Why make players choose between formats?

A couple of major changes of tack proposed recently have the cricket world resembling an America's Cup race rather than a game played on manicured green fields.

Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland musing last week about the day an Australian Test team would be competing in one part of the world while the Twenty20 side performed elsewhere. If that wasn't enough to satiate the appetite for irony, the BCCI recently conjured up the notion of a string of ODIs against Australia disappearing into thin air and two Test matches and three 50-over games magically appearing in their place.

It seems the explosive growth in domestic Twenty20 attendances has suddenly swayed Cricket Australia from the idea that Test cricket is priority number one and other forms of the game fall into line. While a No. 1 Test ranking and a couple of ODI losses to Zimbabwe has caused amateur Indian magicians to think they're Merlin.

First up, let's consider Sutherland's proposition. The glaring weakness in the proposal is, it would hinder the best players and reward one-dimensional cricketers. Take a young allrounder like Steven Smith; presumably his preference would be to play all internationals that involve Australia. He has the skills to succeed in this endeavour, but with Sutherland's proposition, he'd be forced to choose between playing in a Test series or a Twenty20 tournament. Any player who has the desire and the pride in his performance to want to excel in both the long and short forms of the game should be encouraged to do so, rather than being forced to choose between the two at an early stage in his career.

A player who only wants the challenge of playing in the shortest form of the game is either nearing retirement, lacking in some fundamentals, or has a flaw in his temperament. This flaw will eventually surface in even the shortest form of the game, and once it's exposed, others will circle like a shark scenting blood in the water.

There's also the paying public to consider. Even if a good proportion of the Twenty20 audience is attending mainly for the entertainment, there are still many who go to enjoy the cricket skills. Smith is a big draw-card for cricket fans because they are almost certain to see him performing at least one of his skills on any given day. Forcing him to choose between Test matches and Twenty20 is going to rob one set of fans of an opportunity to see a good cricketer.

Then there's the vital question: who is going to decide where the talented player performs? Will it be the player himself, the selectors, or one of the hangers-on who attach to modern cricket teams like barnacles on a boat? I would hope if this situation does eventuate then at least the player would decide his own fate rather than being told what is best for his future.

What has prompted the BCCI to suddenly discover the worth of a balanced tour itinerary over playing a string of revenue-producing ODIs, which also win votes from local officials who crave international matches?

It's bad enough that players might decide for themselves that the financial rewards of the Twenty20 game dictate they should concentrate on the shorter version without administrators forcing them to make that career choice.

Players would be entitled to ask the question, preferably sooner rather than later: is this the conclusion of administrators devoid of the will to devise an itinerary that accommodates players who desire the ultimate challenge to prove themselves good all-round cricketers?

Having hinted at a change of heart, it'll be interesting to see how Cricket Australia reacts if the BCCI does officially propose a balanced tour itinerary for later this year. Will they decide it is great preparation for an Ashes series or will the thought of a couple of defeats on spinning pitches condemn the idea as too risky in the lead-up to a clash against the old enemy?

And what has prompted the BCCI to suddenly discover the worth of a balanced tour itinerary over playing a string of revenue-producing ODIs, which also win votes from local officials who crave international matches?

It's hard not to be slightly cynical after hearing both these propositions. After all, as former Australian prime minister Paul Keating once said: "Always back self-interest, at least you know it's a goer."