Rise of Twenty20 cricket

Share Twenty20 riches - Jayawardene

Cricinfo staff

August 6, 2008

Comments: 67 | Text size: A | A


Mahela Jayawardene: "Everyone needs to get together and find one solution. That is, to have one big tournament where you get all the revenue and all cricket-playing countries to share that" © Getty Images
Enlarge
 

Mahela Jayawardene, the Sri Lankan captain, feels the spread of Twenty20 cricket needs to be controlled to prevent it from "taking international cricket apart" and says the "big solution" is to have one consolidated tournament where all cricket-playing countries get to share the revenue.

Speaking to Cricinfo editor Sambit Bal in Colombo, Jayawardene observed that, with players and administrators across the world driven by money, the time had come to strike a balance and get the priorities right on developing the game's shortest format.

"At the end of the day everything is driven by money," Jayawardene said. "You have to be honest with yourself. That means the players, the administrators, everybody. As long as everyone is happy and gets to share that, I think that's the way forward. That's where everyone has to draw a compromise."

"You need to strike a balance because they cannot compete with each other on these issues," he said. "It is important that you sit down and everyone gets together and finds one big solution. That is, to have one big tournament where you get all the revenue and cricket-playing countries to share that."

Jayawardene did not agree with the suggestion that Twenty20 might become 'The Game' if money is the overriding factor, and reiterated the answer lies in consolidation and not in having "five individual tournaments".

"If you have one big tournament and the revenue is being shared, then everyone's happy," he said. "You won't need to play five individual tournaments. Then there's room for Test cricket and you can pump in money and develop the game and take it globally. That's where the compromise needs to be drawn and everyone gets together to find a solution."

Asked whether the BCCI, which runs the IPL and is a founding partner of the Champions Twenty20 League, should take the lead and let everyone share the pot, Jayawardene said, "That's difficult for me to say after one year of the IPL. I don't know how big the English Premier League (EPL) or the Stanford games are going to be, but somewhere you have to draw the line. You have people competing against each other and taking international cricket apart. It's important to understand where you need to draw that line."

Jayawardene, who has signed a three-year contract for US$475,000 per season with Kings XI Punjab, the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise, said the best way forward is for all those involved in promoting Twenty20 cricket to draw the line and arrive at a compromise.

"The times and ways of thinking are changing and you need to evolve around that. Twenty20 is good for the game as long as people keep control of things," Jayawardene said. "You can't have three or four Twenty20 international tournaments a year. You just can't have that. It has to be controlled. Tests are very important; one-day cricket is important. You can't think that everybody wants Twenty20 cricket. Everyone wants cricket, but they want different varieties and there is a demand for everything."

The Sri Lankan players are currently in negotiations with Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) over rescheduling the country's 2009 England tour, which clashes with the second IPL season. Apart from Jayawardene, 12 Lankan cricketers have signed for various IPL franchises, including Kumar Sangakkara, the vice-captain, Muttiah Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by vikisai123 on (August 8, 2008, 21:55 GMT)

I dont agree with Jayawardane. Such things wont work out because cricket is more of a buisiness nowadays .Why will BCCI agree to share the money with other countries .

Posted by NSonCricinfo on (August 8, 2008, 20:21 GMT)

To my thinking the present calsh will ultimately lead to a a polarisatin in terms of club cricket in the fofrm of twenty20 and Test Cricket among nations. ODIs will become redundant and irrelevant in due course of time. Then there will be enough room and money for both Test T20 cricket.

T20 will follow the Football format and very other country will have its own tournamaent like the EPL and the Italian Serie A etc.

Posted by NBRADEE on (August 8, 2008, 13:03 GMT)

I see this morning that the ICC will be monitoring the preponderance of T20 leagues / tournaments being created in recent times. Hopefully they will look at the ideas and opinions generated by this blog and perhaps formulate STANDARDS that will allow the game to achieve balance and grow in the way we (the fans) have already discussed. My hope is that blogs such as this that exist for THE GOOD OF THE GAME will always be references for cricket's development!!!

Posted by Chanaka on (August 8, 2008, 3:39 GMT)

Players in both the ICL and the IPL do not represent national sides. They play for the sponsored teams, themselves and for the money they are paid. I dont see any reason why the ICC should have any influence on any aspect of the league. Let the leagues organize the tournaments and if they clash with ICC approved Tests or ODI's let the players decide whether they will represent their country or play for the money. I am sure there will be quite a number of players who will make themselves available for national duty rather than 20/20. This will ensure that the 20/20 tournaments will fall in line and there will be no clash of interests.

Posted by kaushiq on (August 8, 2008, 3:16 GMT)

I totally agree with Mahela. We all like twenty20 but we should not let it be a big or serious tournament. We should keep it for fun but make such rules that not too many organizers will be too eager to hold one tournament. Twenty20 have a big potential to kill 50 over match if we are not carefull enough. We all should try to keep twenty20 at a distance from test and limited over matches.

Posted by redmond on (August 8, 2008, 1:35 GMT)

Maheela Jayawardene is living in a dream world. No one would part with their money. The one option he may have is to start a rival tournament and attract players to play in the new team. He will not be able to convince anyone to share the revenue, except may be the Sri Lankan cricket board.

