Jump to content

Adios Tests/Here I come, T20 leagues!


Recommended Posts

What do the ICF members have to say about this particular phenomenon in world cricket? I do not wish to cast aspersions on somebody like Murali or Shane Bond or even Flintoff. But these are all players who were not completely unfit to bowl further in Test match cricket when they hung up their boots. It can be said that they retired ahead of time; that they retired when people asked 'why' rather than 'why not'. And all that. But why the spate of such retirements close on the heels of one another? Is this something that we need to be concerned over? Something that the boards need to be concerned over? If so, is there anything at all to be done to try and ensure that the best of talents do not decide to hang up their boots early as far as Tests are concerned and look to just ply their trade in the various T20 leagues?

Link to comment

Why T20s are more lucrative for players- 1. Players need money. 2. Players want thousands of fans in a packed stadium cheering for them. 3. Players want to earn more with minimal effort. 4. Players want to be a part of all the buzz and excitement surrounding a game that takes just 3hrs. 5. Players have to bowl just 4 overs and bat 20 overs in a T20. 6. Players can brave injuries and bowl their quota and bat their overs. Majority of the general public love T20s. They are the bread and butter for the sport. The players, though might not play the purest form of the game, they know that the wife, the mother, the father and the 2 kids at home will not have anything to worry about in the future, if they play a T20 league for 45 days every year. No one can blame the players.

Link to comment
Yes guys - that is the problem. But is that something we want to solve - in cricket's interest? Are there solutions?
Yes. But cricket is struck in a maze. See an ideal way of dealing with the situation is raising a player's match fee. However, the board needs money for that. Money comes from sponsors and fans' gate receipts. Both depend on the way the fans perceive a series, a match or a format. Now if a sponsor is willing to pay you more for a T20 league than the Tests, its difficult for the board to turn down the proposal. And a sponsor's purse depends on the ROI he would get from the fans. So if the fans like Keiron Pollard smacking sixes over Jacques Kallis slogging it out for three sessions, there is nothing the board can do to keep everyone happy and the coffers filled. So a board's monetary fortunes are directly proportional to the fans and sponsors' requests. The stubborn approach of the purists needs to make way for flexible thinking coz we don't want Darwin and his theory to successfully execute the part it is already playing. Going for Day-Night tests with coloured cricket balls can be the way forward which could raise the interest of the fans in the format.
Link to comment

Can't blame the likes of Murali, Kumble, Warne, or Gilchrist. They had long successful careers lasting more than 15 years. They might still enjoy playing the game, but perhaps after so many years they don't have the zing for continuous international travel and living outside the suitcase. On the other hand, they can still play the game for a couple of months in a year and earn a nice paycheck. Perhaps Flintoff and Bond could have tried harder to keep themselves fit, though.

Link to comment

Bottomline – You cannot fault individuals for looking out for themselves and making the most of their talents in the limited time their career lasts. All this chest-thumping talk of ‘I love my country, I shall die for it’ looks great for ad commercials, but ultimately, it all boils down to money. Sure, we do have the odd exception of a cricketer foregoing the millions of private leagues to play exclusively for their country, but they shouldn’t be benchmark to judge others.

Link to comment

OK - we are not talking about patriotism here. Because there are people who still say they are available to play for their country's ODI and T20 teams. It is about players choosing to go for the easier life. As many have pointed out, there is nothing wrong in this. But my thought is that countries probably need to look at different kinds of contracts from now on. One for those who play Tests and a different one for those who exclusively play ODIs and/or T20 cricket. We are tackling the basic motivation there - money. I will be curious to see what sort of reaction this would get from the senior players. At the rate we are seeing players go, most of the senior cricketers may decide to give up on the hard grind of Test matches and restrict themselves to T20's. What seems senseless to me is bowlers opting for only T20 games. That is not their game. And more often than not, they are going to get a pasting - regardless of how well they bowl. I would have thought bowlers would look to play more of Tests rather than T20s.

Link to comment
But my thought is that countries probably need to look at different kinds of contracts from now on. One for those who play Tests and a different one for those who exclusively play ODIs and/or T20 cricket.
Sure. They can do that. But like I said, the problem for the board from the very start of the word "contract" is money. A LOT of cricket players will pick an IPL contract any day over their annual national contract.
We are tackling the basic motivation there - money. I will be curious to see what sort of reaction this would get from the senior players. At the rate we are seeing players go, most of the senior cricketers may decide to give up on the hard grind of Test matches and restrict themselves to T20's.
The senior players with the exception of a handful are no different from the rest of the players. This is coz the world is getting a tougher place to live in for people. I can't help but quote Tino Best here - "It's a little sad, but I can't go to the supermarket and say that my name is Tino Best, I bowl at 90 miles an hour, I want $400 in groceries," Best told Barbados daily the Nation. "People will ask me if I'm going mad. It is about securing myself and my family". The Kiwi's almost rejected their national contracts and Brendon McCullum recently said - "I get a bit disappointed when I read that I don't give a rat's a*** about playing for my country. The only reason the inference disappoints me is that I know the sacrifice I made to play for New Zealand," he wrote. "In what other industry would you be expected to take options that cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars?" The players are desperate. They have a family and its a difficult world out there with the recession. Spare a thought for them.
What seems senseless to me is bowlers opting for only T20 games. That is not their game. And more often than not' date=' they are going to get a pasting - regardless of how well they bowl. I would have thought bowlers would look to play more of Tests rather than T20s.[/quote'] Players are willing to forego the satisfaction of playing Tests for playing T20s, which would ensure security of their families in the long run.
Link to comment

Achilles - I thoroughly appreciate the point of view of the players. I was wondering if we could for a few moments think from the perspective of the caretakers of the game. And I am not blaming the players responsible in all the cases. Although I still think some of them took the easy way out.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...