I agree - too much of entertainment compared to competitiveness

With response to a comment made by Mr. Ian Chappell in Cricinfo, I agree with him on many points, because the charm of bat and ball competition is now a goner, I remember teams used to criticize pitches in India, who didn't use to support anything to bowlers, although I must admit, pitches in Pakistan were never good either, that's why Pakistani pacers used reverse swing factor to utilize the advantage against conditions favoring mostly the batters.

I do agree

Because now we are not seeing such bowling performances from bowlers like we used to see from bowlers of 1990s era.

Pace of the bowlers also reduced

Due to bowlers favoring scenarios, bowlers have reduced their pace, and now any bowler touching 145 KPH mark, is supposed to be treated as a fast bowlers, although I was a boy at that time when I was seeing Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Shane Bond, Shane Lee, James Anderson, etc which are a sans in today's era and most of the bowlers today are a mere 135 KPH bowlers, and anyone exceeding a 139 KPH mark, comes under the radar.

That's why

As per Ian Chappell, bowlers have started bowling negatively, or as per himself; "When bowlers are reduced to deliberately bowling wide and wickets come off batters' errors, you know the balance isn't right", 

Australia muscled their way to the T20 World Cup title, but were they inordinately helped by winning the toss?

Recently concluded T20 World Cup

Australia muscled their way to the T20 World Cup title, but were they inordinately helped by winning the toss? Because this was the mantra every team winning the toss followed, except Afghanistan; who after winning the toss; elected to field and chased the target under dew soaked conditions, where it was difficulty for sides bowling second, because scenarios under the sun and under the artificial lights were changed dramatically, that's why I appreciate BCB's decision of making itinerary where team batting first and second under same conditions, and hence toss is supposed to be treated as how to start and initiate a game, instead of recently concluded Men's T20 WC, where 55% of the game was won at the toss and rest of 45% in performance.

As Per Mr. Chappell

There's an appeal for a worldwide T20 tournament featuring contests between nations. In addition, there's widespread clamour for franchise cricket, which is increasingly popular and has experienced enormous success. However, there needs to be a wide-reaching survey into the changes required to improve the T20 format. To make it even more popular than it is, tournaments have to include a way to ensure the game doesn't become a matter of winning the toss.

And personally, I am also feeling, the fate of international cricket is going on the same path like soccer did with soccer leagues, and country ventures, hardly I have seen Nations competing instead most of the time, watched football club games where I am yet to see a national team competing like they are competing in Club games, I know; money matters, but is it necessary that money should shatter the charm of national games?

Too much of money ruining the charm

Money Matters, there is no doubt on it, because they players who are playing and the board spending both require money, but should we prioritize money to that extent that national duty be treated as useless and/or secondary?

As per Mr. Chappell; There seem to be two widely diverging views on T20 cricket. There is the long-term cricket fan's fear that the game will become an all-power event that favours muscle-bound six-hitting batters in matches of the sort that are too often won by the chasing team. Then there is the opinion of the not-so-discerning fan, who is unworried by the seeming lack of contest between bat and ball and can't get enough of the mammoth six-hitting. Not surprisingly, at my age I prefer the game to remain a contest, and if it becomes a batting exhibition, I lose interest very quickly. I'm of the view that fans should be engaged by the contest between bat and ball, enjoy the tactical battles - both team and individual - and require a certain amount of artistry in the batting. If these features are either missing or nearly non-existent, then it's a struggle to see envisage the game as truly being a form of cricket. Then there is the balance between sport and entertainment. In my opinion the balance in T20 cricket needs to be somewhere in the vicinity of 60:40 sport to entertainment. At the moment it's unbalanced and too much in favor of pure entertainment.

Pure Entertainment for sure

As far as I am concerned, I am also favor of treating entertainment as competition between bat and the ball, these dancing girls, grooved DJ and a festivity like environment might attract more but it is ruining the charm and spirit of the game.

What is Spirit of Cricket?

What is the Spirit of Cricket? ... Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. Cricket is a game to be enjoyed. Fielding is a worthwhile occupation that is best enjoyed when it's combined with the opportunity to have a decent hit.

When I watch sports like baseball, golf and tennis played in their shorter forms, I'm heartened by the fact that the game still remains basically the same. The sport witnessed in the T20 format is a distant variety of Test cricket and not always easily associated with the 50-over game. Cricket needs to entertain, but it must also maintain a strong association with its roots. The administrators need to remember this crucial point when they plan for the game's future.

 

Share