Nelson's Column: A worrying state of affairs
The news that 50% of all the professional cricketers in England would consider ditching international cricket to play in the IPL is confirmation of the fears many of us held when the Indian extravaganza was first announced.
It is truly shocking for the future of the game that the true test of a cricketer's ability should be usurped by the razzmatazz of a 20-over slog.
What is cricket without the supreme Test achievements of men like Sir Don Bradman, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Garfield Sobers, Brian Lara, Shane Warne and the rest? None of these will be remembered for their limited overs or Twenty20 ability. Furthermore, not one of today's players would be real stars without first showing their class in the ultimate form of the game.
Would the luminaries listed above have allowed their heads to be turned by the prospect of mega bucks? Probably, nay certainly. But not at the expense of Test cricket. And that is the crux of the problem here.
The two games have to work alongside each other. Twenty20 has attracted new fans and is often thrilling entertainment, but it cannot take precedence over Test cricket. The authorities must make pronouncements that back up this view, otherwise cricket, led by the cash-hungry Indian Cricket Board, will drown in its own indulgence.
I can't see any English players turning England down myself to play IPL
Posted by: free bets | 08 July 2008 at 21:07
Money had that power in it to rob anyone of sang-froid and the amount quoted in IPL was mind-numbing. No wonder, players are even thinking of putting these romps ahead of country. What gives me hope is that T20 romps feature, mostly, those who have done well in other formats of the game. They are not going to pitchfork someone from obscurity and hand him fat cheques. So, the pre-requisite is to be a permanent member of the Test/ODI squad. It's natural to panic at the start, but I think -- hope, to be precise -- things will fall in place soon and all three formats would co-exist, even if not peacefully.
Posted by: Som | 02 July 2008 at 08:56
Right - my memories of cricket are Boycott (and Sidebottom? I think) hitting the ball into the ground. Then after 5 months Boycott got his 100. Boring.
Started to get interested again now because it's a completely different game, as is the world.
Move on - Rugby did and are still struggling - cricket can, use all the formats and it might survive.
Posted by: Bobby Bigballs | 28 June 2008 at 00:52
Money is all that matters these days and it is about to ruin cricket just as it has football over recent years. Twenty-twenty is not real cricket and never will be and they should call it something else - rounders, baseball or whatever. It is no more than a sloggers paradise - it may well be entertaining but it embodies few if any of the finer skills of the game. But, like their footballing counterparts, cricketers, as well as those who run the game, simply cannot resist the financial temptation being dangled in front of them. Great in the short term but disaster eventually.
Posted by: Johnty, Newcastle | 27 June 2008 at 17:51
hi :)
Posted by: Pet | 26 June 2008 at 12:26
Despise 20-20.
Hpow long is it going to be until we have 10-10 or even games of one over a piece.
The beauty of cricket is in the subtle tactical battles. One day internationals and 5 day trst matches was a perfect system.
I understand why they introduced 20-20, but unfortunately it seems like the start of the end for the beautiful game as we know it!
Posted by: Tote Cricket Pro | 26 June 2008 at 11:55
http://www.playballoonacy.com/show/00a3dc1655651d1c793c020a576f681b
Posted by: co2 needs a boost | 24 June 2008 at 21:30