Posted by JackJ on (August 7, 2008, 19:04 GMT)

Mahela is 100 percent right! Trust this thinking, level headed guy to get it right. 20-20 is really about money, and about non-cricket fans seeking instant gratification. Its not for the cognoscenti. Personally, I take little interest. A famous cricketer had it spot on:" 20-20 is like baseball, except baseball is more interesting!" No, it must not be allowed to disrupt tests at all and not 50 over games either! The ODI offers a unique form of entertainment. Tactically, its by far the most fascinating, and while there's room for upsets, generally the top cricket sides come through. It makes a pleasant day's outing too. 20-20 is brain-dead! The bowlers are punchbags, its one-dimensional, and unless its artificially nurtured, I see it disappearing in time. The crowds that watch it are fickle, seeking all manner of instant gratification. It'll lose its flavour-of-the-month status, and they'll move on. Can't happen soon enough for me. If I want to see baseball, I'll watch the real thing

Posted by inningsbreak on (August 7, 2008, 18:31 GMT)

I agree. In fact, I mentioned this in my post on July 8th at http://inningsbreak.blogspot.com that there should be one league across regions, similar to soccer.

Posted by cricketrulez on (August 7, 2008, 17:33 GMT)

Not sure what Mahela's the message is. Is he advocating governance of domestic leagues by the ICC? will this extend to county cricket in england and domestic cricket in AUS?

Let me call this for what is. Operation "Swindle BCCI". Wouldn't be surprised if Ranatunga wrote this piece for Mahela. Where was all this clamoring for control of County cricket and Australian domestic season b4 IPL? If Mahela is really worried about revenue sharing, he should start by donating 75% of his IPL earnings to SL cricket. then he can wax poetic all he wants.

Posted by cricketrulez on (August 7, 2008, 16:50 GMT)

If I understand this correctly, BCCI takes the initiative invests tons of money, convinces other business men to invest their money and runs a successful league. Now they have to share the revenue with very self righteous beggar/board who shows up with the begging bowl? What is this, Soviet Union?

Regarding the other boards providing players, It between them and their players. the layers are handsomely compensated and let them share with their home boards. Perhaps Mahela should start by setting good example and donate 75% of his IPL earnings to SLC! It funny how every other person is happy to spout how other persons money should be shared equally shared.

Regarding proliferation of other leagues, let them. Fact of the matter is only two countries have have the resources (personnel, revenue, lack of county baggage) to pull it off. Ind and Aus. The rest of the leagues will die a quick death even if they get started.

Posted by jalps on (August 7, 2008, 16:28 GMT)

I don't like the idea of one big tournament as I'd like to go to see these matches live. That said I can see an obvious method, and reason, for revenue sharing. A top level player becomes a top level player because he's been given the opportunities and training to get there. In England certainly, and in other countries probably, the money for this comes largely from the central board. It would seem to be fair that some fraction of the money paid to the player for his services goes to the board which helped his development. This would also cover the many South Africans playing domestic cricket in England; the system that developed them should get something back.

Posted by TwitterJitter on (August 7, 2008, 16:24 GMT)

Jayawardane,

You have a gem of a bowler in Mendis. Best of luck to him. If he continues at this rate, he is going to break a lot of world records pretty soon.

Posted by OliverChettle on (August 7, 2008, 16:16 GMT)

Yes, Jose on August 07 2008, 11:19 AM GMT, developed countries have shared for the sake of prosperity and a better world. We have invested in infrastructure on a massive scale, provided technology to lift billions out of absolute poverty, and we give hundreds of billions in development aid. All we get in return is ingratitude, which is one of the reasons why I for one would cancel all aid and ban all imports of goods made in factories that do not meet First World worker standards.

Posted by Jose on (August 7, 2008, 11:19 GMT)

Why should the IPL revenue shared among cricket nations? Have developed countries share their riches with any developing countries or under-developed countries for the sake of equality or overall prosperity or better world? Now ICC chief now agrees with Sangakkara because lot of money can be controlled and diverted to wherever they want. I am sure BCCI never agrees to such proposal.

Posted by delboy on (August 7, 2008, 9:54 GMT)

Test cricket should be just that. A test of the player's competence over two innings or (5 days). The fact that the viewing audience are not excited by test cricket is due to the heavy focus on statistics as an outcome rather than entertainment. Another reason is because one can never guarantee having bought a ticket for the 3rd/4th day of a match that you get to see more than droll towards a draw or in some cases the match is already over. Test match rules should be changed to ensure that if a match is finished in two-three days then two 'one dayers' are played and if less than 6 full sessions remains a T20 match is played. This will remove a lot of refund administration, still sell beer and pies, give the paying public value for money(???) and focus players on performing over 5 days instead of damage limitation to their personal stats in quick finishes. I do empathise with those with a short attention span, but I prefer to use cricket as an aid to develop kids consentration.

