Yesterday Geoff Marsh was appointed coach of the new Pune franchise. His two sons Mitchell and Shaun already play in the IPL.
Geoff’s assistant will be Dermot Reeve, the former England player.
The Kochi franchise is yet to appoint a coach and it would not surprise to see an Aussie or a Saffa.
Last years’ champions, Chennai, had Mathew Hayden, Bollinger, Bailey and Mr. Cricket on their roster, along with Kemp, Ntini and Morkel. Murali was their spinner and the team was coached by Wessels, who had the distinction of representing both Australia and South Africa.
Stephen Fleming was somewhere in the mix.
Kolkata is coached by Aussie Dav Whatmore and includes Brad Hodge and David Hussey. Ricky Ponting withdrew two years ago.
Buchanan has been coach and they will be in the market for the likes of Hastings and Pattison. They have McCullum, Bond, Gayle, Shah and M&M (Mathews and Mendis).
Big, lumbering Langeveldt keeps the batsmen in check.
Look around all the franchises and you see Greg Shipperd coaching Delhi; Lehman coaching Deccan; and Gilchrist captaining.
Bad boy Symonds is a major drawcard.
Tom Moody is in charge at Punjab and has Hopes, Lee and Shaun Marsh to keep him company.
His captain is Sangakkara, and Jayawardene is in the mix also.
Shane Warne is playing Peter Pan at Rajasthan, and Shaun Tait, Finch, Voges make up the support cast. Damien Martyn has gone back to pasture.
Graeme Smith and Warne are now the best of buddies. Amazing what a cool half million can do for strained relations.
Warner, Henriques, Steven Smith, Hodge, Ryan Harris, Cameron White all have lucrative contracts. Mathew Mott is assisting Whatmore and all the good physios are busy strapping the prized imports.
So it is the players that make the IPL and this is to be applauded.
Putting aside the traditionalists ‘refrain’, the IPL is embraced by the players and the public.
I can understand Holding being disdainful but the reality is that it is popular. I agree with Holding that the Twenty20 is “junk food” but we both may be romantics.
With 10 teams next year, and a player pool approaching 200, at least 80 will be from Australia, South Africa, England and Sri Lanka. It may be more.
Half the coaches are Australian and the support staff of medicos is mostly from overseas. The IPL would fold if it were not for the overseas players.
No one wants it to fold: not the player, nor the fans in India.
Certainly the various Boards are supportive and willingly make their players available. If they did not then players like Gayle and Nannes would go anyway.
This is the next big debate waiting to happen in cricket. It is no different to the country versus club that has been going on for decades in the various football leagues around the world.
This then begs the question: is the ICC relevant? The corporatization of cricket via the IPL may be the business model that cuts across the political humbug that so blights the game.
Perhaps in the end, market forces will cleanse cricket like the ICC cannot.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Jay,this is a tough one and has polarised opinion post Mumbai 26/11. However Wasim Akram did spend time as coach of the Kolkata team this year. But it does not help when people like Zaheer Abbas constantly harp on anything that looks like repairing the relationship.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Russ,I agree they are limited but that is also because they have not tested the boundaries of their power. They are perhaps happy to keep the status quo. In the end if there is a "trusting" relationship between admin and players then it can work. The absence of a truly world body of players is also a limiting factor. The Indians have not joined FICA and perhaps that is an important piece of the jigsaw.
Russ
Guest
Vinay, keep in mind that players are very limited in power at the moment. Their employer has a monopoly on their labour, so, short of a strike, they cannot easily negotiate for better outcomes. Cricketers have been almost unanimous in arguing for less cricket, and FICA's proposals for the next FTP are far and away superior to that being put forward in the draft. But as long as the international game hogs all the money, I'd argue the players are negotiating from a weak base. The counter-intuitive argument that could be made therefore, is that if the players really value test cricket, the IPL (and similar competitions) will actually save test cricket from the rapaciousness of its administrators, by gifting the players the power to negotiate for the type of international schedule they (and perhaps the public) want.
Jay
Guest
and yet no Pakistani players in the IPL...
