Surfeit of instant cricket not good

Hundreds of years ago, it was Test cricket that was introduced by the British and they played a significant role in promoting and developing that in the colonies they ruled during that era.

All major countries in South Asia - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were under British rule and as a result, cricket spread fast in those countries. It not only became the most favourite sport in the subcontinent but a passion and a way of life for most of sports crazy fans.

At a time when cricket is low down the order behind soccer, tennis, motor racing and golf, in its own birthplace of England, the sport gathered momentum in countries such as India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

But with the introduction of one day limited over cricket and its inaugural world cup in 1975, the limited version of the game turned out to be a crowed puller and a money spinner.

Due to its extraordinary ability of generating money through lucrative sponsorships, the world governing body - the ICC, introduced a Mini World Cup from the beginning of this decade.

Now, it has gone a few steps further and turned out to be yet another version - the Twenty20 or the 20 overs per side limited over cricket. In another words, its nearly half of the one day international version.

The ICC Twenty20 World Cup has just begun in South Africa and the success or failure of the newest version of cricket is left to be seen. The vulnerability and the acceptance of Twenty20 cricket is yet to be known and it’s too early to predict its future.

Nevertheless, one thing is evident even at this very earl stage. The lovely game of cricket is gradually losing its true colours. After all, it was the established game that creates a complete cricketer. However, one day internationals too have made their own contribution in generating much needed finances for the game to survive.

All what I could see is that the Twenty20 cricket is yet another step by the ICC to fill its coffers, completely forgetting the harmful effects that it would have.

True enough any sports could not survive and sustain without sponsorship. Be it cricket or any other sport, huge finances are needed for the promotion and development of those sports. This is where the sponsors play a crucial role and they make an immense contribution in this aspect. There is no argument or dispute on that.

But it does not mean that we should adjust or alter games or sport to suite sponsor requirements or do so with the intension of attracting lucrative sponsorship deals. If finances are what matters, the one day internationals generate enough and more monies needed for the game and those who indulge in it.

But the Twenty20 format does not do any good or make any worthwhile contribution to sharpen skills of a cricketer. Instead, it destroys natural ability and skills of players. The players are given instant tasks to perform within short time periods. That puts undue pressure on both batsmen and bowlers.

Forget the established game of Test cricket for a moment. We are not trying to compare Test cricket with Twenty20 because that would definitely be silly. But compare one day internationals or limited over cricket with Twenty20.

One may say Twenty20 is also another version of limited over cricket, True enough but unlike in one dayers where a team would get 50 overs to prove their skills with either bat or the ball, its less than half of that quota that is given in Twenty20.

For an instance, bowlers may bowl a maximum of only four overs at a match. This would put undue pressure on even the best of bowlers in world cricket right from their very first delivery.

Will they get enough time to settle down and find their rhythm? It has also become a laughing stock with the introduction of the so-called ‘free hits’. Usually, we have heard of free kicks in soccer but free hits have never been in the centuries old rule book of cricket.

Should a blower deliver a no ball by overstepping the popping crease, it costs two runs and his next delivery is designated as a ‘free hit’, from which the batsman can only be dismissed though a run out, for hitting the ball twice, obstructing the field or handling the ball as in the case for the original no ball.

But in the case of a no ball, the batsman gets a few seconds to react after the umpires signal where as in this case, a batsman could well prepare for the next ball which is going to be a ‘free hit’. This is just one example and there are many ‘introductions’ that make Twenty20 a mockery.

Many reputed cricketers have kept away from the Twenty20 World Cup and some countries are fielding makeshift sides. It has come to a stage where the sports lovers are in a puzzle to find who the real world champions are as there are too many World Cups.

As I have emphasised earlier, it’s too early to predict anything and it’s up to the cricketing pundits to debate and find out what’s best for the game.