Posted by lihas on (August 7, 2008, 7:43 GMT)

Whatever you might say, you will have to admit the fact that T20 is the only form of game which can take cricket to olympics and actually compete with football in terms of popularity. Test cricket must be preserved, and it should have its place, and i firmly believe that a 2-test match series doesnt make sense, ODI cricket can be done away with and all ODI matches should be converted to T20, this way you will have space for test and T20

Posted by Meherdeen on (August 7, 2008, 7:29 GMT)

Well said Mahela. Test Cricket is the most important aspect of the game called Cricket. The 50 overs and 20/20 were derived from the game called Cricket (Test). History will say how the overs game came into the scene. Ofcourse, the overs games are less time consuming but interesting but also not what real mentality & charecter of Cricket is. I read a writer (IPLFan)has said to worry about the Market (that is money)to decide what Cricket to play. It is money which is spoiling our Cricketers. Please don't make this Gentlemens game into a business. Most importantly, the players who were selected to play for IPL or any money spinning overs games because they were selected to represent their respective countries and it is because it is their repective countries which made them popular. So the palyers need to be thankful & greatful to their countries. So, my final suggestion is to Balance the Test Cricket & Limited overs Games, this way the Lovely Game of Cricket will Live Forever.

Posted by Snowbro on (August 7, 2008, 7:21 GMT)

I like the fact that teams are Mixed, from different Country's , Its the first time I supported Aussies (warne) etc, Allowed us to support other country's and build better team spirit between Country's, (Smith & Warne) became friends etc

Posted by Shiw on (August 7, 2008, 7:20 GMT)

The idea Jayabardene has put forward is fair but the likes of BCCI would kill him for suggesting the stuffs like sharing revenue. These Boards will never let that happen. T20 these days is a revenue generating activity and not cricket.

Posted by Sandyjosh on (August 7, 2008, 7:10 GMT)

The twenty-20 rat race

Indian Premier League was not all about extravagant bills, Bollywood biggies, Cheerleading boogies, or big bosses. It was much more, that's cricket. The later and the aftermath were for real. After the success of IPL, the real is now a blockbuster reel. Now, every cricketing country wants a cake of its own. Twenty-20 has enchanted them all and its here to stay. Twenty-20 cricket started in England way back in early 1990's. After its cathartic response at club level amongst the players who were able to play or watch the matches after their work, the success spread to the counties. With unusually longer days in English summer, people saw a good option in watching short competitive matches after work. It brought in new crowds to the stadiums. I remember playing Middlesex Twenty-20 Knock- out Cup at County ground Uxbridge way back in summer of 1990. Since its inception in England, twenty-20 has had success in County cricket, a highly competitive World Cup i

Posted by Sharaafat on (August 7, 2008, 6:00 GMT)

T-20 is coming to the cricketing world with lots of name, fame and money. Jayawardhane speaks right; it should be certain part of revenue for all the cricket board as well. After all, money is big motivation for all the players and cricket board. Apparently, spectators will get more entertaining matches.

Posted by excalibure on (August 7, 2008, 4:57 GMT)

cntd..... form of the game, which will result in reduction of standards... what exactly do u all prefer, a reduction of standards or some big hitting by the batsmen... considering this aspect, mahelas idea of limiting the T20s will be the most suitable thing for cricket if it is to survive. im not saying that T20s should be abandnd (it has some gud aspects as well - the runrates of the test matches have increased which ultimately give results to test matches rather than a draw)but it should be limited. as we discuss these, some suggest that it also should be an olympic event, yea that is a good idea to promote the game worldwide but wats the use of having 2 worldcups(the T20 worldcup and the olympics) every 4 years. this will again increase the number of t20 matches. any1 would like to represent their country in olympics, therefore i think t20 world cup should be abolished in that case. these are my ideas...

Posted by excalibure on (August 7, 2008, 4:46 GMT)

1st of all people need to think why test cricket is considered as the greatest of all(in the current context). i just want to ask 1 question from the t20 lovers, why do you think that the main test playing nations perform well when compared to the other teams like scotland, Ireland in t20s??? is it because of the standards they play at test match level??? that seems like the most obvious reason... So imagin a world without test matches, do the test playing countries want to drop their standards and join the rest of the world... dont think u all will like that either... the only logical thing to do in this situation is to increase the number of test playing nations. in order to do so, the non test playing nations should mainly forcus of the longer version of the game(doent neccesserily have to be 5 days games, 3 to 4 days would do). if we increase the number of t20 tournaments globally, the focus of these non test playing as well as the test playing nations will be on the shortest cntd.

Posted by dilonds on (August 7, 2008, 4:32 GMT)

I agree with mahela and It's not just about money also the workload you put on the players... As a cricketer I can speak because I lost my career half way because of the load by clubs. Anyways pure cricket is tests and not anything else. If all the young cricketers start developing them selves to adopt to t20s its gonna do more harm than good. Governing body should look into it soon.

Posted by Safdar78 on (August 7, 2008, 4:01 GMT)

In US where league system is well developed in sports like Baseball and Football there are two conferences or leagues which compete with each other for ultimate pendant. For example in baseball (Major league baseball) there are National and American leagues with total of 30 teams and they all compete with each other during the season and after playoffs the final is between are the champions of both leagues. It makes sense and there is not reason that it should not make sense for cricket but in Cricket we are playing two diff. types of cricket now, traditional cricket i.e One Day and Test and the recent hit 20/20. Something has to give. We have same players in both type of cricket, we are playing both type of cricket with overlapping schedules, and it just can not sustain itself without compromising the quality of the sport. Market correction could be expensive so why not have separate seasons for the two types of cricket, half the year is dedicated to traditional and half to 20/20.....

