No sooner had the recently concluded ICC Champions Trophy provided a fine denouement of the underdogs giving the overwhelming favourites a very bloody nose, than the very existence of the event was called into question.
Step forward David Richardson, chief executive officer of the sport’s international governing body.
“It’s always been quite difficult to distinguish or differentiate between the two 50-over global events.
“With the World Cup becoming a ten-team event, it’s almost like the World Cup is becoming more like the Champions Trophy, which I think is a good thing.
“I think it (World Cup) will still be a longer event. The World Cup format will allow the best chance for the best four teams to get into the semi-finals. So it takes away the risk of maybe a rain-affected game or one poor game having a huge impact on the tournament like it can be in this tournament (Champions Trophy). But still, highly competitive matches hopefully.
“And then, whether the Champions Trophy in 2021 stays a Champions Trophy, or we move to two World T20s – that still needs to be discussed and settled.
“It’s a possibility, yes. I wouldn’t say it is categorically going to happen because, as we’ve seen, the Champions Trophy on its own is a very good event and very well-supported, particularly in the UK, where you get support for all teams.
“So let’s not be too hasty in writing it off, but to be honest and frank, there is consideration for moving towards two World T20s in a four-year cycle.”
Ignore the blatantly contradictory elements – it’s a good tournament but we think we might can it – and concentrate instead on the sense of a custodian soiling his own belongings.
(AP Photo/Rui Vieira)
To take issue with Richardson’s criticisms one at a time: teams playing nine group games in a round-robin format is a fair way removed from two small group so four; ever thought about reserve days?; more riding on each fixture is a good thing, no?; thoughtful scheduling can ensure decent levels of support, especially in fixtures that have very obvious meaning; there is already too much Twenty20 cricket without shoehorning even more into the fit-to-burst schedule.
Yes, hyping something up for the sake of it – England’s current three-match T20 series with South Africa with numerous first choice names not present for example – serves little in the way of purpose but running it down while the victors’ celebrations still have life isn’t really called for.
There was a touch of pragmatism contained within Richardson’s comments, which is how it should be, but the tournament just gone offered more ticks than crosses on the report card and showed the 50-over game isn’t the walking dead zombie it is all too often made out to be.
The only game I can think of which had nothing really riding on it for one of the protagonists was when the already-qualified England faced Australia.
Every other contest carried weight and the group containing India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa boiling down to a pair of knockout matches was an ideal advertisement for tournament sport.
Add to the equation the eventual victors having to win four games on the trot after a defeat in their opener and you have a good story to tell.
What makes the Champions Trophy unique is its brevity, the sense of one mistake equalling elimination, and of context – which I’ve argued for before – for a format that for 95 per cent of the time has next to nothing.
Three global events in a four-year cycle, each differing from the others, is about right but three with two being exactly the same would lean heavily towards overkill. Relevance becomes diluted somewhat when there is barely a break between episodes.
But it feels as though the one-day international has taken too many knocks for too long a time from the naysayers, is the easiest and most convenient of targets, and the criticism will only increase in intensity when the next World T20 rolls around and the 50-over game is on the outside looking in.
If the Champions Trophy has to go, and given the fact it was supposed to be sacrificed for the dead in the water (before it even reached the water actually) World Test Championship it’s every chance of doing, then a 50-over World Cup and a 20-over version every four years respectively would do just fine.
I’m not holding out much in the way of hope.
vikram
Guest
i think CT is past ........ i dont see CT continueing ......... there is a second issue behind the seen..... big teams not getting enough money from it so ...... it ill end sooner ...... simple y do india play CT. small home series (20 day odd)with any teams can give tham more money believe or not but fact is there are a main issues that decides the fate of the tournaments like CT..
Brian
Guest
Except there was nothing riding on these games because it was just the Champions Trophy. Much like the Confederations Cup. I'd get rid of 50 Over cricket altogether. Tests & T20 are the future but if they are going to persevere at least stick to on e World Cup.
DavSA
Guest
Yes AG I fully agree . There is an increasing proliferation of T20 tournaments and we really need less not more . Strangely , Dave Richardson was the quintessential Test cricketer himself , a gentleman of the highest order ... Just ask anyone from his home town of Port Elizabeth who has come across him .Remember during the Hansie Cronje Saga he was the one guy not approached by Cronje ...They knew what his response would be. So it is disappointing that he has taken this route albeit of course with his entire board behind it too.
