Jhakas | Sanjay Jha
The resplendent green astro-turf destroyed Indian hockey. On regular grass, the stylish finesse and dribbling skills of Pakistan and Indian players with long sticks was legendary. The two countries met with monotonous regularity in all international championship finals, with score-lines reading a close fought 1-0, 0-2, 2-1 at best. Three goals seemed like a Herculean achievement and signified an exemplary rout of one team by another. Now India gets beaten regularly by South Korea, Britain and Argentina. And Pakistan is a pale shadow of its outstanding regimen of the past, being reduced to battling qualifying games for entering major tournaments. The game is dominated by the fit, burly, fast and tough power-scorers from Australia, Holland, Germany and even Britain and South Korea. And there is light at the end of the tunnel but it is of on oncoming train.
Power–racquets with titanium metal put an end to the classic serve and volley tennis of John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Pat Cash and Stefan Edberg. Today even in the near-perfect setting for volleys on the haloed lawns of Wimbledon, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt , Rafael Nadal et al battle out a slugfest from the baseline. Occasionally, Roger Federer, of course, does drift into the forecourt to execute a touch shot. Continue reading below
I believe ICC’s hurriedly pushing of 20:20 into the international hemisphere of cricket, will work to the detriment of teams from the Asian continent, even as it will also gradually decimate Test cricket globally. Let me explain how.
1)ICC is abbreviating the game, principally because of a flawed concept, born in the local pubs of England, where beer-guzzlers consume tank-full post-office hours in the twilight zone. 20: 20 is actually hardly a novel break-through or unique; it is just like chipping Cleopatra’s nose to suit the passing fancy of a sozzled Marc Antony. It is pure simple surgery, done thoughtlessly to bring tipsy Brits from the smoky cauldrons of London bars into the Lord’s Pavilion for some vicarious thrills called cricket.
2)In India, where 50 overs One Day cricket still sells like hot samosas, why didn’t we refuse to embrace the pygmy and pajama version of the game? Actually, the underwear variant? And why should other countries be forced to make the Kate Moss anorexic avatar of ODI cricket just because it suits the Queen’s collapsing Barmy Army?
3)20:20 will be about power-hitters. Period! All that one needs to do is to get intelligently under the ball and keep tonking the hapless bowlers with contemptuous delight over the ropes. Sure, we have an MSD and Yuvraj Singh, Sanath Jaysuria, and Shaihd Afridi, and Veeru Sehwag, but I see the entire Asian crowd of cricketers, who are usually imbibed with stylish grace and batting techniques , face humiliating routs.
4)Yes, the ICC will succeed in globalizing cricket with minnow countries finding the limited version a sort of level playing field, but the ICC should have raised the complete bar for them, , and not lowered cricketing standards for all Test playing nations by making the game shorter to accommodate more cricket.
5)I foresee bowlers being reduced to whipping boys, whether it is the usually respectable Muttiah Murlitharan or the restrictive Shane Bond. It will be an atrocious sight, trust me! Since no team will ever really get bowled out, and even the tail-enders can heave the cherry into the commentary box, the ICC will make wicket-taking into a total farce. No team will ever be out of a game fully, because anyone can suddenly go on a wild rampage. Run-rates won’t matter, wickets fallen will be irrelevant. One or two overs could change fortunes in a jiffy, making earlier hard-work look like wasted effort. Once ODI cricket was called a lottery, this will be like playing the Russian Roulette.
6)Once 20: 20 becomes part of a regular cricketing calendar, Test cricket will witness a rapid decline. If ODI cricket resulted in empty stadiums, 20: 20 will mean that the stands will ricochet with the resounding echoes of bat hitting ball in stadiums as empty as the hollow heads of ICC honchos.
7)Most countries will need 3 separate teams, for ODIS, Tests and 20:20. Imagine the selector’s nightmare, the accompanying politics, and maybe having the acute discomfiture of one day a country having three different captains for one game with several versions.
8)Many players will be burnt-out fairly early in their professional pursuits, thanks to over-exposure and unavoidable injuries. At most, cricketers will have a five-year tenure.
9)Since the game will be predominantly driven by agility, fitness levels, physique, endurance capabilities, and brute power, I foresee Asian cricketers, and particularly Indian ones, facing a daunting task. Lets’ not get fooled by the occasional dives and somersaults; South-Asian teams struggle in any sport requiring a sustained level of physical endurance.
10)Last but not the least, I see bookies, match-fixers, crooks, players with foul intentions having a filed day, as in 20: 20, “anything is possible”. On a given day, even an Ireland can beat Australia.
20: 20 is a new beginning for cricket. There will be more moolah, more media, more merchandise, more mayhem. But somewhere down the line, it will ruin the core essence of the game. In the name of entertainment and an “evening out in the park”, the game itself and Indian cricket will face a monumental challenge. Funny isn’t it, but till today, the ICC (in my opinion, even more inept than our home-grown BCCI), has not been able to create a format for the World champions in Test cricket. But in a few months we shall witness the “underwear war” in South Africa for the world title.
Don’t tell me, I didn’t warn you.