Posted by VishyWish on (August 7, 2008, 3:05 GMT)

My vote is for all three forms of the game - don't be surprised, it can be managed. First Twenty 20 - Let us have two world cups every year i.e. a summer one and a winter one and the hosts can be different. This means every playing nation has got a chance to earn money, enjoy home advantage. Furthermore if it is an agreed schedule by all countries, then there can be no chaos. The idea of sharing the pot though ideal, won't work out Mahela. Second reduce the number of one-day internationls from something like seven to just three. Have more test mathces because it is traditional and a real test of skills. I can't agree that test matches are dull (may be when Boycott played). However, nothing can work if the organisers are greedy and jsut wanna fill their pockets. Does anyone know of ICC - what is it doing?

Posted by JangBang on (August 7, 2008, 2:08 GMT)

Very sensible comment. Kudos to Mahela. I am not sure if some of the money hungry cricket boards will like to share their riches.

Posted by IPLFan on (August 7, 2008, 1:11 GMT)

Why should T20 be controlled? Let the leagues bloom. If that means end of Test cricket, so be it. It is not up to the administrators (or CI editors) to decide what form should survive. Markets decide that.

Fact that CI gave such a prominent coverage to a meaningless suggestion by Jayawardene shows their bias.

Posted by joesomerset on (August 6, 2008, 21:20 GMT)

I respect Jayawardene. He is more cricket knowledge than me, but my sugetion to ICC. We should stop the 50 over oneday match and just concentrate on Test matches and 2020. This players have more time to play both form of games. And all the countries could generate more money through their domestic games. One day matches are total waist of time and boring to the public. We should give more chance for 2020 matches. Expand the game to the USA, Canada, rest of the Europe, China and Japan. Instead of critising the 2020 try to expand the game and compete with American sports. So this way our kids will stay with cricket. Don't wait for the American sports to take the cricket away. Before theat happend expand 2020 cricket and show cricket on ESPN and FOX channels in USA.

Posted by kdn26 on (August 6, 2008, 21:01 GMT)

Actually, the t20 world cup shud be scrapped and teams shud rather play in the olympics ... that way cricket gets into olympics and not much T20 as well ... and all the T20 domestic leagues like ipl and epl must take place at the same time ...that way u get time to play test cricket which is the best form of cricket period.

Posted by ajayarora on (August 6, 2008, 20:44 GMT)

It is too early to control growth of T20. T20 is the only way this game can become global and have a soccer like/wide audience. No point in putting teams like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe given ODI and test status and wait for miracles for them to beat other international team. T20 gives the opportunities for other countries to develop cricket. T20 is tranforming cricket from sport to entertainment, there can be a group who believe this is bad for the game but the challenge for ICC is to develop game. If cricket really goes global the dependence on BCCI for finance will eventually reduce and ICC will have the finance and the voice to really work for the game. BCCI unfortunately has become a money making organization with no interest in cricket as such. Everybody including Indian cricketers have only complaints around them. The only way ICC can get out of this grip is by promoting T20 rather than reducing it.

Posted by h_kap on (August 6, 2008, 20:06 GMT)

I do not like the fact that cricket is being governed and dictated by one body i.e ICC. ICC does need to govern international cricket but they should not have a right to dictate. They can dictate their tournaments and individual leagues/tournaments like ICL, Stanford etc will govern their. When it comes to international cricket ICC should have a say but when you are having this leagues then the respective board should have a say on what they would like to do.

In this open world with free trade i am amazed that cricket is moving back becoming monopolist rather than being global, free and open to all.

Posted by CrayGY on (August 6, 2008, 19:35 GMT)

I find Mahela's views funny. He should stick to what he does best. that is, play cricket. His fantasy about having just one T20 championship isn't going to come true. Good luck to everyone trying to pressurize BCCI to share the revenue. Nice Joke. Personally I hated the IPL and T20 format, but that is the reality I will have to learn with. Mahela has always been a slow thinker and is seen by the way he speaks in cliches.

Posted by vsriram on (August 6, 2008, 19:22 GMT)

I think Mahela is not able to digest the fact that Indians are earning more than anyone else and he tosses an idea of getting a share.

Dont Cry Mr. Mahela...Get Srilaka Cricket board to start a league by themself and get some croud and sponsors to support the event

Posted by vsriram on (August 6, 2008, 19:18 GMT)

I think Mahela is not able to digest the fact that Indians are earning more than anyone else and he tosses an idea of getting a share.

Dont Cry Mr. Mahela...Get Srilaka Cricket board to start a league by themself and get some croud and sponsors to support the event

Posted by HuwGardner on (August 6, 2008, 18:48 GMT)

20/20 sucks. Sure, some games come down to the wire, but just as many are complete thrashings over in an hour. What happens if one team is bowled out for 80? BORING! And how do you work a batsman over or have a decent spell with only four overs? The best thing about 20/20 cricket is that it will kill itself from over exposure. If all fans want to see is a ball hit for miles (which is really all this format provides) then I would suggest baseball or golf as an alternative.

