Getting the balance right

When it comes to Twenty20 cricket, the ICC's approach is simple - it is all about getting the balance right. That idea was behind the recent decision of the executive board to limit the amount of Twenty20 international matches that can be played by any ICC full member to two per home series and three per year.

Why limit it? After all, Twenty20 has proved hugely popular wherever it has been played, attracting big crowds, even bigger television audiences, generated interest and excitement, brought new people to the game and has been commercially successful.

But commercialism, while important, must not be the prime consideration in making decisions about the future, and there is another side to the coin that has prompted a degree of prudence.

To start with, it needs to be recognised that high volumes of Twenty20 internationals may pose a threat to the other, longer-established, forms of the game. Test cricket has been in place for 129 years and `traditional' ODI cricket, now played over 50 overs per side and more than 35 years old, has evolved to stage eight World Cups.

Both formats have stood the test of time, have proved successful and have to be protected as more Twenty20 matches would naturally eat into the time available to play them. Too much international Twenty20 could also be a threat to the domestic version of the game, drawing fans away from the latter, which has proved a valuable tool to generate new levels of interest in cricket in several countries.

On top of these arguments is the concern that Twenty20 matches tacked on to teams' existing Test match and ODI commitments, while increasing revenue, would also increase player workloads. We have already sought to provide a framework for the management of those workloads by spreading minimum commitments over a six- rather than five-year timescale in the recently-adopted Future Tours Program (FTP). So, although an uncontrolled volume of Twenty20 matches may well offer up profits in the short term, in the long run they may work against the best interests of the game.

All of the above is the downside and has prompted the ICC's prudent approach but, despite that, there is still the need to recognise the public's appetite for Twenty20 internationals and that is the idea behind the proposals for a World Championship, which will be voted upon by the ICC executive board when it meets in Dubai on 30 April.

The attractions of an ICC event in this form of the game are obvious: it will be official and therefore allow the winners to call themselves world champions; it will be short with the plan for it to take no more than nine playing days; and it will not be affected by mass unavailability through sides having other commitments.

The profits from such an event are likely to be substantial and the good news for cricket is that the ICC, as a not-for-profit organisation, would plough them back into the game. The same will not be true if such an event is staged by a private promoter.

Some of our members have expressed reservations about the new format at international level and as a democratic organisation the ICC has to be mindful of those concerns. The view of those members is that the existing mix of Tests and ODIs works well for them and they would prefer to maintain the status quo.

With those reservations in mind, the executive board agreed that no minimum number of matches should be set down to be played by each member. In other words, if a member does not want to play international Twenty20 matches outside the mandatory World Championship commitments, then it would not have to.

However, we all have to recognise the best time to innovate is when the game is strong, as it is now. We have a high level of public interest and a format that has been immensely popular whenever it has been played. It could prove to be a potent combination - as long as we get the balance right.