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Viscount,yes I read the Pixie-Geldolf line and got the impression it was more wishful thinking that Twenty20 would be a passing fad. Despite the lack of crowds at the grounds the interesting bit will be the TV ratings as a lot of cricket's revenue is underpinned by the broadcast rights. I think the sensible thing would be to give context and competitivity to all three forms and the first step would be to limit the number of games. All three have a place in the sun and in their own ways satisfy a cross section of the public. I do not believe that administrators should adopt a "this or that" but rather treat them all as complimentary and yet stand alone.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Actually, Vinay, the crowds for this year's English T20 competition have been dreadful. Some counties are averaging approximately 1,500 spectators per match. The general consensus is that 161 games is complete overkill and that the T20 form of the game has reached a plateau in England, and might even be on the way down... This article offers some food for thought: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-1292630/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Twenty20-cricket-passing-fad--like-Pixie-Geldof-Lib-Dems.html
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Russ, I accept your reasoning,see my reply to Greg,below.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Greg,my point about the power is not necessarily to have agreement. It is to debate if the "elite" players can influence the way cricket is run and what direction it takes. The argument made by Viscount and Russ and yourself is sound but these are specifics and I am arguing the rationale from the viewpoint that cricketers have power but this is not suitably excercised for the greater good of the game. And perhaps players are so immersed in their "pay" they forget what gave them the wherewithall in the first place.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
"the real power lies elsewhere. Not with the broadcasters or the indulgent tycoons with money to burn, but with the players and coaches from Australia, South Africa and England." I find it hard to agree with this. Remember there was a season where all Pakistanis were banned from the IPL, I think it was 2009? The same could arbitrarily be done to any nationality of players, and then in the twinkling of a board meeting that nationality of players would have no power. Sure, an IPL without Australians would be a diminished product, but it wouldn't cause the IPL to collapse economically, far from it. That could only happen if the big-name Indians didn't participate. But it's impossible to imagine that Tendulkar, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Harbhajan et al. could all agree to "strike" or something like that. Elsewhere the Viscount has made an analogy between English football and Indian cricket. At times it can seem as if a foreign contingent of players and coaches has massive power in English football. But the truth is that if the FA were to arbitrarily ban, say, Spaniards from being involved in the EPL, that would make very little difference to the economic size of the competition. Australians are only in the IPL by the good grace of the Indian authorities, and the Australians know it. Yes, they have had a huge influence on events on the field, but this does not mean that they are in a position of power.
Russ
Guest
Vinay, there was a very interesting paper written on this back in 2001: http://wwwfom.sk.med.ic.ac.uk/_Resources/(694BDE41-E012-45F6-ACAA-509592B0DE95)/cricketblueprint.pdf It's opening points relate to match fixing, but the general argument ran that, because cricket is structured via international competition, the players are underpaid, in comparison to other sports. It then recommends a smaller (worldwide) domestic competition as a solution. I don't fear for test cricket or the international game, because there will always be a demand for both, but I do despair at the attitude that sees as much cricket played as humanly possible, without any sort of context (and often little in the way of contest). T20 won't destroy international cricket, it is already destroying itself. But I don't believe the IPL will challenge the ICC, rather, the battle will be between the home boards and FICA, on behalf of players (particularly those outside the big-4) who will refuse to play for mediocre rewards in pointless international fixtures. Those boards will then (hopefully) act, via the ICC to create a more sustainable structure (though not necessarily what everyone might want): a meaningful international calendar, and large windows for domestic T20 competitions. Alternatively they may react, ban players from the IPL, and try and protect their out-dated revenue streams. The latter is, I fear, more likely.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
WCR,thanks for your comments. I think I have covered most of this in my reply to Brett,above. Appreciate your studied point of view.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett,I am never in doubt about your passion for the primacy of the longer form . Sometimes the written word gets absorbed in your own predilection but the way forward is dialogue and not confrontation. This is where I am at odds with certain sections that adopt a "morally outraged" stance when something does not go their way. I am being specific here to the Howard debate but I certainly do not want to labour the point. Forget Zimbabwe and Pakistan Cricket for the time being because in their own ways these two are not capable of contributing to good governance. You know my criticsm of the BCCI and my underwhelming regard for Pawar. Having said that the BCCI must be given the opportunity to show it can lead the cricket world both economically and morally. Their record on the IPL is as tarnished as the ECB's was with Stanford. But both the BCCI and the ECB also do good. Of the top of my head the ECB has been salutory with their assitance to the Blind cricketers and the Women's cricketers. Similarly the BCCI has lifted payments to First Class Cricketers and have a half decent pension for exTest cricketers. Though this is also subject to politics. For example Kapil Dev's pension was withheld during the ICL. Not that Kapil needs the pension but it is an example of the pettiness. No money for cricket is bad. Is there such a thing as too much money? How it is spent is the important thing. Players like Tendulkar and Ponting can help. A current player carries more weight than an ex-player. Dhoni only has to say he loves Test Cricket,and he has said it but not often enough,and there will be a legion of support. I am impressed with Steve Smith,Moises Henriques and Simon Katich who have all recently espoused the sanctity of Tests.
Brett McKay
Guest
cheers Vinay, I have perhaps misinterpreted your point on player power, and I agree with what you've said in response. I completely agree, too, with the thought that T20 cannot stand alone. We already have, and will no doubt get more, T20 "specialists" among the playing, coaching, and admin staff, and that's fine, I have no real issue with maximising your earnings by specialising in a certain area. It's something I did in my day job for a number of years when I got into what I do. Our concerns for Test and First Class cricket are very real, and yes, the "senior player" around the globe can play a part in protecting this. But this also comes back to my beef with the ICC members currently, that the integrity of cricket in all formats must be protected first and foremost above the filthy lucre that all nations have fallen for at some point in recent years...