Posted by Fungus on (August 6, 2008, 18:41 GMT)

I would say Mahela Jayawardene is right, but I'm not sure what he envisages. The way forward for me would be to have the champions league as it is but incorporating teams from many countries, including those who aren't test playing nations (other ICC affiliate nations for example) and the winner makes it through. The more leagues, the more teams in the CL and the game benefits. More importantly, the feeder leagues should take place roughly the same time and each player should only be allowed to play for one team rather than the silly situation we have now where some people have qualified 3 times. This will take the game global and will get it into the Olympics. It would need the ICC to get involved and get it managed properly. T20 in 2008 has shown us what's possible but someone needs to take control to make sure its done right rather than wait for "the market" to make its mind up. I tihnk that is what Jayawardene is trying to say

Posted by David_Doss on (August 6, 2008, 18:41 GMT)

Jaywardene is right. This needs to be stemmed at the Bud. There's too much money involved. A day will come when every coundtry will have its 20/20 league and then the concept will get devalued and cricket will suffer.

Posted by zidane617 on (August 6, 2008, 16:31 GMT)

Actually I really like Mahela's Idea of having one big 20/20 tournament like IPL every year. Also need to say something about IPL, even though it may seem like EPL & Stanford series is going to come but I have doubts that it would even come close to the success of IPL. As a Lankan I personally enjoyed IPL immensly and it was a big hit in most countries. So IPL should have 2.5 month window in cricket calender every year. Also the T20 should be held every 3 years so even the T20 WC will have a real value unlike having it every 2 years is bit too much 20/20 in my opinion.

As for the sharing idea I think it is a good idea but bit hard to implement in real life if value is shared equally. So it should come in another form where it can be a percentage sharing system where the big boards will take the most, but it they should be more responsible in helping other boards in overall development of Cricket and should take the leading role in taking cricket globally.

Posted by Prashant13 on (August 6, 2008, 16:31 GMT)

i agree with jayawardene...they need to find a solution.i'm not saying they shudnt have them...they shud just have them in the same time of the year so intl cricket resumes later on.and they need to go slow on cl.rite now they're just running on the bandwagon.its just been one yr of ipl and now they're starting cl.hello i think it wz many years after the leagues started that cl came in football.the founding of ipl wz positive but now they're just forcing it on us...u cant expect loyalty so quickly.u have to wait for ipl to consolidate,othr leagues to become popular first.rite now i'll supp my team but its not like i really care cuz i dunno the othr teams(there is no rivalry yet)...and will take time once all the leagues r settled. -my views

Posted by TwitterJitter on (August 6, 2008, 16:19 GMT)

Instead of trying to control how many T20 tournaments we can have, we need to let these leagues - be it IPL, ICL, EPL, PPL, Big Bash T20, or Standard Pro T20 - all play it out. We should not interfere and let the market forces dictate which ones will succeed and which ones will fizzle out. Eventually, only a few survivors will be left standing and they will prosper. We see it play out daily in our lives in private industries like aviation or other sectors where there will be flurry of startups, eventually some will succeed, others will fizzle out, there will be consoliation phase, and only a few of them will be left standing to make hay. Free markets rule!

Posted by subhasis.sarkar on (August 6, 2008, 16:09 GMT)

I respect Jayawardene. He is more cricket knowledge than me. He is directly involve in this event. I am just a sports enthuist. I watch all different team. I really watching them on TV. It does not matter it is Cricket or Soccer or American Football or Baseball. I think most sports has much more scope for the players than Cricket. Specially country like India. India has huge population. It has lot of talent in crciket. But only 11 players selected in test and one day cricket team. But there are thoushand unrecognized players on the cricket areana they have equal talent if not more. But their scope is limited because the cricket is bound by International arena before T20. I agree there must by some kind of constructive format like NFL in America or EPL in England should be implemented. But ICC should not limit this scope to build the popularity of cricket. There are thoushand players, they can take it as a profession by their talent. Please create the hype T20 for those cricketer.

Posted by rjdea on (August 6, 2008, 16:01 GMT)

"ICC needs to take a step here and say that one country can have only one IPL tournament and that ICL can also be part of that league in India. This way BCCI can't monopolize cricket in India and also armtwist other countries just to destroy their rival league."

Uh...hey, don't mean to burst your bubble, but cricket has already been monopolized by India. A lot of you are just way too slow to see it or accept it. Why? Because few other countries care about it as their #1 sport and they have a ton of people. England will always be an also-ran in cricket, their best players will be in Mumbai and Bangalore. Why? Because they care about football and rugby more. You can make the same argument for Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa and their countries' various sports. West Indies, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and Kenya, are all too poor and/or fractured. So that only leaves India as the only place in the world that has money and a large population that loves cricket.

Posted by rajmore on (August 6, 2008, 15:29 GMT)

Why should the international schedule not be reduced in favour of T20 tournaments? The spectators love T20, give them T20.

When customer preferences change, then you as a marketer have to change your product to cater to the new preference. If you do not, then your customer will simply go elsewhere.

ICL has done a good move starting itself up. BCCI has done a very smart move starting the IPL and it will be even better to when they have two IPL seasons a year.

