World cricket is going through tumultuous times. Not a day goes by that the viability of the game’s longer formats isn’t challenged. Maybe it is the dwindling number of people attending Tests. Or, maybe it is the lack of context that can now be attached to almost every bilateral One-Day International series.
Perhaps it is both, but the answers to these doubts have to come from within the game. The sudden fascination with the pink ball and playing under lights might eventually prove effective for five-day cricket in the long term. But, what of one-day cricket?
When two unequal sides match up, say for the course of a five-match bilateral ODI contest, does that help or hinder the 50-over game? Mind you, this isn’t about a proposed series between India versus Afghanistan, or some such ill-conceived encounter. This question could well be asked of the England-Sri Lanka, series which got over earlier in the month, wherein the hosts romped to a 3-0 win.
‘Super Series’
Considering that the Lankans lost the two Tests pretty convincingly as well, this had all the makings of a dull tour. Unsurprisingly then, at the start of this English cricket summer, it was decided to ramp up the stakes in this bilateral contest. A points system was introduced counting towards the entire series, irrespective of the format, deeming it a “Super Series”. Four points for a Test win and two each for an ODI or Twenty20 International win. But it all proved futile because by the time the Test series ended and the ODIs rolled by, England had a sizeable advantage to bury their opponents under.
At the same time, across the Atlantic, West Indies, South Africa and Australia were locked in an ODI tri-series. It made for some compelling viewing – young hosts, tired Proteas and world champions. It was a boxing ring with three fighters duelling for the championship belt.
After three rounds of league fixtures, plus a final, the Aussies emerged as eventual champions. Sure, it was a result along expected lines, but for three weeks this tourney produced more excitement than a bilateral series between West Indies and Australia, or West Indies and South Africa, or even both put together, would have generated.
A league system for ODIs?
While this situation raises enough questions, perhaps the process to search for a valid answer has begun. In parallel to these two tours this summer, the International Cricket Council held discussions on a restructuring of the game in general, with both Tests and ODIs under the scanner. The mooted idea will bring in a two-tier league to the longer format, while a league system will be put in place for the ODIs.
This is where the pickle begins, for there are certain objections from lower-ranked teams. For example, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, ranked seventh and ninth in the world in Tests, do not want the two-tier system. Similarly, the eighth-ranked West Indies might not be keen on it either, as it pushes away the chance of playing India (who at present will be in the higher-ranked half) and bringing in revenue. This fight will continue for a while.
The proposal for the ODI league is to include 13 teams, with Afghanistan, Ireland and one other associate nation to be included in the current 10-team fold. It allows for countries to schedule bilateral series against one another, with a three-match contest affording 36 ODIs over a three-year cycle. The fourth year will see a bilateral play-off between the top two teams and will also determine the seeding for the 50-over World Cup.
On paper, it looks good. In reality, though, it doesn’t solve the problem posed by bilateral series, especially with the rider that nations might be given freedom to increase the number of matches in a particular contest. So, if India decide to play three games against Afghanistan, but five against Australia, how does that help?
Furthermore, world cricket is quickly moving into a territory where the hosts enjoy an advantage, whether it is England playing in their seaming conditions or India taking on anyone in their backyard. If there is more balance between bat and ball in one place than another, how can there be a common denominator in such a league then?
What if a rider comes in here? Let us say that there must be a third team, from the lower ranks, whenever two higher-ranked teams contest an ODI series. It will give most of the tournaments the mould of a tri-series, further enhancing the proposal to include associate nations at present.
The television rights conundrum
There is a strong argument in favour here. Before their ODI series commenced, Sri Lanka toured Ireland and played two matches. Why not make it a tri-series, involving England, and afford them more playing time? It is something Irish cricket has been fighting for long now. Scotland, too, can be given a look-in.
Similarly, Indian cricket supports Afghanistan in its backyard. Surely they can be accommodated in some manner. Or, Pakistan can do the same for UAE since they take international refuge over there. South Africa can help Zimbabwe, even Kenya. The appetite for bringing in teams and players into the active fold is huge. It is willpower that is under question, and that is mostly dictated by television rights.
It is the reason why tri-series aren’t scheduled in India anymore. It is also why Australia dispensed with its traditional tri-series. Perhaps, it was also the reason why West Indies saw it fit to invite both Australia and South Africa at the same time. A five-match or seven-match affair might not garner more eyeballs, but it certainly does bring in more revenue. This is why the move to congress TV rights’ money in terms of overseas series is such a welcome step.
The idea is to divert a part of the TV money earned from overseas tours to a common pool that will be shared by all members. The finer points are still being worked on, but Cricket Australia’s recent admission that they would be willing to contribute to this “pool” is a major boost. It is a departure from the big-three propaganda and even if it isolates the BCCI, it has been designed in such a manner that it will work out well for the other parties involved.
If this comes to fruition in the intended manner, the power equation will once again shift to the respective cricket boards and the broadcasters will have to abide by the proposed schedules, not dictate rules. Furthermore, it could well open up the boundaries for international cricket and invite more teams in, a throw-back to the era when money was not the primary standard.
Back then we had triangular and quadrangular series ruling the roost, all over from the dustbowls of Sharjah to the choppy waters in Australia, it was a golden decade for ODI cricket, one that needs to be brought back in vogue.
