Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs

If Packer can be regarded as a Marconi, Preity Zinta, Shah Rukh Khan and the other Bollywooders fronting those eight IPL consortia are equivalent to the backers of pirate radio: a necessary diversion on the road to freeing the airwaves. Yet World Series Cricket and this latest chapter in the game’s evolution are united in one significant respect: player victimisation. For Mike Procter and John Snow read Shane Bond and Chris Read.

I’m delighted Read’s participation in the ICL will earn him at least some of the rewards he missed by dint of being a man out of time, a wicketkeeper less valued for his glovework than his (in)ability to score sufficient runs. That cheque may even serve as compensation for Geoff Miller’s recent assertion that he has disqualified himself from national selection. I’m even more delighted Bond will, by the same route, elicit some tangible reward for his family to compensate them for the disgracefully callous way his New Zealand contract was terminated with such extreme prejudice. By the same token, the fact that the IPL signatories are making themselves available without fear of any such vengeful retribution does not obviously strike one as bearing much relation to fairness or justice, much less the alleged “Spirit of Cricket”.

Along with Tony Greig, Packer's key conscriptor, Procter and Snow were the litigants when World Series Cricket met the Test and County Cricket Board in the High Court 30 years ago; their successful restraint of trade case, helpfully and properly, was bankrolled by Packer. If they have any shred of honour or principle – which, admittedly, may well depend on whether or not their thunder has already been completely stolen by the IPL - the ICL organisers really ought to follow suit. If that proves unfeasible, the ICC should ensure that all punishments are rescinded.

I’m also chuffed that the players evidently see the IPL as a way of quitting the international arena as their sell-by dates approach: the better to bow out on a high, the better to spare us the waning and the whingeing, the better to stave off public boredom and allow the next generation to refresh us. It is difficult, nonetheless, not to harbour one other major misgiving.

The figures are not exactly discouraging. According to the Sunday Times, the IPL has secured £35.7m in media revenue for this year, a shade more from the sale of the eight franchises. Throw in £5.2m from title sponsorship and you have a not-unhandsome total of £77.5m: the Indian board’s revenue for 2006-07 ran to just £6m more. If this is the future, the days of 50-over ODIs may be over sooner than we’d dare have wished. But in the name of what? Turning on, or even up to, a match to see Glenn McGrath re-cross swords with Sachin Tendulkar will be all well and good, but who, beyond India, will care whether they play for Mohali or Mumbai - let alone who wins? Even in India, persuading the public to care about a team’s fortunes, that barest of necessities for a spectator sport, may prove an insuperable hurdle.

Post-Packer, it has become fashionable to declare that the future of county cricket is city cricket: for Middlesex and Surrey read London; for Warwickshire and Worcestershire read Birmingham; for Lancashire Manchester, for Yorkshire, Leeds. This may yet come to pass, and far sooner than many might fear, though the rebranding of Sussex as Sharks and Surrey as Lions has kept the tide at bay with remarkable and surprising efficiency. Internationalism, though, still counts for more in cricket than any other sport. Once barely discernible, then merely Grand Canyonesque, the gulf between national and state/county/province audiences, moreover, is now of Persian proportions. For better or worse, national identity, so increasingly and rightly irrelevant in other walks of life, remains cricket’s currency-in-chief.

Which is why the ICC should stop pussyfooting about. Why not go the whole hog? Why not formally join forces with the IPL, rebrand it as the World Cricket League, invite city-based teams representing all the major cricketing nations, enabling Australians, Sri Lankans and Indians to play side-by-side, and leave the other 46 weeks of the year free for Tests? Sadly, it would be too late for Bond and Read, but at least it would prevent further victimisation.

Who knows, it might even excise the word “burnout” from the players’ dictionary. Who knew how easily the prospect of a quick killing could reignite so many stale appetites?

