on the big matches and big tournaments. However with an unnecessary over congestion of cricket during the year, it should not come down to debating the question is a tour series more important than the World Cup? If so then the game is heading down a slippery slope where an event like the current World Cup takes a back seat. 

Adequate time should put aside for each forms marquee events and main competitions to work and operate hand-in-hand and conserved, eliminating any need for such a question to be pondered. Rather than the steadily materialization of players and fans having to place a value on what version of the game is of greater importance.