Threat and opportunity- IPL is here to bring change!!!

The IPL, if it is a success, will change cricket irrevocably. Whether for better or worse remains to be seen.

Cricket is about to plunge deep into the unknown with the Indian Premier League. On the face of it, it is merely a domestic tournament, but few developments have shaken the game up the way the IPL, variously described as audacious, crass, visionary and brazen, has. Few cricket tournaments have been as eagerly awaited; there is a mixture of fear, excitement, anxiety, and a sense of anticipation.

It is such an outrageously grandiose design that only a man of Lalit Modi's ambition and audacity would have had the nerve to propose and execute it. Modi is a sharp and driven man and it would seem he will stop at nothing to make the IPL the showpiece event in the cricket calendar. In a sense it is ironical this ambition has cast a shadow on the IPL even before it has begun. It is astounding how much ill-will he has managed to attract for a tournament that could do with all the goodwill it could gather.

Of course, there is no denying that the IPL has the potential to be a watershed event in cricket. Not since the Packer revolution, which fast-tracked cricket into the professional age, has an event challenged the status quo as much the IPL has, and that too to gain sanction, however grudging, from all those who matter in world cricket. If the IPL succeeds, its effects on cricket could be profound. Whether they will be for the better or the worse can only be left to speculation.

The worst-case scenario first. Some of the potential dangers have been pointed out already. As Osman Samiuddin has articulated perceptively, one of the biggest dangers is the concentration of power and the consequent misuse of it. India's has been the most powerful chair at the ICC for a while now, and the fear is that the riches from the IPL could turn the BCCI into a law entirely unto itself.

Equally insidious in the long run could be the impact on the other forms of the game. Ultimately, money will rule and the tournament will have to become a fixture in the already packed international calendar. Modi has already spoken of a second IPL season later this year. Something has to give.

But the worst thing to happen to cricket is that the IPL, and its Twenty20 variants, could end up becoming the real thing.

India has just finished a Test series with South Africa, their rivals for the No. 2 spot on the ICC Test table. For the most part it felt like a sideshow everybody wanted to get out of the way before the main event began. There were whispers about player’s cotton-woolling themselves for IPL, and a few South African cricketers have been released from their domestic responsibilities to be able to play for their IPL employers.
The workload-to-remuneration ratio is so attractive in the IPL that it would be unnatural if the thought of chucking away a humdrum county contract, say, didn't appear tempting to most.

Test cricket is a hard job. Apart from considerable skill, it requires application and perseverance. Every player worth his salt recognizes the primacy of the form. Despite all his success in one-day cricket, Yuvraj Singh is desperately aware that his place in the pantheon will be not secure if he does not prove his worth in Tests.

Will the Twenty20 pack care as much when both fame and fortune are so readily available? It is now eminently possible for a cricketer to only play in the IPL and end up earning more than one who plays only Test cricket. If administrators are not careful many promising players could give up the struggle to win a Test cap for the easy riches of the IPL. That's a dreadful thought.

Worst of all, riding on the IPL's success, Indian cricket could conceivably become a world by itself, and like in American baseball, run its own World Series. It has 80% of the world's cricket audience, and as has already been demonstrated, it will have no problems in attracting the world's top talents. If enough money can be churned out of the IPL, why bother with the rest of the game? Twenty20 could become the premier version of the game. And that would be the death of cricket as we know it.

However, little will be gained by moaning. The IPL cannot be wished away. Indeed, nudged in the right direction, it has the potential of doing much good. Let's begin with the Future Tours Program.

One fear is that with pressure mounting for the creation of a window for the IPL in the international calendar, teams that are lesser draws - read Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies, in that order - may end up getting squeezed out. That's not as horrible as it sounds.

The FTP was a noble concept. Cricket needed, and needs, its central authority to prevent the calendar from getting lopsided. But that said, the assumptions underlying a system of reciprocal tours have been shown up to be flawed. It's another matter that India have disregarded the FTP by refusing to ever invite Bangladesh home, but the disparity between the teams at the bottom of the table and the established ones is so huge that Test cricket between them is an insult to the concept. South Africa's recently concluded tour of Bangladesh is an emphatic case in point: they broke a record that had stood for more than half a century, but the meaninglessness of it dulled the senses.

Test cricket is at its best when the competition is even; it is even compelling when a weaker side can compete beyond expectations. But it is a waste of time when the teams are completely mismatched. There is a sense of dread developing already about Australia's tour of West Indies next month.