Quite a pointless article, Rob. Also, I resent your parochial and superior attitude towards teams based on Indian cities. If Manchester United and Arsenal can have fans all over the world, as can the Chicago Bulls and LA Lakers, then why can’t a Mumbai or Mohali Twenty20 team? Those teams won fans because of the beauty and excitement of the games themselves and excellent marketing – both very foreseeable in the IPL.
The reason why cricket has been so popular in India is that it is one of the few sports where it could consistently beat other nations. However, the emergence of India as a global powerhouse and a generation free from post-colonial insecurities means that Indians no longer need to see their team beating others’ to build national pride. And whether you like it or not, the future of cricket depends on the whims of the Indian public, because it pays for it! You sound like many other mostly English/Aussie journos who seem to be jealous that India has ‘hijacked’ the game.

Your comment about Indian board's revenue was wrong. The Income of BCCI was abt Rs. 620 Crores which is approximately around 84 Million Pounds. The IPL generated aroung 77 Million Pounds as revenue to the Board. But there are share of revenues to the other Franchisee. I suspect the BCCI's net share of revenue from IPL will not be more than 15 Million Pounds or Rs. 120 Crores per year which is way lesser than what they make a year. The IPL is a new concept which may or may not work in the long term. In India, people follow cricket for the name 'India' irrespective of who is playing in the team. The Indian team in Australia is having a huge support in India even though Sourav and Rahul aren't playing. The Indian public always follow Team India and not a lot abt the stars playing in it. Just for the records, the Afro Asia cup 2007 which was held in India during last year had abt 7000-10000 people watching the matches at the venue. This is where IPL will be facing a problem. Time will tell

Rob, a most important topic nw a days is IPL. I agree with you on city support: I being a Indian can tell you this, supporting your own city is important to me. I do feel I have to support my city but not at the expense of my fav players or star's. If none of the players an stars whom I like an admire play for Hyderabad, I can't support Hyderabad. Much will depend on team composition. In Twenty20, its the Dhoni's, the Sachin's who will steal the show .. it is difficult to support your city-team if it doesn't have good recognised players. Perhaps well into the tournament, only performances matter, but to start with it will not be city-patriotism but established credentials that will drive the support.
But I don't agree : when you say that city-based teams frm all over the wrld will make the tournament popular, it will only make the tournament a ill managed, un-productive venture. ICC can not run a competition like IPL, when it can not sucessfully conduct a world-cup.

Just to clarify where I am coming from, I am an Indian and the only passport or travel document that I have ever had in my life is an Indian passport. Rob, I agree with you that what is going on is regrettable, but my reasons for reaching that conlclusion are different. Fundamentally the problem here is the arrogance of the corrupt and incompetent BCCI, who have only bothered to come up with this IPL rubbish as a means of crushing the ICL. I don't believe in the existence of the "restraint of trade" tort. In a free market, the only means of addressing anti-competitive behaviour is by providing welfare in the form of government funded healthcare, education, food, clothing etc., to those who cannot afford it themselves. Anti-competitive behaviour is the nature of business, and as long as there is no EXPLICIT threat to national security, by the acts of a monopoly, I have no problem with "restraint of trade", though I do consider it unsporting and unfair. That said, death to the BCCI.

Rob, i'm not a particular supporter of the IPL or indeed 20-20, but find your rant particularly funny and childish. Bit like an old comrade bemoaning the fall of the Soviet Union. Sports is a worldwide business and for some funny reason, you seem to believe that Cricket should stand as the last bulwark of Socialism. I have a feeling that if you'd been around in the 19th century, you'd be writing 'lobs' against the entry of professionals into the game.

Football stars in the Premier League earn in a week what the likes of Ponting will earn in a year and as far as I know, it hasn't killed international football. Don't see why this fledgling form and league of cricket should do that to international cricket.

Now this particular experiment may or may not succeed and the pioneers may turn out to be pirate radio to Packer's Marconi but I fear your diatribes are merely a swimming against the tide in the overall development of the sport. This is how its going to be. Get used to it.

Travis, you preaching to the converted here. I've only ever watched a couple of 20-20 games and those were in the world cup. The format doesn't appeal to me in the least.

On the other hand, it silly comparing the local cricket league in India to the football in Japan. India in cricket is not Japan in football. Its probably closer to England. Not one of the real big boys - Windies (Brazil) or Australia (Germany) but fairly decent and has won an actual world cup.

