June 8, 2012

Cricket needs an outsider's view

There are those in business, and other sports, who constantly innovate in order to survive and to thrive. We could learn lessons from them

I wonder if cricket is a bit incestuous sometimes, a little too insecure, a little too suspicious of those who inhabit other worlds. We hear the same voices, the same thoughts, the same emotions expressed, and yet the most dramatic changes in the game have come from those who brought a different perspective. Kerry Packer was a television man who understood what people wanted; T20 was conceived and propagated by marketing people who put their finger on a customer need. Both were cricket lovers who were not bound to a smaller world.

And so I feel we must look for people from different professions; sometimes they see things that we, with our bounded thoughts, might miss. My wife's boss once told me a certain Indian player would never be a good leader. He had seen his body language under stress, and being a fine leader himself, picked up on it straightaway. He was spot on.

Last week I found myself chatting with Venky Mysore, the articulate CEO of the Kolkata Knight Riders, who was given the task of turning around a team that had not just lost its way but one that had no clear identity.

The first thing Venky said was that the Knight Riders could neither be Team Ganguly nor Team Shah Rukh but had to be Team Kolkata. A personality can be charismatic but his aura can be short-lived. A team is like an institution, it must have an identity of its own. It must withstand changes in people and move on. Venky discovered, too, that the game needed to be sold. An India-England game at the Eden Gardens had been played to half-empty stands. You have to bring people to the ground, not assume they will turn up; you have to make it easy for them. And so the Knight Riders' tickets were home-delivered, and mobile vans drove round the city selling tickets. Cricket was brought to the people; stripped of its arrogance, it was telling the fan he was king.

It is not difficult to see where Venky is coming from. He had played cricket to a fairly decent level but had made his name in insurance where, as he says, "the customer is always king". He had to fill a large stadium eight times and that meant he and his team had to reach out to people. If the stands were empty, he could not depend on a grant to see him through; his profitability would suffer. And so he had to innovate. There is a simple lesson here for administrators who dole out money to Associates. When you know you are going to get a grant you become lazy and self-centred. When you need to earn to survive, you become innovative.

I saw another interesting innovation this week, and it came from chess. Viswanathan Anand was playing Boris Gelfand over 12 games. With the match level at one win each, the two played a rapid-chess format to determine the winner. They would have gone on to an even faster form if needed. I didn't hear protests that one form was too different from the other, and I wondered if, in case the final of the World Test Championship were drawn, we would be willing to play a one-day game or - sacrilege - a T20 match to determine the winner. It made me wonder if we fuss over formats too much. Maybe we are right, but from time to time it is good to question even that which seems right.

Maybe it is time to look at Test cricket from a more innovative and a less emotional point of view. Do you make tickets cheaper, subscription cheaper, even make it free on some days? Restrict Test cricket to more meaningful contests?

A couple of days ago the Hero Group, having ended their hugely successful joint venture with Honda, announced they were going to invest Rs 2550 crore (over US$400 million) on research and development to ensure that they stay abreast, ideally ahead, of competition, which could come from Honda itself, or Bajaj, or cheap cars, or a return of the good old scooter. They live in an open-market scenario, their existence depends on remaining competitive, and so they have to keep looking to the future at all times. They have to keep getting better.

Over the last year India lost eight overseas Test matches in a row, and it showed up inadequacies that could hurt the team even more in the future. Now I notice that India's great strength in spin bowling has declined to a point where the team may struggle at home as well. The writing was on the wall a long time ago, but Indian cricket has done very little - which is unlike a group that must plan for the future to survive. An outsider looking in would be amazed, and we need that kind of perspective right now.

There is another challenge brewing that the success of T20 has masked. Bubbling strongly under the surface is the rapid spread of football following in India. Team loyalties, even if the action is across the seas, are fierce, peer group involvement is huge, and, like with music, it is an indicator of how India is increasingly wired to the rest of the world. An alert marketer would immediately ask the question few seem inclined to ask. If the emphasis among youth is on shorter, more intense contests, will Test cricket become an anachronism? I suspect the cricketer and the marketer will respond differently to that question.