Sell that the customer buys, not what you want to sell.

Posted by NBRADEE on (August 6, 2008, 15:25 GMT)

I recently looked at a promotion for a Nokia 'phone recently, which heralded the model as the latest iteration of the personal computer. Other telephone manufacturers have also laid claim to usurping the desktop and laptop as the new computing devices of the future. This is happening because market forces have shaped product development in that industry. Similarly too, for sport - FIFA's direction is always under the pressure of the winds of change in soccer. In cricket, we have a new form of the game that has a very attractive brand for all current and prospective stakeholders, and I am worried that not enough is being done to ensure that the benefits of T20's impact will accrue to the players, fans, administrators and sponsors. Much of this anxiety can be removed by the application of standards that incorporate future labour issues, franchise development and regional and international administration.

Posted by ablue1972 on (August 6, 2008, 15:11 GMT)

More 20/20 get rid of test matches, county cricket and these dull boring 50/50 internationals. Cricket at last is moving on, no more cucumber sarnies at lunch and tea for an hour??? shock horror!!!!! More tourneys more games on tv, cricket is starting to appeal at last to more than retirement aged people!!

Posted by vijithah on (August 6, 2008, 14:58 GMT)

Single league is not possible because of different seasons in different regions and logistics of arrangement. I think that the best option remaining is to extend IPL to a Asian league ( south asian) with teams from Pakistan, Sri lanka, and B'desh compete in IPL. This will allow IPL revenues being shared between South Asian countries. Of coures India will get the biggest share and that is acceptable. EPL and Australian-New Zealand leagues are other possible leagues.

Posted by kmTORONTO on (August 6, 2008, 14:51 GMT)

Jayawardane is speaking of Revenue Sharing. On the surface, this is a great idea. However, the concept of Revenue Sharing is an extremely complex one. The major sports in North America (NFL Football, NHL, NBA and MLB) all have Revenue Sharing, albeit, at various degrees. I have watched North American sports for a number of years and have also watched cricket for a number of years. Frankly, I do not think that the ICC is capable of implementing this complex system of Revenue Sharing. The ICC needs to step in NOW and control this fiasco of every country wanting to have it's own 20-20 tournament. However, as we all know, the ICC is essentially a puppet of the BCCI. In any event, there is nothing wrong in looking at other leagues (Europe, North America) and perhaps seeing how things work there and looking more closely at their frame work and see if that framework can be modified just enough to fit cricket.

I still think a Test match is the best form, and the original form, of Cricket.

Posted by Manush on (August 6, 2008, 14:44 GMT)

Sensible comment and worth pondering to arrive at a consensus, to avoid too many money making touraments, which will only spoil the game of Cricket, especially the bigger format.

Posted by AjaySridharan on (August 6, 2008, 14:31 GMT)

The problem is not with money running cricket - that has been the case for a very long time. The real problem is with BCCI controlling world cricket. We have already seen the ugly side of this with their arm-twisting tactics in trying to wipe out ICL and in threatening to pull out of the Australia tour. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that too much power in the hands of one man or one entity is never good in the long run. Just turn back and look at world history if you need proof. With great power comes great responsibility (from Spiderman!), and BCCI in my opinion is not ready to act with unselfish responsibility. After all, it is controlled by politicians...what do you expect!

Posted by TwitterJitter on (August 6, 2008, 14:18 GMT)

The funny part about this argument is that there are so many comments here, especially from non-Indians, acting as if BCCI is evil, and ICL is a good thing. ICL is nothing short of a TV channel owner deciding that he wants to grab some of that money that BCCI is making by forming his own league. ICL did not work for decades building up grass roots cricket like BCCI. Instead, they just offered contracts to players who came through the domestic system that BCCI built, and started using them in T20 format to grab money. Please tell us which country you are from, and we will write to TV channel operators in your country to form their own T20 rival leagues in your country so each of your boards also can go to dogs. Every business man who has some cash will operate his own T20 cricket league.

People are not concerned about ICL in these boards because it is not impacting them and bashing BCCI is fashionable here.When businessmen start form their own rival leagues, they will feel the pinch

Posted by Sunny-Bhai on (August 6, 2008, 14:11 GMT)

Well Well Well. I read what everybody had to say & did feel that these are something to make a big change in the approach as to how does ICC take control of these lucrative leagues. Its like taking a big chunck of meat right from the tigers mouth. If we think that boards like BCCI who makes money in billion plus dollars are going to be happy with just millions, well think again people this is never going to happen. BCCI does want to take the centre stage & become big bullies like we had England & Australia in the past. What BCCI won't do is have one joint big tournament & share that revenues. This is more on the money making concept which is being camoflaged as grooming of world cricket. The players should take the initiative to play or not to play in these leagues & they should be the one who should set their priorities straight( Either play for the country or play for the money)what we all say or comment doesnt seem to bother & only end up going to deaf ears as neither of board cares

Posted by kingofspain on (August 6, 2008, 14:05 GMT)

I agree. Why not just have one big champions league with the domestic champions of each of the 8 major countries? The host country can be rotated each year. Then you can have an international tournament every 2 years in place of the champions trophy.

