South Australia Redbacks fielder Daniel Harris drops a catch (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe).
This article is in direct response to the guest column by Cricket Australia’s Mike McKenna on the Twenty20 Big Bash League.
Learning to play cricket as a child was a simple matter. What was harder was putting it into place. Bat straight, bowl to your field, and hold your catches. It all sounds simple, but for the hideously unskilled, I was always afraid I’d be the last one on the team bus because I was genetically incapable of completing the aforementioned tasks with any effect.
But for all the dregs like myself, there were the kids who just got it done. Those were the ones who received rep honours, got to meet former Test players and play the game at the level we were all aspiring to get to.
Priorities have shifted it seems. Twenty20 now capture the hearts and minds of kids, or so Cricket Australia and every national cricket body would have us believe. In contrast, CA also points out the lack of interest in the Sheffield Shield – talking about it as an exercise of obligation rather than the vehicle that has carried Australian cricket for more than 100 years, and through its fair share of memorable moments.
The result is that Cricket Australia have been blaring their clarion call about the next year’s Big Bash League, with an enthusiasm akin to when I was given my first cricket bat (it was a Slazenger V100, as my dad knew Mark Waugh was my favourite player growing up, but I digress).
Let the public speak now: how many of us are actually as excited as CA are about this? Is the prospect of a local Sydney or Melbourne derby going to whet the appetite as far as what young fans want?
I no longer am one, and so don’t feel entitled to represent their views. But all I know is that kids want and many things. If a parent obliges to all of their requests, then the end result is that the children can a) become spoiled, and b) as a result, not have the necessary skills set to adapt when things don’t go their way.
The second point is the crux of my argument. Do you think I enjoyed having to do extra laps at cricket training only days after I dropped a sitter at slip? Why was I made to do it? To reinforce a lesson in discipline: the very quality that Twenty20 cricket sorely lacks.
Discipline is no fun. It can be tedious, years of hard work and can make you feel like perennial merde.
So if you follow Cricket Australia’s rationale, discipline is not a marketable quality, and therefore must be shown the door.
After all, it is much easier to perform one slog sweep than to survive eight hours of intense bowling pressure. At least that’s what modern cricket is telling kids that can watch live IPL coverage from their homes, but can’t even get a Sheffield Shield report on the 6pm news.
After all this whingeing, time for solutions (everything is subjective, of course).
If Cricket Australia has any intent to grow the game and follow on from what it says, a couple of steps can be taken:
1) Mandate that all international players must be available for at least five Shield matches a season. Improve the quality of the domestic competition, and the audiences will return.
2) Remove the layers of coaching at the top level. If a cricketer is selected for Australia, then he/she must be given the freedom to express themselves without a myriad of coaches complicating the process. All those coaches are far better off working among grassroot cricketers. For no better example of how a natural talent can be mismanaged into a whimpering wreck, look at Mitchell Johnson.
3) Reduce the home summer international commitments to a maximum of six Tests, six ODIs and two T20s. If there are less matches for people to attend, the likelihood of them attending increases. Treat the game as your marketing plaything however, the more intelligent among us will simply turn away.
Three steps – all achievable. It is a matter of discipline over money.
Bayman
Guest
Mark, You would not get the modern professionals doing what O'Keeffe did - it's not in their contract!
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Excellent article Vas. Have you read Kerry O'Keefe's book? There is a section where he talks about the countless hours he spent down at the nets bowling to one stump, again, and again, and again, and then again. And again. For hours and hours every day week in week out. It is this sort of discipline that is key to be a successful cricketer. On the plus side, those cricketers that have that sort of discipline are the ones that will be successful in any form of the game, it will just become harder for young people to emulate them if all they are watching is smash and bash. But on the plus side, it is great to see huge crowds and big interest in the cricket. Interesting times ahead eh!
Bayman
Guest
Brett, I agree the international shedule is not entirely within the control of CA. On the other hand, the domestic schedule is. Perhaps CA could contribute by scheduling Shield games, for example, around these commitments a bit more so players can play. Would Hussey have made it this year without a Shield game, and hundred, immediately prior to the Test series. The non-caucasian in the woodpile, of course, is the international ODI schedule. This requires us to play in contests which, for total lack of meaning, are difficult to beat. Who did what in India last year? A good example was this recent season and in our own back yard. The first two or three ODIs were reasonably compelling if for no other reason than we won games we probably should have lost. All on the back of outstanding individual contributions. By game 5, 6 and 7, however, it seemed to me that England had pretty much lost interest and just wanted to go home. Hardly rivetting. But, as you and Vinay have suggested, the chances of there being seven ODIs against India next summer are pretty good. More's the pity. Of course, on that international schedule - do Australia get the option to say "No" to a proposed meaningless tour. It seems not, for fear of retribution. Even the ICC, however, must also realise that pissant one or two Test match series (no matter how many ODIs follow) bring meaningless to a new low. All I can say is, "The money must be good" because these "series" have nothing else going for them.
Russ
Guest
It isn't India who benefits from them playing a lot of cricket on tour, they could make more money extending the IPL and staying at home (which to be honest would probably be a good thing for world cricket). In any case, the existing broadcasting deals will have minimum scheduled game clauses, so they'd need to be renegotiated before any actual reform of the calendar can take place. The FTP has almost expired, and to date a new one hasn't been drawn up (there seems to be some controversy over whether minor teams will get the chance to tour major nations). There is a catch-22 to any strategy to boost domestic cricket: domestic cricket will never be popular without international players, but domestic cricket is funded via international games (for which they are absent).
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
As far as I can tell, the conclusion to the 2011-12 summer will see an Aust-Ind-SL World Series, plus presumably three straight ODIs v New Zealand earlier in the season. Whether that triangular is nine games plus one final (which would seem smart and ideal to me) or the massive 12-plus-three-finals is to be determined I believe.
Brett McKay
Guest
Vinay, in this case I agree completely, India especially will want as many games going back for TV as possible, and who are Australia to say no ;-)
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett,I would not be surprised to see 7 ODI's. Not so much the ICC's fault...more CA and the BCCI lining their own pockets. And if the board's increase the payment to the players there will not be too much discontent...only the poor fans who will have to put up with this crass squeezing of the last drop.
Brett McKay
Guest
Ben, Vas, the current schedule - the local international schedule, that is - allows for ten ODIs now, so it's only another 10-15 days more than Vas's suggestion at point 3. Two three-game series seems about right, but I'll bet Australia play at least 5, and maybe 7 ODIs against India next summer (on the back of 7 v England this sumemr). Point 2 is doable, definitely. Point 1 is going to be harder, because CA don't set the international schedule. Yes, they work out which days the First Test will be played on, etc, but that's all done in conjuction with the ICC Future Tours Program, which says that India will tour Australia between late Dec 2011 and Feb 2012. So while point 1 is full of good intentions, it's probably the hardest of the three to achieve. The ICC certainly don't care about the Sheffield Shield, and I don't imagine the touring international sides do either...
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Vas - love solution point 1, understand point 2 if some may not agree, but point 3 looks the most difficult to achieve. Yes, not more than six home Tests is how it works at present, and it works fine. Six ODIs? All up? Am not so sure - especially if it's "death of ODIs" we keep crowing about... I'd like not more than 10 (5-5 split) as 7 is way too many. Not more than three T20s seems okay, although yes, ideally, every tour could be 3TM, 3ODI, 1T20. So long as the T20s remain warm-ups for the ODIs or as a season-opening/closing party game, then I'm not quite as bothered.