But it must be asked and another relevant question is: do people watch Test cricket or do they follow it? Do they buy a ticket, buy a TV subscription, or do they follow scores online? And as a result, do television companies and cricket boards actually make money from Test matches or are they subsidised by other forms? A one-day game earns, by a very simple calculation, five times as much as a day of Test cricket for a television channel. That suggests the news of the death of the one-day international is greatly exaggerated. From a long-term point of view, we need to cast emotion aside and ask if the form in greater danger is Test cricket or the one-day international.

You could, of course, continue to make losses on Test cricket, for it is not a crime to make a loss for a good cause, but you will also need to ask whether such losses can be sustained. Maybe it is time to look at Test cricket from a more innovative and - even if it comes from a die-hard lover of Test cricket - a less emotional point of view. Do you make tickets cheaper, subscriptions cheaper, even make entry to grounds free on some days? Restrict Test cricket to more meaningful contests (we are entitled to ask why it is essential for some teams to play Test cricket)? That a world Test championship was not found worthwhile by a very professional television network is an insight cricket needs to take on board.

My concern is that a more inward point of view is causing us to tinker with one-day internationals when they are indispensable to the health of the game and preventing us from looking Test cricket in the eye and asking tough questions. In a worst-case scenario, letting the ODI go could leave cricket with one form that could become anachronistic and another that could yield to a newer form.

For its health, cricket needs to look outward to the sharpest minds, to people who sustain and nurture brands and often take hard but necessary decisions. Cricket cannot be bound by cricketing minds alone.

Harsha Bhogle is a commentator, television presenter and writer. His Twitter feed is here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Dummy4 on June 11, 2012, 18:22 GMT

    @grizzly, neither in the case of golf nor tennis does the longer (current) form dilute the intensity in favor or "just surviving". But if you make a tennis match last a week or a golf tournament last a quarter, it will. My point is that if you draw out ANY sport to a long enough duration, you will shift the focus from intensity to endurance.

  • Jay on June 10, 2012, 4:24 GMT

    (Cont) Golf's success is attributable to many factors. It has a solid legacy. It's transformed over time by leveraging technological advances (equipment, TV), shifting consumer demand (marketing, emerging nations) & innovations (different forms of play, course designs). Most importantly, it's a time-consuming day game that's become a popular professional sport by sticking to a time-tested constant slot of 4 days: Thursday to Sunday! This specific 4-day formula attracts the biggest fan/TV audiences. Some form of tie-breaker (sudden death or predetermined no. of holes) is used to determine eventual winner in case of tie in regulation time: A huge departure for a tradition-bound sport! This 4-day formula + tie-breaker concept is exactly what Test cricket must explore! Adjustments - like day-night play; Monday for tie-breaker if needed; T20 or rapid tie-breaker - could be evaluated. Think outside the box! No sacred texts! Golf experts could help in the benchmarking process: It's worth it!

  • Jay on June 10, 2012, 4:15 GMT

    Harsha - Right on! An "outsider's view" - by benchmarking other industry best practices - can be invaluable in improving one's own business. The basic idea of "just-in-time" production at Toyota originated from the inventory-stocking process at American supermarkets. Cricket is a sports business: it can also learn from other sports. For example: Golf. Like cricket, it's an ancient "gentleman's game" requiring patience & skill in the individual battle of Club vs Ball. Golf is among the world's 10 most popular sports. Its wide reach transcends age, gender, even class these days. With more than 20 professional golf tours - incl. the iconic British Open, Australasia, Sunshine (SA), PGT of India & other Asian tours - the sport is well represented in cricket-playing nations. The Ryder Cup & President's Cup are team contests between USA & international teams. The major championships draw large followings on the fairways & huge TV audiences. Golf is one-up: it made the 2016 Olympics! (TBC)

  • Benny on June 10, 2012, 1:25 GMT

    The ECB is run by people who aren't cricketers. They're businessmen although not exactly world beaters. Nothing very creative coming out of that bunch. The most obvious improvement for Test cricket in England is, next time someone spends millions developing a ground, could they possibly notice that it rains now and then and maybe adjust their design. ATM we have several grounds wide open to the heavens so when it rains - 1.no cricket 2. the spectators get soaked.

