Whoever wins the Champions Trophy in Centurion today will become the first country to win it twice. New Zealand had won it in Kenya in 2000-01, and Australia in India in 2006-07.
Australia, the likely winners today, will become the first nation in the ten year history of Champions Trophy to win it twice in succession.
But why have the Champions Trophy in the first place? We have the World Cup for 50-overs cricket, which determines the strongest nation every four years.
The aim of the Champions Trophy (the inaugural one in Dhaka, Bangladesh in October 1998 was called Mini World Cup) was to spread cricket to emerging nations.
But have a look at the current Champions Trophy.
The eight countries who participated in it were established teams from England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Do you see any emerging nation? I can’t.
The surfeit of One-day Internationals (ODIs) in recent times is self-destructing. Since September, we had seven ODIs between Australia and England in England, then a triangular series between Sri Lanka, New Zealand and India, followed by 15 ODIs for the Champions Trophy.
Except for the Australia–Pakistan, match which the former won off the last ball, all other matches were one-sided and boring. The whole concept appears meaningless.
Ho – hum about sums it up.
So why organise such “global” events in the first place?
As we say farewell to the Champions Trophy, we are about to welcome the Airtel Champions League Twenty20 League (ACLT20) to be played in India.
The inaugural ACLT20 will be staged from 8 to 23 October.
It is a new concept, as different States from seven countries (three from India, two each from Australia, England and South Africa and one each from West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka) will play each other.
Of the 234 players nominated by the 12 teams, 110 (47 percent) have already played international cricket.
Illustrating the quality of the world-class squads that have been named, New South Wales Blues, the Delhi Daredevils, Wayamba from Sri Lanka, Royal Challengers Bangalore and Victorian Bushrangers, have ten internationals each in their ranks.
Lalit Modi, Chairman, ACLT20 Governing Council said: “It will be a true contest between the best of the best.”
In other words, it is a slightly different and a better version of the IPL of 2008 and 2009. Better, because it has domestic champions from different countries rather than just auctioned cricketers.
Sure, it will fill up Stadia in Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad. But do we need such gimmicky form of cricket twice a year?
Yes, a World Cup of Twenty20 cricket every four years, like a World Cup of Fifty50 cricket every four years, is welcome. But certainly not a limited-overs “championships of champions” every year under different names, guises and sponsors.
Who needs them? Aren’t we killing the hen that lays the golden egg?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (19)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (3)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (0)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (19)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (3)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (12)
- Stats say Kallis is greatest of his generation (27)
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 4:43am | Report comment
Very well put Kersi. Now we just need someone to forward this on to David Morgan and Haroon Lorgat and beat them with a stick until the dollar signs vacate their eyes.
The Champions trophy I already had a gripe about but packing yet another gimmicky tournament on top. Can anyone explain who this tournament is aimed at and the purpose of it? Is cricket just about Ca$h now? I thought it was probably the biggest honour an Australian could have, to represent the country playing cricket, not it seems its about as noteworthy as another series as big-brother.
It must be remembered that cricket is for fans and players – not for TV companies and Bollywood team owners.
The players have had enough, Australia just lost 3 players to injury and these injuries are occurring more-and-more frequently, directly proportional to the increased workload placed upon them so why do we continue to give them more?
The fans too have had enough. I am an avid cricket fan and have loved the game since childhood but at some point I will say, enough is enough, sport is seasonal and now we are playing cricket 12 months a year, while I love the game I loathe that it has become what it has, matches are too often meaningless, even entire series and tournaments are held in little regard and yet we just keep piling it on and every month there is more cricket on our screens.
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Australia by 6 wickets in the end, with 20-odd balls to spare. Shane Watson finished 105no, and brought up his hundred (and the winning runs) with two successive sixes.
Kersi, you mentioned the US$2M prizemoney for the winners – has it always been that high a sum?? I don’t recall such a purse been played for previously, and if it has always been the case, then it’s hard to see the national bodies agreeing to drop the tournament.
