The extraordinary prices at which the players have been 'bought' this year suggests that at least the owners think that the Indian Premier League is going to do well. $ 1.55 million each for Pietersen and Flintoff is certainly not the kind of investment that the faint hearted can make. One of them, Flintoff, has been bought by Chennai Super Kings owned by Mr.N.Srinivasan, Hony. Treasurer, BCCI and MD of India Cements. He surely must know a thing or two about the pulse of the game and the market. Yet I venture to say that this year's IPL is unlikely to be a success. There are 3 good reasons why.
First is the state of the job market. There is so much threat of people losing jobs or in the very least facing salary cuts, that it is hard to imagine that they'll pay the exorbitant thousands that the league tickets cost. Can you see a guy with a school going kid, higher mortgage payments and prospect of lower salaries for self and wife, wearing a fool's cap and cheering his team with his kid
after paying Rs.10,000 for a 3 hour tamasha? I can't, unless the fool's cap really fits!
Secondly, the state of the economy certainly doesn't auger well for corporates splurging money on TV advertising at fancy rates. Last year was different. Just the money in the league, players being paid crores, was enough for everyone to get excited. If everyone is excited then advertising money is well spent on the event. Today the big spend itself may put off people caught in a downtrend. So advertisers may well find it smart to stay away. Why throwaway millions when the market hasn't picked up, when fans are unlikely to turn up and in fact you could get associated with negative sentiments?
The third reason is not so obvious. I believe that the success of Indian cricket in Tests and one dayers will reduce interest in 20-20 cricket. How can you cheer a Flintoff bowling to Shewag when just a few months ago Shewag played a dream innings against England and won us a Test at the very same Chepauk? How can you cheer any South African batsman against Zaheer or Ishant when these are the very guys who'll have to help India beat South Africa and take us to the top of the table? I am sure of what I'll be doing. I'll sit in front of a TV with a group of friends and cheer every Indian's effort, no matter which team he belongs to. May the most entertaining team win!
To the larger question as to how 20-20 has affected Indian cricket, I submit the following: The fast bowlers have improved since they have learnt the value of line, length and discipline in order to not get hit all over the ground. Restrictive bowling also gets them the wickets. The spinners have lost out for the same reason. They are scared of buying wickets now. What is a spinner if he can't flight the ball and taunt a batsman? They bowl much flatter now and try not to give runs, taking wickets be dammed! It is difficult to gauge the effect of 20-20 on batting. Batsmen have certainly learnt to innovate. Strokes like inside out drives, reverse sweeps and fine leg drives (not the traditional leg glance) rule the roost in 20-20 cricket. Batsmen are certainly playing more strokes, are always looking for runs and are generally much more positive and aggressive. However, all these characteristics are totally detrimental to test cricket. Batsmen are certainly losing the art of occupying the crease. They don't have the patience to build an innings. They don't realise that Draw is a result option in Test cricket and don't know much about drawing a match. Barrington and Bolus, who played out virtually an entire day to cover for half the English team being in the sick bay, could teach them a thing or two! In the area of fielding however 20-20 has been an unqualified success. It has taken fielding to a different level and made it a deciding factor in the result of a game. It is only a question of time before the Jonty Rhodes of cricket are referred to as all-rounders, competent in batting and fielding!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment