frenchcut
2nd August 2011, 20:09
Obviously a pet peeve of this forum and cricket fans in general is the length of the IPL. 74 games is maddeningly long (ideally it should be 25-30 games in 3 weeks with 5-6 games per team).
However, one side effect that would result in players being paid less, which I am not a fan of. It is well known that only concentrating on Tests cannot compare salary wise - and I am talking mainly about those that devote their lives to the great game without making it to the 11 of their country. Earning good money through cricket should not be restricted to 50-100 players in the world.
We all wish test cricket was more relevant, but let's face it, it's a luxury that cannot be indulged barring marquee tours. However, it can and will survive.
Which is why I believe we should try making 50 over games more relevant. If the format were more popular, players wages would increase, perhaps not in the millions like T20 right now, but enough to make good cricketers make a firm decision to aim for a national spot rather than a franchise one. And while it might not teach the same skills that regular 5 Test series would, it would certainly do a more adequate job than T20s.
We must do away with bilateral ODI series with no context, especially boring 7 match ones that mean nothing right before a more memorable tournament. I grew up watching cricket in the 90s and was drawn to test cricket through the 50 over game. Some of the best series I saw and still remember were tri-nation ones, like Aus-SA-NZ, Ind-SL-Pak, Ind-Aus-Zim (when Zim were good and SL were a new exciting force). Still can't forget the Ind-Aus-SA Titan Cup 96! In fact, one of my favourite series was a low-key 4 nation tournament in tough batting conditions (Ind-Eng-WI and one more). Tendulkar captained, batted singlehandedly and India got battered, but the series was good.
We should have more 4 or, minimum 3, nation tournaments. It's not that hard. Suppose Pakistan tours Australia during the Aussie summer. Maybe SA will tour right after. The ODI series can be played at the end of the Pak tour and the beginning of the SA one. NZ can hop down and make up the numbers, and if there is one thing NZ is good at contributing towards, it is low scoring ODI games - they are very good at defending sub 250 scores.
Can be 3 games each or 6 games. Final can be one off or best of 3. The same should be conducted around other good bilateral tours. That can be figured out later, but the tournament itself should be implemented.
However, one side effect that would result in players being paid less, which I am not a fan of. It is well known that only concentrating on Tests cannot compare salary wise - and I am talking mainly about those that devote their lives to the great game without making it to the 11 of their country. Earning good money through cricket should not be restricted to 50-100 players in the world.
We all wish test cricket was more relevant, but let's face it, it's a luxury that cannot be indulged barring marquee tours. However, it can and will survive.
Which is why I believe we should try making 50 over games more relevant. If the format were more popular, players wages would increase, perhaps not in the millions like T20 right now, but enough to make good cricketers make a firm decision to aim for a national spot rather than a franchise one. And while it might not teach the same skills that regular 5 Test series would, it would certainly do a more adequate job than T20s.
We must do away with bilateral ODI series with no context, especially boring 7 match ones that mean nothing right before a more memorable tournament. I grew up watching cricket in the 90s and was drawn to test cricket through the 50 over game. Some of the best series I saw and still remember were tri-nation ones, like Aus-SA-NZ, Ind-SL-Pak, Ind-Aus-Zim (when Zim were good and SL were a new exciting force). Still can't forget the Ind-Aus-SA Titan Cup 96! In fact, one of my favourite series was a low-key 4 nation tournament in tough batting conditions (Ind-Eng-WI and one more). Tendulkar captained, batted singlehandedly and India got battered, but the series was good.
We should have more 4 or, minimum 3, nation tournaments. It's not that hard. Suppose Pakistan tours Australia during the Aussie summer. Maybe SA will tour right after. The ODI series can be played at the end of the Pak tour and the beginning of the SA one. NZ can hop down and make up the numbers, and if there is one thing NZ is good at contributing towards, it is low scoring ODI games - they are very good at defending sub 250 scores.
Can be 3 games each or 6 games. Final can be one off or best of 3. The same should be conducted around other good bilateral tours. That can be figured out later, but the tournament itself should be implemented.