It does make you wonder though how much worse the international schedule has to get (highlighted no better than by another T20WC next year, the third in four years) before the penny eventually drops…
Brett McKay said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Ha, just found the answer: (from the SMH today)
“Sources last night indicated that the improved prizemoney on offer in the Champions Trophy – the $US400,000 ($462,695) reward for making the semi-finals increased to $US1 million for the runner up and $US2 million for the winning team – acted as a deterrent to corruption.”
Um, OK….
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 6th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
The purpose of the Champions Trophy (earlier called Mini World Cup) was to spread cricket in emerging countries. But apart from the first two Trophies (in Dhaka, Bangladesh and in Nairobi, Kenya) the others were held in Sri Lanka, England and now in South Africa. In which way will the Champions Trophy promote cricket in emerging nations?
It is interesting to note that Dhaka was the third choice after Disneyworld, Florida and Sharjah for the inaugural Trophy in 1998-99.
Pity Vettori was unfit to play the Final. But congratulations to Ricky and his men. They really emerged as champions, spearheaded by a tornado named Watson. And Nathan Hauritz is slowly but surely coming good.
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
The purpose of the Champions Trophy was to raise money for associate cricket.
Brian said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Surely the most irrelvant trophy around, worse it devalues the World Cup although I find the whole format of 50 overs now irrelevant
Redb said | October 6th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
What’s happened to cricket in OZ is it just me or does anyone else not care these days?
50 Overs is dead, Twenty20 will watch the odd game, test matches against England of some interest – the rest I couldn’t care.
Is the retirement of so many stars but particularly Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist taken away the interest?
Redb
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I think its just you.
AndyRoo said | October 6th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I enjoy the test matches and probably always will
20/20 and One Day cricket (which I used to watch) don’t really do it for me, but admittedly there is now the A league for me to watch during the cricket season.
I bet the ratings will still be fine once their back in Australia.
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Today is not necessarily the best day to ask Australians “Do we really need the Champions Trophy?”
Putting jingoistic feeling aside, I find it interesting that both Vettori and Ponting went public before the final saying that it had been an excellent tournament. Of course as the two captains to make the final, they would be predisposed to such feelings. But the interesting thing is the substance to what they were saying, which as I understand was as follows:
(1) The tournament involved only the major teams, without their being any hit-and-giggle against lower-tier teams. In other words, there were only “meaningful” matches.
(2) The tournament was over in 2 weeks, as opposed to dragging on and on, as the last World Cup did.
(3) The tournament was played in the one location, which meant no flights, no packing of bags, etc. – just cricket for the players.
The above are worthy pluses. What would be wrong with having a tournament like this every year, and reducing the quota of (meaningless) bilateral ODIs?
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but it seems indisputable to me that 50-over cricket gives a bit of the best of both worlds. There is some hit-and-giggle as in T20 cricket, but at the same time there are also periods of application as in test cricket. For example, Australia won today because Watson and White were able to see off Mills and Bond in what was a test-style confrontation, and then after this there was some free hitting. I see the enjoyment in T20, but it does not allow for the varied hues of an innings like Watson played today, and for this reason there is too much chance in the results it delivers. I like to see my cricket won by the best teams, not by chance.
Whether by accident or design, it seems to me that with this tournament the ICC has found a formula that might come closest to satisfying the many different palates of cricket fans around the world …
… if they (the fans) would give it a chance. Australian cricket fans should try to see past their over-sated state – continuous cricket by the national team for the last 12 months, which I agree is ridiculous – and look at the potential of this tournament.
Why not put one of these on at Brisbane this time next year, using the Gabba and the Allan Border field as the venues?
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Very well put Greg. I think the majority of people who actually enjoy cricket for what it is (an exicting sport – not a money-making machine) would agree with your assessment of the format. Further, that the tournament was staged inside 2 weeks and didn’t require massive amounts of travel is another excellent point and one the administrators should heed.