  • mayank on June 9, 2012, 15:39 GMT

    Harsha Bhogle should understand that 'Lesser Profit' cannot be termed as 'Loss'. No broadcasting channel / company or for that matter cricket board is making financial losses by airing/organising Test matches. Its just that they're making more money in ODIs and T20s. and thats where the problem lie, the organisers and particularly the broadcasters want to make more money. All they're concerned about is their commercial break air time rates. test matches were played earliar as well wen their were even less spectators on the ground and even less commercial breaks during the game. And tell u wat, the broadcasters even then made money. But back then the sports channels actually wanted to show the game and not sell their commercial break airtime.

  • Arvin on June 9, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    Well, Harsha wants us to trust the markt forces to determine the direction of cricket. He must have conveniently forgotten what market forces have done to the economy. I think that cricket is looking too much outside and there is not inner soul searching. Marketing people can sell a produce but first there should be a product. And Marketing people cannot make a product. You can bring crowd to the stadium on different pretexts. But what is more important and everyone is seeming ignoring that fact that are we doing enough to educate the crowd to appreciate good cricket. The marketing people who want to sell cricket see only sixes as selling point, one day crowd will be fedup and then what?? Marketing people will leave to sell other things having ruined a great human achievement we call cricket. The debate is not about T20 and ODI and TEst cricket. The debate is about the balance of the bat and ball and are we doing enough that people come the stadium to appreciate that.

  • Jawahar on June 9, 2012, 4:44 GMT

    Test Cricket's major weakness or put-off is lack of results which again is owing to limitless overs to get that. The limit on overs can be put in like say max 100 overs per innings. Playing for a draw will certainly reduce with that. Also one should look at reducing the possibility of results plainly due to vagaries of pitches - say by playing 100 overs of each innings in two installments team 1 playing its first 50 following team2 playing its and so on. If a team manages to get 10 opposition wkts in 100 overs , the balance of overs can again be utilized by the bowling team. In four innings if no team bowls out the other team, the team taking more wickets can be the winner. If wkts taken are the same too, then run rate can be considered to decide winner. Only at the complete match-up of all these scenarios can there be a draw - which would be equivalent to a tie in current terms and can be as exciting.

  • Nilesh on June 9, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    At the end of the day: Eng Test Match: 243/9 in 89.4 overs (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-west-indies-2012/engine/match/534205.html) IPL Match 1 ("Relatively" Low-scoring IPL game): 243/11 in 36.3 overs (what a coincidence in terms of runs) (http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/match/548371.html) IPL Match 2 ("Relatively" High-scoring IPL game): 409/10 in 40 overs (http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/current/match/548372.html)

    Watching Chris Gayle slam 13 sixes almost seemed necessary to get me out of the boredom of watching those 40 mins (and it worked!).

    I had not thought that I would be bearish on Test cricket before that day and while I am still not a big fan of T20 or IPL, in terms of thrill/entertainment/cricket that actually engaged me and that I wanted to watch, it was a no-contest.

    The "heart" still wants Test Cricket to thrive but the "brain" seems to say: "5 days for a game that could end in a draw, no thanks".

  • Nilesh on June 9, 2012, 3:22 GMT

    I was personally was a die-hard cricket fan with my favourite match being http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63920.html. Until IPL5 (my first one viewing live), I was still hopeful for Test Cricket. One day (May 17, 2012) changed my worldview. I first watched a "low-scoring" game: http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/match/548371.html and it ended early and so had about 30-40 mins to kill before the next IPL match and for that time watched the first day of: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-west-indies-2012/engine/match/534205.html and then watched: http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/current/match/548372.html

    I could not believe it but I have to say that watching Test cricket was relatively "boring". Perhaps the best bowling attack (Eng) were resorting to bowling an outside offstump line (seemed like 3-4 balls out of 6) to a weakened WI (already 6 places below in rankings) especially to Chanderpaul. ...cont...

  • Navneet on June 8, 2012, 22:50 GMT

    " A team that wins a world test championship in a T20 tiebreak can not be called world test champions, because they haven't won a world test championship, they have won a T20 match " ... So by your logic a team which wins Football World Cup on penalty shootout is not a world champion?

  • No featured comments at the moment.