But the facts remain. The millions in Bombay have money and want to see cricket and the stars in it just as the fans in Liverpool are. Kewell plays for Liverpool just as Ponting will play for Bombay (i'm not sure if its actually Bombay he'll be playing for).

As I said, i'm not sure if this particular circus will succeed or not but its inevitable that a lot of international stars will eventually be playing domestic cricket in India. International criket will have to learn to live with it.

Not to nitpick Steve, but I think your comparison of Australia with Germany is a bit off. Germany is a real country. Australia is a joke. Australia in cricket is an example of a non-competitive sport allowing jokers to reign supreme. Germany in football is an example of mental and physical steel/titanium/carbon-fiber in a sport that is probably the most competitive sport in the world. Australians can only dream of being like Germans. In field hockey, Australia won the Olympic gold medal, so Germany told it's football reject hockey players to cut back on their beer intake and Germany then strolled to victories in both the field hockey world cup and the champions trophy. Australia and the Australian government tries so hard with field hockey and yet they still lose to German "amateurs." Germans are real men, Aussies are wimps. Finally, India is ranked number 2 in cricket by the ICC and I think that's fair for now at least. Windies as Brazil? Brazil has depth unlike the Windies.

Oh come on... that is really nitpicking of the highest order. I was struggling for an analogy there and found the best I could. Brazil - Windies because they were both known for flair and they've both won plenty. Ofcourse, the Windies aren't what they once were but a metaphor can only stretch so far.

And for the likes of Philip who can't stomach the Oz-Germany comparison, if Germany were half as dominant in football as Australia have been in cricket over the last 10-15 years, we'd be calling them the greatest team of all time.

I won't get drawn any further on this matter but all i'm saying is that a big domestic cricket league in India - whether 20-20 or ODI's or some yet to be invented form of cricket, with heaps of overseas cricketers participating is about as inevitable as it can get. There's no point sitting around wringing our hands about it.

Travis, ha, ha, you think Australian beer is real beer? Check the alcohol content on German beer and you'll find that Australian beer is only for wimps. Real men take German beer. The medal count? Ha, ha, Germany all-time is thousands of miles ahead of Australia. You want to talk about the 2004 Olympics when Australia had the same number of medals but edged ahead on golds? What about the 2006 Winter Olympics? Where was Autralia in the Winter Olympics? Germany TOPPED the Winter Olympics. So now I have reeled you into the whole "real sports" versus "fake sports" argument as I force you to attack the sports found in the Winter Olympics. The most recent Olympics was the WINTER OLYMPICS. At best you can combine the two and still find that Germany destroys Australia. You talk about one summer olympic festival. You are clutching at straws Travis, STRAWS. The per capita medal count theory always favours small countries. Germany destroys Australia. Germany RULEZ.

I'm an australian from a non-australian background.

I always followed cricket.

The biggest problem I see with the IPL is that it is run by Indians & not Australians on English people.

Don't get me wrong, Australians making 300,000$ a year gonna get burnt out.

People on 1 million $ per year they are full of energy.

Fcae facts mate, you wanna be the best in Cricket you gotta follow the Indian Masters.

India has the money, maybe India dont rule cricket yet but they soon will.

Who cares??? Indian's cool, smell like curry abit but I love cricket.

I want just best for the sport.

I dont see white people throwing money around like smelly indians?

Face Facts Indians played Cricket for many years & lose , lose, lose. Now Indians win have some power so what?

As a white Australian I say good Luck to Them.

I think they love the game more than most, it's good, its a great sport.

Time for India to come to the world stage imho.

Cheers.

It's a shame as there are many issues regarding the ICC, IPL, ICL impact on test and county cricket. For my two penny I think the most interesting aspect is the amount of money generated and how other countries may try to emulate it. The impact on county cricket in england could be profound. If 8 teams can get 10m+ a year in revenue from 6 weeks cricket (albeit with alot of overpriced stars) then what's the point of running a county like leicestershire who get £2.4m a year!. Cricket more than nearly any other sport is governed by tradition and the evolution has been slow compared to football. Football is a different beast because international fixtures make up 5-6 games a year and probably barely 3 weeks in a year, leaving the rest for clubs. I don't like the BCCI's attitude that a space in the calendar should be allocated for there tournament because other countries should have that right as well. However, the BCCI have shown us how to make money and evolve the game!