It might seem unfair, but it might not be such a bad idea if the top tier in Test cricket consisted of the six leading teams, and more five-Test series between them. It's an utopian idea, and the IPL's bosses are certainly not thinking about it, but if it is an unforeseen by-product of the IPL, cricket should welcome it. Either way, the FTP needs a shake-up and the IPL has made it inevitable.

The creation of a new layer in cricket is exciting. And in a sense, it could only have been achieved through Twenty20, which offers cricket the best chance of succeeding as pure entertainment. If it does succeed, the IPL is likely to expand the reach of cricket. Test cricket may or may not benefit from the trickle-down effect, but that's not the point.

Also, the IPL could be a catalyst for reform in the sterile domestic competitions in other countries. The shake-up could start with England, who will have to create space for their own proposed Twenty20 Premier League. In its present form, the county season runs on and on with each of the 18 teams playing 16 matches each. That makes it a mind-numbing 144 first-class games. In addition to the 50-overs championship and the Twenty-20 competition, there is also the Pro40, which makes it one tournament too many. A tighter, more competitive structure is more than welcome.

In an Indian context, the introduction of private enterprise via the IPL might finally unshackle cricket from the iron fists of the BCCI. It does sound like a paradox, because the BCCI's monopolistic tendencies are well established, but team owners are likely to increasingly gain control over the business of cricket and professionalism is bound to follow. Already there is a parallel structure with franchises taking over the selection process, and they will have a big role to play in creating a better environment for watching cricket in the stadiums. Despite being the single biggest factor in India's growing influence in world cricket, the Indian spectator has been the most neglected soul in the country's cricket. That he can now demand a better deal is a welcome change.

In the end the spectator is the one who holds the key to the future of the IPL. All the planning, all the spending, all the forecasts have gambled heavily on the Indian cricket fan buying into the concept. Nationalism has been the core of cricket since its inception and the IPL seeks to challenge that with a combination of an exciting format, star power and razzmatazz. Will the fans be shaken and stirred without the bond and passion of national colors?

The future of cricket is now in the hands of the fans. Which is not such a bad thing?

Why the aversion to technology? Umpires at the wrong footing...

Every time a batsman or a bowler gets a poor decision, it is marked down to cricket being a game of glorious uncertainties. But these uncertainties are no longer left to the confines of memory. Umpires' mistakes are now magnified thanks to the invasive nature of technology on television. And with just about every international (and a large number of domestic) match being televised; an umpire's competence is immediately available for comment and scrutiny.

Mind you, it is tough on the umpires to do their job. They have to count the balls in an over, keep an eye on the bowler's front foot and in the split second it takes from then for the ball to reach the bat and a subsequent appeal to be made, take into account various aspects while dimming out the ambient noise and make the right decision. And then there are the moral policing they have to get into at times, ensure there are only 11 players on the field and keep a track of the light conditions! Mistakes are bound to happen. The thing to note here is that only aspect of their on-field duties that can be adversely affected due to stress is the decision-making after an appeal. Because it's now or never...

So why are these gentlemen subjected to ridicule? There have recently been two incidents when players have been called back or given out after the on-field screen (mandatory at international venues) showed the umpire to be wrong. Why, then, not use this in the first place? It isn't too hard now, thanks to the TV companies adding small nuggets of technology over the years) to implement a decision-making process while the bowler is running in. Relieve the umpire of the no-ball call, for instance. The third umpire is in a better position with square-on cameras to make that call. He can always tell the on-field umpire through the walkie-talkie and a couple of seconds isn't going to change the outcome of what is happening on the field. At least the call will be accurate.

Making the third umpire's involvement more direct can also be done in case of other decisions. He could keep an eye on nicks, LBW appeals and give out vital clues to the on-field umpire. The third umpire can always have tram lines on his monitor and ascertain to the on-field umpire whether the ball pitched in line or not. This is based on fact and not speculation or judgement.

This is pure information. Similarly, he could also tell the umpire whether it struck the batsman in line of the stumps or not. Whether it was going over the top or not is a judgement call that the on-field umpire can make since he has the best view. And he is also in a position to judge whether the ball would have hit the wickets taking into account the spin, seam or swing movement involved. But when he makes his decision, he at least has the facts in place. The uncertainties are then left to the outcome of the match making them truly glorious.

So while players can't even express disappointment over a poor decision, umpires can get away with murder. A player reacting to a decision is accused of "dissent" and "bringing the game into disrepute". Baloney! Umpires making mistakes adds to the glorious uncertainties. Ridiculous. If anything, a player showing dissent can be argued to show emotion and bring some character into the game. No? Then give the umpires the necessary information to make accurate decisions.