AGordon
Guest
The comments made by Dave Richardson are refreshing for their candour but are concerning on a number of levels. It's clear the ICC has no 5 or 10 year plan moving forward which one would expect from an organisation in charge of so much potential revenue. I'm also not clear why we need one T20 World Cup let alone two. It is shameful the mob that's supposed to be running the game have decided that "slap & tickle" cricket warrants biannual series. Or is it because the ICC really only care about the money they'd make from television rights, etc? Davie boy and the ICC need to go back to basics. 1) find out what the public wants. This doesn't only mean what India, England & Australia want, but across the board 2) Identify the benefits of the various forms of cricket to all competing countries. Fringe countries can only get better if they play against the big boys. 3) Don't make revenue the only criteria for deciding how the game should be run. As it stands, the game's being ruined by too much T20 and a clear lack of direction. It surely can't be hard to get it right, can it? Oh yeah, it can be if it's all about money.
DavSA
Guest
I hope not Alec. Despite the pre tournament naysayers this turned out to be a great event , well supported and ..yes ..bloody interesting. The tournament exposed the cracks in the one dimensional attacks of both Australia and SA the pre -event favourites and also the relative weakness of the England attack. All 3 of these sides need to do some major introspection and if the Champions trophy has evoked that then it was all worthwhile. As a South African I was seriously disappointed in their efforts and it has had major repercussions here at home . Is AB the right captain ? Why not more trust in the excellent Maharaj .?So many questions and it looks to be the same in Aus. But boy was this ever so good for sub-continent cricket in particular Bangladesh and of course Pakistan .,Not 100 T20 matches could have done that . If one genuinely loves cricket for its own sake and not just for blind patriotism of ones own country then this event was a big time winner.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Scotland are still a way off where Ireland have been for a lengthy period, though with Ireland at the bottom of their cycle there is probably not much between thre two for the moment.Scotland need to put on the same performances Ireland have over the journey. They seem (from this distance) to be short of that, despite some impressive recent performances. String some years together (sadly it probably won't include the highly visible WC performances which helped perception of Ireland so much), build the structure locally, and the door should be open to Scotland or anyone else. I just don't see it in in a "forseeable" time frame.
Basil
Guest
Wasn't it the ICC that made the Champions Trophy almost indistinguishable to the World Cup? The World Cup should always be a far reaching event. It should be a celebration of the game - a festival, not an intimate dinner party.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
'Not that Scotland or anyone looks like attaining those heights in any forseeable time frame.' Hang on. We have wins over both Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in the last few weeks! Reckon on field we're at least equal to the current Ireland who seem to be really struggling at the mo. But totally agree, the reduction of teams for the WC is a complete disgrace. I'm hopeful that having Ire and Afg as full members as well as increased associate voting presence at the ICC will help overturn some of these pathetic decisions. Don't really care about the format of these global tournaments as much as having more teams involved. Would much rather a world t20 with about 20 teams than another champions trophy plagued by one sided matches albeit with a surprising Champion.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"“With the World Cup becoming a ten-team event, it’s almost like the World Cup is becoming more like the Champions Trophy, which I think is a good thing." Problem 1 right there. Cutting the WC to remove the World portion is a terrible thing. We now have 12 Test nations, yet only ten teams at the ODI WC. Ridiculous. The "next Ireland" will never be seen as long as that remains. Not that Scotland or anyone looks like attaining those heights in any forseeable time frame. I'm not sure the Champions Triophy is needed. Making the WC more like the CT is certainly a retrograde step for crciketers from secondary (not just associate) nations. Thought bubble: Perhaps the CT could serve as partial WC qualifiers. Only the semi-finalists qualify, the other eight join a sixteen team qualifying event (four groups of four) from which ten qualify (two from each group and the four third-place go into a knockout game, winners qualify). That puts the CT in some context for the only ODI competition that counts. We are in danger of losing the West Indies, partly (not totally or even majority) due to T20. The WICB simply can't compete on money with IPL, which destroys much of the Carribean season. With the reduced WC - that they risk missing out on qualifying for - there is a very real danger that a larger constituent nation will break away and chase World T20 appearances on their own. With a larger World T20, and played more often, financially it makes more sense than playing a bit-part to a crumbling WICB who lose money hosting Tests and sometimes ODIs. And Zimbabwe continues to be a basket case, who must be perliously close to dropping to 12th in the the rankings before Afghanistan and Ireland even play a Test.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Agree Alec. If this tournament was not a good advertisement for the 50-over game, what is? The washed out games and Australia's unfortunate exit is more ICc's scheduling fault in a rainy England than anything else. Who needs another World T20? There is already too much T20 going on. Richardson and cronies are the masters of overkill.