Philip:

"it is fair to say that the only reason Australia dominates in cricket is that all the other teams are either third world, not serious or just plain non-existent"

Then why, as an obvious non-Aussie, are you even bothering to post on a site dedicated to a sport you so easily dismiss?

I take it you are unaware of the way the 2005 England Ashes side was given an open-top double-decker bus parade after they beat us, and all got M(or O?)BE's for beating Australia for the first time in 16 years? I'll also take it that you feel that Kenya isn't a great Olympic nation because they've never won a medal at the Winter Games? And that you dismiss the efforts of the Windies side of the 1980's with equal flippancy?

On behalf of every nation that is too close to the equator to compete in the circus of the idle rich that is the Winter Olympics I apologise profusely.

Whatever floats your boat, mate. Although I must admit I was unaware that sour grapes could be so buoyant.

Travis:

Well you tried to avoid falling into my Winter Olympics trap, but you did so anyway. Your comment that 'the Winter Olympics is for the rich' is a backhanded way of questioning the credibility of the sports found in the Winter Olympics. So it looks like you still fell into my trap. By questioning the quality of the sports found in the Winter Olympics, you have questioned all sports and that suits me fine, because cricket could not possibly win the credibility stakes. Is Kenya a great Olympic nation? They do well in a certain section of track and field. The long distance running section. I don't consider them a great nation just for leveraging the socioeconomic situation that allows them to produce high-quality distance runners. They are essentially a one sport nation. Why do I follow cricket even though I degrade the quality of the competition in the game? I like the game just as I like table-tennis. That doesn't, however, blind me to the facts.

Philip:

I don't question the credibility of any sporting achievement. Germany did well in the Winter Olympics. Kenya does well in running. China does well in table-tennis. Australia does well in cricket. In my opinion, unlike yours, all of these accomplishments deserve credit.

Contrast that with your words: "Australia is a joke...Germans are real men, Aussies are wimps... Germany RULEZ"

Mate, this "ubermenschen" thing was pretty stale 60 years ago...

And then you say you only mentioned the Winter Olympics as a "trap" and gloat over your supposed victory that I "fell into it". That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Grow up.

And stop "it" or you'll go blind. ;)

Travis:

The "ubermenschen"? Travis if I subscribed to that sort of stuff I'd have to put myself in the "untermenschen" category given the colour of my skin. Since you propose that I have a chip on at least one shoulder I'm not sure how I would square that with putting myself in the "untermenschen" category.

You are now claiming that you didn't question the validity of any sport. Well whatever because you didn't seem too happy about my bringing up the fact that Germany topped the Winter Olympics, so you aren't really making much sense. If you allow the Germans the Winter Olympics then how can you make the statement that Australia wins more medals at the Olympics if you are willing to factor in the Winter Olympics. Furthermore you did make a statement about certain countries not having access to snow. Anyway, if you are now claiming that all sports are equal you are making even less sense than you were initially. How is football equivalent to say equestrian or archery or fencing?

Travis:

You are right that I am deriding certain sporting achievements. That said, so are you, therefore it would be impossible for you to hoist me by my own petard since you use that same petard yourself. I deride cricket in relative terms. If you were precise in your analysis you would note that I stated that I liked the game. That however does not preclude me from placing it at a lower level vis-a-vis football in competitive terms. Nevertheless, you should note that I am only deriding cricket relatively speaking. If I were to deride cricket in absolute terms, then I would probably have nothing to do with the game and so not even be using this website. You on the other hand bring up issues like "so and so doesn't have access to snow" as though Germany would be a country of marathon runners like Kenya given the socioeconomic and climate conditions of Germany. Therefore by making such statements you deride the sports found in the Winter Olympics. Hoisting one's own petard??