That being said, we can’t just exclude the Caribbean as a cricket destination because travel is difficult (or other places where infrastructure may be a hinderance), they most certainly needed the money (both the WICB and the islands) and have every right to be awarded the hosting rights but at the end of the day, the scheduling must be better.
I can see the temptation to only include the 8 “major” nations but that isn’t what cricket is all about, as soon as you start talking about who the best 8 nations are you begin to sound elitest and cricket is meant to be a leveler, not a device to encourage the gap between rich and poor.
I’d be more for a compromise, I’d still want to remove the Champions Trophy from the schedule as we can’t keep up the current amount of games but I’d like to see the 2 week tournament applied to the WC with a twist. The minnows “must” be included so let them play off before the WC proper begins, this should be an official part of the world cup of course but it will also limit the amount of pointless games and don’t use rankings to determine which minnows make it as they don’t take form into account, have a simple head-to-head knockout tournament between the associate nations and include the two winning teams.
So you have 10 teams playing in the WC proper, effectively five matchdays of two games each per group which, with a two day break in between would extend the tournament another 4 days (surey that’s bareable?), the top two teams from Groups A and B advance play knockout games.
Dave said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
You criticize it for being a money-making machine but this money goes to fund cricket. this is not a bad thing.
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/358735.html
Associates set for big funding boost
Martin Williamson
June 30, 2008
A Much has been written about funds flooding into the game when the ICC’s new media deal begins in 2009, but what has been largely overlooked is that the Affiliates and Associates stand to make substantial gains.
Under the existing ICC constitution, the 33 Associates get 25% of the ICC distributions while the ten Full Members share 75%. On top of this, to further service the developing cricket world, US$13 million is assigned to the ICC Development Program from the ICC Champions Trophy every two years. Half of this goes to the Asia region and the remainder is assigned to central/staffing costs, the High Performance Program and the other four Regional Development Programs.
This will change from January 1 when the ICC Champions Trophy allocation is scrapped and instead 6% of the ICC’s media and sponsorship income is taken off the top and assigned to development purposes……….”
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Further: here’s the positive comments from Vettori and Ponting to which I referred. I suggest people make an effort to see past their own lassitude (going by the comments above) and put themselves in the shoes of others, e.g. the players.
http://www.cricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/story/428320.html
ICC Champions Trophy 2009
Ponting and Vettori praise tournament format
Osman Samiuddin in Centurion
October 4, 2009
…
The approvals will be music to the ICC’s ears for they have struggled long and hard to find the right format and shape for a much-derided tournament that first surfaced in 1998. Over the years it changed formats and size, but the ICC decided to streamline the event this time, in a bid to increase its popularity in the new age of Twenty20. Only the world’s top eight teams played, only two venues in close proximity were used, the format was simplified making each game relevant, and the whole tournament lasted 15 days: short and sharp was the ICC’s medicine.
…
Freud of Football said | October 6th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
I think both Ponting’s and Vettori’s comments should be taken with a grain of salt. In today’s cricketing world players are trained to appear before the media, Ponting and Vettori are two old heads who know what to say and they were hardly going to come out and publicly lambast the Champions Trophy but just because they “praised” it (or were they told by their respective boards to lavish the praise?) doesn’t change the fact they think they are playing too much cricket.
Brian said | October 6th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Greg if you play it every year or every second year than what is the point of the World Cup? I don’t think exlcuding Kenya or Bangladesh is a substantial point of difference. FIFA protect the World Cup by legislating that Olympics are for U23. The IRB splits its teams into 2 so they only truly come together every 4 years. Thats what makes their tournaments special when they arrive. If there is an insistence on playing ODI constantly then by all means scrap the WC and make a league like Baseball, F1, AFL or NRL. Otherwise its gotta be once every 4 years, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
No offence to the players but any business needs to respect its customers not its suppliers