Then real cricket fans can enjoy test cricket without this nonsense intervening.

Posted by r1m2 on (August 6, 2008, 13:55 GMT)

I do not agree with Jayawardene. One of the driving force behind IPL was to give the India's unknowns a chance to mingle with the more illustrious cricketers of the world. Actually the idea was first planted by ICL but I am sure I have read about IPL also having that as one of its goals. In a single tournament that will never happen. Currently I believe the evolution will take it somewhere near there however. Each country will have their own T20 tournament which will ultimately be feeding into one ultimate world T20 tournament. I think champions league is just a minor step in that direction.

Posted by Atul on (August 6, 2008, 13:44 GMT)

This would be the logical thing to do if all the boards in the world had the game's development as their primary objective. It is not. They only want the money!!!

On the same lines of another poster comparing Cricket boards to software companies; you see, these people have made money making their 'mission statement'. Money is no longer a means to help develop the game, it is THE end.

Thus, as much sense as it makes, it is a Utopian concept. I'm sure the BCCI will have none of it, unless they are guaranteed 50% of the money...

It is, however, heartwarming to see a Cricketer express his views with such alacrity. The Indian players have got used to being dictated by the BCCI.

I would love to see the likes of Sachin and Kumble take up the cause of the ICL players with the BCCI. If the players allow their own lot to be split into factions by the administrative bodies, there is no room left for free thought.

Posted by Gaadi on (August 6, 2008, 13:39 GMT)

ICC needs to step in here. BCCI is clearly a divisive force so far under the garb of IPL/T20 cricket. My suggestion is to start with strengthening Test Cricket in the following manner: 1) there is an immediate need for a Test Cricket World Championship / TEST CRICKET WORLD LEAGUE (TCWL) to be established along the following lines. 2) To start with, identify cricket's flagship tournaments / important series.The list is:- Test Cricket World League (proposed), ODI World Cup, World T20, Champions Trophy ODI, Asia Cup ODI, Traditional: Ashes. 3) Re-arrange international cricket calendar around them, in order to identify a suitable time slot for TCWL: ODI World Cup - 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019 etc. World T20 - 2007, 2009, 2012 (re-arranged from 2011), 2014, 2016 etc. Champions Trophy ODI - 2008, 2010 then discontinue. Asia Cup ODI - 2008, 2010, 2012, then every four years 2016, 2020 etc. Ashes in England: June-Aug 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021 etc. ---- continued....

Posted by kaisokid on (August 6, 2008, 13:35 GMT)

cricket is being destroyed by greed and politics. Simply said, we see some countries not wanting to play smaller market contries and blame security risks to avoid playing. We are in trouble Twenty/20 is a good idea but it must not interfere with test or one day. The idea of some of these tournaments is to commit good players to participate and deny them playing for their countries (conflict of interest. This destroys cricket. A single Twenty/20 tournament is good also each country should be able to have one too but in a knock out format like FA trophy so the tournament lasts just one week the idea of round robin then K.O. lengthens the tournament. This is good financially but will destroy the real foundation the game has played on

Posted by cricketrulesdaworld on (August 6, 2008, 13:32 GMT)

I sympathize with Jayawardene's thoughts and with the many other readers who posted their comments. The truth is that there cannot be just one major tournament. These are individual leagues just like the football/soccer leagues (one or more in each country or continent). If you and Jayawardene are looking for one big tournament, the ICC T20 World cup in South Africa is what you had. And the problem with everyone sharing the proceeds will never be solved. Will the same number of people come watch a Zimbabwe-Kenya game as an Australia-India game. The answer is No. So why would the richer and powerful cricket boards share revenue with ones that hardly generate any revenue. And hence the birth of the Premier league. Cricket is a big business and any business looks at profit making. If you were in Modi's shoes, you would have done the same. Everyone wants to be profitable and successful. Unfortunate if cricket suffers but in reality, Jayawardene's and many of yours is wishful thinking.

Posted by ashock on (August 6, 2008, 13:23 GMT)

I agree with Jayawardena and disagree at the same time. Yes money is driving cricket these days. But the problem with everybody is that nobody like the BCCI to be a dominant force. At the same time they are shameful enough to work for the BCCI under the guise of IPL. ICC needs to take a step here and say that one country can have only one IPL tournament and that ICL can also be part of that league in India. This way BCCI can't monopolize cricket in India and also armtwist other countries just to destroy their rival league.

The moment ICC disapproves of IPL BCCI will curb its tail. After all BCCI can't make any money out of cricket in India without the involvement of other countries like Pakistan, Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand.

Posted by mfarraz on (August 6, 2008, 13:19 GMT)

very intelligent guy.. but the way boards (specially BCCI) are dealing cricketing issues, it will never happens in world cricket. like Forcing everyone to ban players like A.Razzak,Bond & others shows everyone that where these boards are heading for.

Posted by pgpsamy on (August 6, 2008, 12:39 GMT)

Jayawardene's Idea is good but it is never going to happen. When the Board is trying every possible thing to wipe ICL out of the game, the Board is never going to hear any advice and ideas which are going to benefit the game of cricket. BCCI is trying to control world cricket. In future the world is going to witness the ugly plays of the Board. BCCI want to run the world of cricket like Indian politicians, it will demand other countries should accept what BCCI do and says. Only God can save the world cricket.

