Is it time for franchise-based Test cricket? Well this is how cricket was actually started..

Michael Jeh has a food for thought piece on reviving/continuing interest in test match cricket.

He says as there is little interest in test matches but interest has picked up hugely in club/franchise based T-20s. So, should we move test matches to the club format as well? He reflects on this while watching this movie – Death of a Gentleman (test match) – which should be a great watch.

 

However tempting it is to lampoon the ruthless chieftains who often treat the sport as if it were their private property, I’d like instead to put forth a bizarre idea that emerged from thinking about the future of Test cricket in the shadow of the T20 beast – the Franchise Frankenstein monster. Can Test cricket find salvation in the franchise model? Do acronyms like the IPL, BBL and CPL offer some hope of CPR for this elderly gentleman?

Think about it: if we can move so far from the traditions of cricket as to have third umpires, pink balls, day-night Tests, free hits and miked-up players in an international match, can Test cricket be saved by adopting a franchise model, even if it means “selling” the national flag? A controversial thought, I know, but is Test cricket ready to move from patriotism to pragmatism? Are we ready for the long-form game where teams are made up of players from different nations, perhaps each based in a particular country, with x number of international players per franchise, like in the IPL or Big Bash? With clever selection and marketing, some sense of national identity can be retained, but with international flavour. The ODI and T20 World Cups can still satisfy our need for patriotism and the sheer poetic genius of chants like “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi.”

The film charts the rise and rise of the franchise model, where the IPL is the benchmark. Chris Gayle, not usually someone whose words I pay much attention to, was surprisingly eloquent when explaining why it was a no-brainer to choose the life of a T20 mercenary over being a relatively poorly paid Test cricketer. So it raises the question: if we are to save Test cricket, do we need to think outside the square and create a competition where there is enough money, for administrators and cricketers, to woo them to the long-form game? It is undeniable that for most stakeholders money remains the ultimate motivator, despite anything they might say in public about the pride of representing your country, Test cricket being the supreme challenge, and so on.

He talks about WI cricket:

I suppose the question is: do we value the format more than we value the notion of country v country? If you look at the case of West Indies, it isn’t even strictly country v country, comprised as they are of a band of disparate nations. That they have been able to play with pride for so long is a miracle in itself. So, is Test cricket only of interest because it pits countries against each other or is the actual format of the game worth saving?

International schedules are now planned around the IPL. Domestic cricket is being played overseas, Pakistan have home games in the Middle East, the IPL was played in South Africa and the UAE, Irishmen have played for England and then gone back to Ireland, umpires wear helmets. Australia hand out international caps to fringe players because the first team are on the plane to New Zealand. Players are rested because they might get injured (that worked!). Australia has always prided itself on how hard it is to get an international cap but it has now got to the stage where if you are a regular on the domestic circuit and don’t have a Test, ODI or T20 cap by the end of your career, you’ve almost underachieved.

All cricket boards still wax lyrical about the primacy of Test cricket but it is clearly now a hollow truth. If our love of the format and the unique skill sets that it brings to the game can transcend blind patriotism, perhaps, just perhaps, we can save the gentleman from death by neglect.

Interesting bit.

But then this is nothing new really. AS far as I have read, this is how cricket was originally played. For many years England Cricket team was actually the Marylebone Cricket Club team. Before we had IPL, BPL and so on we had BCCI, ACB and so on. These were nothing but private clubs/boards. Just that players were picked from within the country but even this was not strictly true. How these boards etc were eventually made to represent national teams is something worth knowing about. Infact, experts say one reason for lack of regulation and eventual problems in Indian cricket is the way BCCI has been organised.

I don’t know much about the topic though. But it is fascinating really.  Will people watch test matches if we go back to the franchise model?

What matters more the form or the substance?

One can immediately connect this to economics of organisations. We often debate in economics over which is a better model to provide a good/service? Should one make the product or just outsource the same?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: