International Cricket: Getting T20 right and saving Test Cricket

The recently concluded Twenty20 was very successful and absolutely entertaining for all who watched. The players enjoyed as well because the amount of time they were out playing was less than that of which they spend training each day. Many questions were raised after T20's success. Will T20 take the Place of One Day Cricket?

To most, if not all fans of cricket, the sport appears to be in disarray. While the number of fans for the sport might appear to be large, the truth is that Cricket is the top sport only in the subcontinent. With the success of Twenty20, it seems that it makes complete sense to play more Twenty20 rather than continue with One Dayers and Tests. My view on this though is that it will hurt the game.

Test cricket was the only way to go for cricket until the 1970s. For nearly a century cricket fans got to watch only the longer version of the game. For most of this time the Tests were timeless Tests. People though still came out to watch cricket in those days. Weather was a major problem in test matches. With matches played over a few days, fans did not know what to expect from a Test which was delayed due to weather and soon Test cricket began to look unattractive to fans. Younger fans that had busy schedules particularly lost interest in Test cricket. In the 1960s, count teams began a 65 overs a side tournament. While many fans of older generation did not like the idea, younger fans were beginning to like the idea. However the game's organizers did not want to take a risk in staging the shorter match between two International sides. In 1970 however, cricket saw its first even Limited Overs International match when a Test match at the MCG in 1971 was delayed by weather during the first 4 days of the Test. The sides needed to get some cricket in and decided that the last day would be played out with limited overs per side. This match turned out to be a huge success and what happened in the decades to follow is significant with the way the ICC must deal with Twenty20.

The first world cup was staged in 1975, four years after the first LOI was played and has since become a huge success. The game has suffered during this time though. Test cricket has had fewer followers and the amount of One Day cricket being played is too much of many fans liking. The game has become more about money. After Hansie Cronje, one of the greatest captains cricket had ever seen, took bribes in 2000 to lose a One Day Series in India, the game lost many fans. Many of my own friends who thoroughly enjoyed playing and watching cricket lost interest in the game as many great players in India and Pakistan were handed bans ranging from 5 years to life. The biggest blows were Salim Malik and Mohammad Azharuddin, both of whom, at the end of such illustrious careers, deserved a better exit.

The ICC however did not see this as a sign of things to come. In an attempt to generate more revenue for Global expansion, the ICC in 1998 came up with the Champions trophy. With the first two editions of the tournament in '98 and 2000 being knockouts, cricket fans enjoyed every moment of every match as each match a "win or go home" scenario. What drew fans to cricket in the 90s however were the Sharjah One Day tournaments. Instead of attempting to make deals for more Sharjah Cups since 2000, the ICC decided to change to change the format of the Champions trophy and the World Cup. The ICC also did nothing to control the number of matches being played between countries and in the end One Day Cricket suffered. The ICC went with the idea that there is never too much of a good thing. By the time the 2007 World Cup came around, fans had seen too many One Dayers played and the crowds were beginning to stay away from matches. The ICC needed to take control and stop allowing countries to play 7 match series. They need to have a balance. Limiting

The ICC this time has finally used some common sense in dealing with Twenty20s. After a miserable World Cup in the Caribbean, the ICC was saved by a brilliantly organized World Twenty20. Fans around the World began to show more interest in cricket. However the ICC has handled this success well. They have not allowed any boards to increase the number of Twenty20s that are staged annually. The Limit still stands at 7 T20 Internationals a year and the ICC should keep it that way. If the ICC allows international teams to stage more Twenty20s, the younger generations will learn to play cricket with luck rather than individual skills. This will make eliminate key elements of captaincy and cricketers will bowl balls and play shots with no real purpose.

While many fans may feel that Test cricket is beyond saving I feel that it is not. What national boards need to do is to get the Youngsters involved in Test cricket. When India made their historic Tour of Pakistan in 2004, the Test matches were watched only by a few dozen fans. While seats remained empty, children who could not afford to buy tickets to matches were trying to sneak into the stadium. Cricket Boards need to work with schools and different communities to allow for large groups of children to watch matches. This is one of the ways in which Test Cricket can be revived. Young children will pick up any sport quickly and by taking them to Test matches, they will learn to appreciate Test cricket at a very young age. This is something which has been done in England where young fans get to watch the 4th day of a Test for a discounted rate and the 5th day at no cost. This has been the practice for years in England and is one of the reasons why people still watch cricket in England despite the National side not winning consistently.

When Test cricket is revived however, the ICC should not get carried away. They need to have fewer 4 and 5 Test series. While Ashes fans may not like this I think that the ICC should slowly make it standard practice for nations to play only 3-Test series and no more than one 2-Test series annually. Nations like Bangladesh constantly suffer because they are always stuck with 2 match series, end up with no practice and hence gain little experience. This will also allow for more recovery time for cricketers between matches.

Whether the ICC will stick to its 7 T20s per year rule is something that fans will have to wait and see. For the sake of saving the sport, we can only hope that this time the ICC has learned from its mistakes with One Dayers and will not commit the same mistakes again.

Team India: A New look and phasing out the Big three

When a team with a great fan following fails to live up to the slightest hopes of their fans, they are looked at only in a negative light. No one gives them a chance against any side thereafter. Their fans give up on them and don't follow any type of improvements that are coming about. Any number of triumphs are looked a with very little interest. This has been the story for team India.

The World Twenty20 triumph for India came as a huge surprise to the entire cricketing world. Most pointed out the lack of a killer instinct, the imbalance of the side, lack of experienced players and finally the fact that India had played only 1 T20 International. With no one coaching this talented side it appeared as if the team stood no chance without their guidance.

What the fans had forgotten was that this was an Indian team who for the most part were involved in Test and One day series wins over teams rated higher in those conditions. The most Impressive factor was that they had achieved this success without a coach. The main reason for this success was the new policy which the BCCI appears to have quietly implemented over the previous year. The biggest change I had noticed was giving the players chances. Prior to Greg Chappell taking over as coach of the team, players were given hardly any time to prove themselves as worthy of playing in Indian colors. 4-7 One Dayers was all that they were given and even an above average performance was not acceptable. One of the major changes seen under Chappell was that any player could be dropped. The biggest victims of this policy in the first few months of Chappell's tenure were Ganguly, Sehwag, and Harbhajan Singh. These players were given ample time to prove themselves. Their only success though came in the form of politics in the dressing room.

Since then Indian players have constantly been given enough time to prove themselves. One of the best examples is Ajit Agarkar. He has been in the One Day team since the retirement of Javagal Srinath. While initially proving his worth as an opening bowler, he has only fired once in every 7-10 matches, often times going wicketless in the last 2 years. After effectively being dropped from the team midway through the World T20, it appears unlikely he will make a return to the team any time soon.

The change in captaincy has also been a key factor in the T20 success. Mahendra Singh Dhoni appears to have matured into a sensible cricketer during the England tour. He adapted well to each situation while batting and improved a great deal in his technique behind the stumps. The captaincy was handed to him based on his consistency and ability to stay calm under pressure. Dhoni has responded very well as captain. He has shot back with the best answers at Press conferences and has executed his game plans to the fullest. Every member of his squad has been equal importance and, regardless of what the situation may be during a match, he does not change his game plan. Whenever the team has responded to Dhoni's strategies, it seems like an automatic win.

The Problem which India face now is with the big three. The Tendulkar-Ganguly opening combination made a comeback during the ODIs in Ireland. Since then they have constantly been involved in a number of 50 and 100 run partnerships. They have used every bit of experience which they gained over the years to see out the early new ball overs and then accelerate to end up with a total of over 100 by the end of the Powerplays. This has set the platform for many Indian victories. However this opening stand at the moment seems hard to replace. The ideal combination to replace this pair would be that of Gautham Gambhir and Virender Sehwag. Gambhir was very consistent during the One Day series in England and went into overdrive when playing the Twenty20s. The Twenty20s have also seen Gambhir and Sehwag gel well giving the batting lineup good starts on a regular basis during the World Twenty20. Sehwag needs to be given another shot in ODIs and India will need to rotate the opening combination in the upcoming ODIs. Though he just turned 29, Sehwag's best years are not over and he still has a chance to redeem himself as an opener for India.

Rahul Dravid has played a prominent role in the success of the Indian batting lineup over the last decade. Despite his failure to come up with big scores in the recently concluded 7 ODI series against Australia, India will need Dravid for some time. The younger members of the Indian team are yet to travel abroad and Tour the big teams. The next few months will be the best time for India to build up their Middle order. There are 3 batsmen who can take over the number 3 and 4 slots. The England Tour showed us that India might have just found the perfect replacement for Dravid. Dinesh Karthik was India's highest runscorer in the Tests and his strokeplay was among the cleanest the game had seen since the Wall himself. Effortless hitting is what Dravid has given the Indian team over the years and it is only a matter of time before Karthik displays the same class of batting in One Day cricket for India. Rohit Sharma is one who has displayed many similarities to Dravid in Limited overs cricket. Although he has only been tried in T20 cricket, Rohit has shown maturity in his batting that is well beyond his years. He has taken his time at the crease and hit out after getting set in. The third man who can fill any spot in the lineup is Robin Uthappa. After being shuffled around the batting order for months, Uthappa has consistently batted according to the situation and delivered when India needed it most. His ability to bat in any situation means that Rohit Sharma and Dinesh Karthik will have to fight it out for the last spot in the lineup. The team management should spend the next series rotating these 4 batsmen in the ODI batting lineup.

Age is not the only reason that Indian needs to think beyond the big three. As it has been proven over the years, great fielding wins you matches. This has always been the difference between India and other top sides. The World T20 win for India came down to some key performances in the field. Dinesh Karthik held on to a brilliant catch to dismiss danger man Graeme Smith early on in the South Africa match while Rohit Sharma and Robin Uthappa came up with key runouts which turned a couple of matches India's way. Indias batting was not the key to their Twenty20 success. Their improvements in the field made the difference and there is proof in this simply because India did not produce the highest totals in the competition. Ganguly's fielding of late has been lazy to say the least. He rarely dives to stop a ball on the boundary and prefers not to field in positions where catching might be slightly challenging. Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid have had a couple of drops in the field. However Dravid's fitness level is the best among the three and while Dravid's efforts in the field can match the youngsters', Sachin still has one of the quickest throws in the Team.

The team management at the moment have more options than they have ever had in the past. For the first time since the Big Three had become a permanent fixture in the team India has a group of youngsters who are only a few matches away from permanent national selection. It is high time Indian cricket began a real rotation policy and started picking youth over experience.

How does cricket technology help?

Cricket has seen a major increase in technology in recent times. Television viewers have enjoyed the luxury of seeing each ball analyzed using a variety of different technologies. In our eyes it is not only entertaining but also the latest tool used to measure a cricketer's abilities to master the sport. The ICC however feels that these new technologies need not be used to help umpires make decisions on field. Like many others, I do not agree entirely with the ICC's decision. Many of the new technologies may not be entirely accurate. But older technologies such as instant replay combined with certain advanced tools of analysis could be used to provide accurate results.

When television coverage was introduced to cricket, instant replay was widely used. For viewers it was something that could eat away the time before the next ball was bowled. Over the years instant replay has become a major tool of analysis and one which could be used to criticize decisions made by players as well as officials. Judging run outs was a major problem. One could not expect an Umpire to keep both eyes on the stumps and the crease simultaneously in full speed. This brought in a 3rd Umpire. In today's game however with technology readily available, the ICC needs to expand this technology beyond run outs alone. Viewers in many cases can tell if an LBW was given as the right decision within less than a minute. Two replays from two angles are all we need to analyze the Umpire's decision. Certain balls are so straight forward that the Umpire should not miss it. However certain deliveries which come in from the off and pitch on leg can be analyzed correctly by just using the instant video replay. This just recreates what the on field umpires saw except that the umpire now sees it in slow motion. This is the best system as it will not use any type of simulated technology to influence the umpire's final decision.

The latest technology which has entertained viewers is hawkeye. This technology has not been proven to be one hundred percent accurate. For this reason I think the ICC is justified in not using this technology during international games. Some may argue that hawkeye is used in Grandslam tennis. However professional tennis players are not entirely satisfied with the results. 3-time Roland Garros winner Rafael Nadal was on the receiving end of hawkeye's flaws. At the 2007 Dubai Tennis Championships, Mikhail Youzhny played in a match against Nadal. Youzhny hit a ball which was called out. He went ahead and challenged the call and Hawk-eye ruled in Youzhny's favor. Nadal felt that the system was flawed as the ball to him appeared to have clearly missed the line. Youzhny agreed that this may have been an error of hawk-eye but claimed that any umpire could have made the same error. The reason haw-eye may have failed in this case is because of the dry heat in Dubai. This have caused the system to perform below par on a day when two of tennis' best were battling it out.

After watching the recently concluded India-England test Series, I had was a bit confused about the benefits which technology could bring to cricket. The World Best Umpire for 3 years running had made a number of bad judgments. At the end of the day however Simon Taufel admitted that he had made mistakes and was upset about it. Taufel is one of the most respected Umpires around. When I saw the decisions he had made, I felt that technology was to blame. The reason I say this is because technology is making Umpires become more accurate at making close calls. For the last few years it seems to have worked, but after watching this series I feel that the pressure has finally caught up to the Umpires. The Umpires constantly feel the pressure to make the right call because they know that at the end of the day technology will prove them either right or wrong with their calls. Whatever the fans and the press say will be based purely on the analysis of a few commentators or hawkeye. The pressures which Umpires face at the highest level will never be taken into consideration.

The best system will be to use the straight and side angles of the batsman along with the snickometer technology to judge the height and direction of the delivery as well as rule out any bat being involved with decisions such as LBW. As for caught behind decisions, I feel that the umpire needs to judge it by the sound of ball on bat and any visible change in direction of the cricket ball upon leaving the bat. The reaction of players can never be trusted as each player want to do well not only for their country but also for their place in the team. Umpires should not feel intimidated by players' reactions. Instead they need to just think only about what decision needs to be made. I myself enjoy Umpiring on occasion for this reason alone because the decision is in my hand and no disgruntled player will change what decision I make.

The ICC needs to do something to help the Umpires. First of all they need to train umpires on how to handle the pressure. Umpires end up making silly decisions without thinking clearly about where the ball pitched and how it changed direction. Taking a few extra seconds may cause a delay but in the end we are more likely to see the right decision made. Perhaps gaining sponsorship for making new technology available to International Umpires might help. This will reduce the ICC's expenses in this new area of concern. With the increasing number of errors from Umpires, now may be the best time for the ICC to bring technology to the Umpires' rescue.