Working Class Rugger
Guest
I think what Vinay has been trying to convey it that player's will hold the drawing power in the IPL well into the future and without the star power of big name foriegn player's the IPL would struggle with purely local talent. The fact that many of the best player's in the world compete in the league brings in the viewership and sponsorship dollars. The loss of Test Cricket outside of the Ashes will be a dark day for Cricket. But could work to strengthen its legacy amongst those who still compete. Not ideal but the simple facts are that T20 is here to stay and has the necessary commercial appeal to draw more money and attention to Cricket as a whole. Interestingly enough our Big Bash appears to the other major T20 League. Or at least if it continues its current trajectory it very well could be ( the English Counties Comp draws no one). With the expansion next year, the growth of crowds and TV audience and the marquee player system it could very well be the IPL main competitor well into the future.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett,sorry I am doing this between meetings but I want to emphasise the power that players have. Tendulkar,Kallis,Ganguly,Pietersen,Steyn..all play in the IPL and they are testament that you have to be a Test Cricketer first and Twenty20 second. They can influence the other players. In my mind Twenty20 could not exist stand alone. This is where I applaud Ponting in his passion for Test Cricket. Players with influence have a very important role to play in the enhancement and prosperity of Test Cricket. Captains like Afridi and Gayle are in my view self-serving and do the greater game an injustice.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett,we are agreed that the ICC,and various boards,need cleansing. My point is just not about the IPL alone. It is the bigger picture of players reclaiming the game from the pollies,broadcasters and administrators. The quality of the IPL is debatable and some of the Indian players would not get a run in your club in Canberra. And certainly there are already teams like Chennai that have 10 imports and this will get bigger. The love we have for Test Cricket is not necessarily shared in the West Indies or maybe even Pakistan and Sri Lanka.I am talking about the younger generation..not the players like Jayawardene and Sangakkara. Nannes, Flintoff,Symonds,Gayle ,for different reasons,don't really give two hoots for Test Cricket. Test Cricket is strong in England and Australia but we might be fighting a losing battle. We can only keep pointing out the beauty,the tradition and the great heroes that Test Cricket has given us. But in the end if your children want to go in another direction what do you do. You and I have discussed context and contest and other obvious remedies and we must maintain the rage. But it cannot ignore or confront Twenty20. It has to negotiate and persuade and offer a valid contest. Please view my piece as one that calls for a concerted effort to strike a balance and reclaim cricket for what it should be. Many administrators are now becoming bigger than the game. Like umpires they should be seen and not heard.
Brett McKay
Guest
Vinay, my critical concern with your closing line is that if the market cleanses cricket instead of the ICC, then all we'll have left is T20, ODIs, the Ashes and a couple of other key Test Series. The likes of Sl, NZ, WI, and maybe even Pak will very rarely play Test cricket, if ever again. This CANNOT be allowed to happen. Also, just a minor point on your article here: I doubt the playing and team staff hold the power in the IPL at all. In the end, they're all controlled by the strings of whoever picks up from Lalit Modi. Even if the number of foreign players and staff in the IPL hits upward or 60%, that doesn't constitue power, it just recognises that there isn't as much talent in India as was first imagine. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the limit in the number of foreign players starting each game is lifted with the 10 team comp, as the franchise owners will want return on investment. It wouldn't surprise me if it got to the point of 6 or 7 internationals starting....
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Viscount, I believe the Friends Provident Twent20 in England is running to 161 games. This is almost double that of the next IPL. As far as Australia is concerned the administrators could not be happier with the attendaces(tv and ground) of the KFC Big Bash and are expanding this next year. These are facts and the TWENTY20 is not about to go away. We have to approach this realistically and see how the other longer forms can also co-exist and prosper..especially Test Cricket. My main point was that Economic reality may just be preferable to the compromised politics we get from the ICC.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
I'm not sure many people would agree that cricket would be "cleansed" if the IPL ended up dominating and perhaps even destroying the international game. It's worth noting that people in England, and perhaps in Australia too, are only really interested in the international game. Attendances at County and Shield games are woeful. There is no deep attachment to domestic cricket. So if the IPL becomes a cricketing equivalent of the EPL, and if international cricket becomes as much of an after-thought as international soccer currently is, then I don't believe cricket would survive in any meaningful form in England or Australia. Moreover, I think it's pie in the sky to imagine that Englishmen or Australians would watch the IPL as avidly as Chinese and Africans watch the EPL. Again: most people are only interested in the international game. So if the international game withers, then the IPL might well become a brilliant and popular competition, but it will do so more as the equivalent of the AFL than of the EPL. And it might well effectively destroy cricket outside India. Finally, you criticise the "political humbug" of the ICC but the ICC does at least represent an attempt at establishing a pluralist, rights-based cricketing system. It's a bit like the United Nations - not very satisfactory but almost certainly better than nothing. And just as few people would like the USA to take over the functions of the UN, so I imagine very few people would prefer the IPL to usurp the ICC.