Posted by Overdrive on (August 6, 2008, 12:11 GMT)

I agree with Jayawardene to an extent that money is driving cricket to some extraordinary levels. The problem i see is striking a balance between the premier leagues and international tours. This is the biggest difference between Premier leagues of soccer and cricket. Soccer teams dont play international games as often as cricket.. hence they dont have problems with the number of premier leagues and teams. For a game which is in its budding development stages, mixing everything is eventually going to create chaos for the players, administrators and also the public. Problem of plenty is one of the toughest to handle and when uncontrolled will do exactly the same what jayawardene fears. Smartness lies in balancing the act as soon as possible....

Posted by LITT on (August 6, 2008, 11:25 GMT)

Jayawardane is quite right. All cricket bodies should come ahead with one big tournament. The country contributing bigger portion can take the bigger pie of revenue. But the system of 4-5 tournaments is not so great. IPL & EPL cannot go side-by-side. Conflicting dates will mean partition of cricket bodies, players etc. And not conflicting will result in less time for international cricket. Time has come for ICC to govern this format.

Posted by Daiya on (August 6, 2008, 11:18 GMT)

I believe that 3 or 4 big tournaments might actually be good for the game. There are several international players who have signed up with the IPL at least for a couple of years. The main concern for such players is the question of IPL franchises letting them play in similar tournaments. We will see many negociations, and changes but I doubt the IPL administrators will allow them to play. Thus, with the IPL and other franchises "restricting" their players, we as spectators will see more players in different tournaments. This makes for more competition. Which could be used as a breading ground for the "big tournament" like say the world cup. Mahela is spot on when he says that moeny drives people. The revenue will keep players who do not make test level interested and playing cricket. We have seen many leave the game for other careers or go into more lucrative sports at an early age. This situation will change as soon as 20/20 cricket brings money to players.

Posted by Sudzz on (August 6, 2008, 11:12 GMT)

Mahela is both right and wrong. He is right in saying that the rash of T20 tournaments that are coming up should be controlled so that T20 does not start defining cricket.

But one big tournament does not solve the problem either. Neither for players nor for countries. Players and Countries that missed out on the IPL can now hope to make some money in the EPL or Stanford etc.

But all in all T20 is a great boon for cricket as a sport since it has significantly shortened the game and yet added more character to it. Given the speed and excitement of the sport, I think a lot of the other non playing nations might adapt to this and that will only see more money coming to the sport.

The current avarice that is being displayed needs to be curtailed and the T20 franchise should be exploited scientifically and systematically for maximum benefit to all concerned.

Posted by NBRADEE on (August 6, 2008, 11:04 GMT)

These comments can arguably be considered the least thoughtful of the ENTIRE 21st Century so far, taking into account every issue that has been discussed on a global basis! While I do respect Mahela's thoughts about the money issue that follows T20 cricket, it is now more painfully obvious that the lack of guidance from the ICC on how the game should be developed is the real issue here. The game has continously evolved without ever going back to what it used to be, which is isn't always good (that review system should not be enhanced and kept, it should be removed altogether!). To avoid us even considering a single event for T20, let us evaluate other issues and their impact on the future of the game, e.g. why are players being allowed to sign and play for multiple teams? When Australians play for State, National and extra-league teams, the novel concept of a Champions League is avoided.

Posted by TwitterJitter on (August 6, 2008, 10:51 GMT)

I respect Jayawardene, but I disagree with his opinion on this topic. This logic is usually argued in the cricketing community as follows: "Why don't all of them get together, play in a tournament, and share equally from the big pot?". Here in lies the flaw in this argument. Can we ask all the software companies in the world from Microsoft on down to someone serving a single customer to get together and develop a software so that there are no compatibility issues and they can all share equally in the profits?" Do you see Microsoft or a Google agreeing to it? I can see that small software company jumping at the chance. This is capitalism and free markets (although in this case it is pseudo free-markets). We can never impose socialism on it. It won't work. It will never work in any line of business. Businesses and organizations come in all shapes, forms, and sizes and their needs and wants are different.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
ESPNcricinfo staffClose
Country Fixtures Country Results
1st ODI: Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Hambantota - Aug 23
Sri Lanka 275/7 Pakistan 167/5 (33/45 ov, target 275)
2nd ODI: Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Hambantota
Aug 26, 2014 (14:30 local | 09:00 GMT | 05:00 EDT | 04:00 CDT | 02:00 PDT)
3rd ODI: Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Dambulla
Aug 30, 2014 (10:00 local | 04:30 GMT | 00:30 EDT | 23:30 CDT | 21:30 PDT)
1st Match, Qualifying Group: Northern D v Express at Raipur
Sep 13, 2014 (16:00 local | 10:30 GMT | 06:30 EDT | 05:30 CDT | 03:30 PDT)
4th Match, Qualifying Group: Mum Indians v Express at Raipur
Sep 14, 2014 (20:00 local | 14:30 GMT | 10:30 EDT | 09:30 CDT | 07:30 PDT)
Complete fixtures » | Download Fixtures »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days