The ICC, in its customary manner has delayed the implementation of these and other such steps far too long. Playing conditions is another aspect that isn't uniform. And I don't mean the wickets or the size of the ground. These are great if they change every time since they then pose a new challenge and add character to the match. I mean things like whether the every Test should be played under lights to ensure completion of the day's quota of overs. Sure some grounds in the world aren't equipped with floodlights. So either don't have international matches here or forget about implementing this rule. Keep it applicable only where lights are available. Yes, I see how that contradicts my own point of uniformity, but at least this will make it more uniform than it is right now.

Why is all this important? Cricket is now a professional game. Money, careers, and a whole lot more ride on every match. Why shouldn't the players and sponsors get their fair chance? And what about the fan? If every Test is fairly judged and played, the fans will only enjoy watching it. There won't be reasons to crib like "poor umpiring cost us the game". Has anyone thought how strange that statement sounds especially since the umpires in Tests are supposed to be non-partisan? As an entity, they are supposed to watch the game and "enforce rules and arbitrate on matters arising from the play" not influence the outcome of it. In the same vein, a ground and a stadium is supposed to facilitate the play and not affect its completion (this is different from result, mind you).

So while we hate at Sachin Tendulkar getting an unlucky inside edge LBW or an opposition batsman getting a poor decision, we have to remember that the game at such a juncture is perhaps not being played in the best spirit. There are very few ‘walkers' in the modern game and rightly so. Highly paid professionals are there to enforce the rules and make decisions. If they make a mistake, it is squarely their fault. And anyways, according to the history and spirit of the game, a batsman is entitled to stand his ground and not walk until given out.

This could perhaps be one reason why cricket (ODI and Test) is stagnating. While there are advancements in equipment, run-rates, strategies, there is a regressive attitude about the laws, law enforcement and something as critical as umpiring. While the game tries to move ahead on the one hand, the other is constantly pulling it back. The end result is often a mundane, nearly formulaic offering.

T20 is here to stay and thrive

Ask Me!! I say....These are momentous times for cricket. There is the unmistakable sensation that the nature and course of the game are about to be changed forever. No doubt big deals went down in the 1770s when Hambledon were strutting their stuff on Broadhalfpenny Down. The shift was pretty dramatic when Test cricket began a century later, and then a century after that when One-Day Internationals, with floodlights and fancy flannels, was born.

But the advent and significance of Twenty20 compares with and probably surpasses any of that. In the past few days, it has been possible to believe that the shortest, brightest form of the game will shortly conquer the world. Something has started here and nothing will be the same again. The inaugural World Twenty20 in South Africa has been captivating. It was heralded by a breathtaking hundred from Chris Gayle, and nothing could have been better designed to persuade people to sit up and take notice than 117 from 57 balls.

The first week has been fast and furious, the joy enhanced by the realisation that players are learning as they go. England have stumbled into the second stage and play the first of three Super Eight matches tonight against South Africa. It has became obvious that the advance of Twenty20, invented in England four years ago, is unstoppable. The formation of a Champions League has been announced initially, the finalists from the Twenty20 competitions in England, Australia, South Africa and India.

It is being financed and marketed by India, will probably take place in Dubai and has a prize pot of £ 2.5m, of which £ 1m will go to the winners. That alone will have a huge bearing. In England, for instance, this year's championship winners will receive £ 100,000 for success over 64 days of cricket. If a similar number of hours can net you 10 times that, it does not take long to work out where you might put your resources. The number of group games in the England and Wales Cricket Board's (ECB) competition has been increased to 10, double that of the first year.

There is a danger of killing the goose, and the showbiz adage of leaving 'em wanting more seems to have been forgotten. A pity, because Twenty20 is nothing if not showbiz. All this has been accompanied by verbal appendices that Test cricket will be preserved. Maybe, but there are reasons to wonder. Twenty20 is magnificent entertainment. Fans feel part of it. Television, especially in India, was wary awhile, because you can get fewer adverts in 40 overs, and therefore less income than in 100, the span of the previously orthodox one-dayers.

But there are signs that telly is getting round that by wrapping adverts around the action or rolling them across the screen. Nobody should doubt that the administrators have recognised Twenty20's value, and while they know it is beholden on them to protect Test sanctity, that will become increasingly difficult. At present the intention is to restrict the number of Twenty20 matches played by national sides each year to seven outside International Cricket Council (ICC) events such as this. If sponsors and TV wish to be associated with Twenty20, the wind might be heading only in one direction.