Andrew Flintoff’s upcoming retirement has provoked cynical rumblings across the land as to the motives of England’s talisman. In an age where money talks most, many feel that Flintoff’s focus has been drawn from his country to the millions he can earn if fully fit and available for next year’s IPL. This may well be the case and if so who can blame him after an injury-ravaged 4 years which has seen him spend more time on the operating table than on a cricket field. Aussie stars Hayden and Gilchrist have already quit the international arena for domestic Twenty20 and the promise of a few more big paydays on the sub-continent.
However while these players were coming to the end of glittering international careers anyway (in Flintoff’s case it was becoming a question of which tendon would fail next) there’s a worrying line of thought that players might start to quit at an earlier age to cash on lucrative domestic tournaments and foreign leagues.
Twenty20 $s vs Test cricket prestige
It becomes a case of financial reward against the prestige of Test cricket. Which players are prepared to sacrifice the chance of a place in history in return for a quick buck. Why risk potentially crippling injuries when you can earn enough to set you up for life in a less demanding format? Test series and tours are spun out over several months while with Twenty20, all’s done and dusted and cheques cashed in a matter of weeks.
There are some like England captain Andrew Strauss who remain committed to tests as after all that’s what players are judged on at the end of the day. But for every Strauss there’s a Dmitri Mascherenas who gave up his England spot in 2008 for a place in an IPL team.
Of course the losers here are the fans. We want to see the best players in both formats so therefore its up to the authorities to step in and protect the game. No one can prevent a player from choosing the IPL. The threat of bans simply doesn’t work as illustrated by the Kerry Packer series and the South Africa trips in the 1980s.
Schedules need to be slashed
And anyway we don’t want to prevent players from competing in tournaments like the IPL which has provided spectacular entertainment so far. The simple solution is to cut away the dead wood from the schedules to allow the best of both worlds so players can compete in Tests and Twenty20 without feeling they’re on a never-ending treadmill and to keep international cricket fresh and exciting.
If it’s made possible players will want to compete in both formats. Players like Gilchrist, Hayden and Flintoff have made their reputations and become the players they are through Test cricket. It’s been series like the Ashes which have made them icons.
Most 50 over cricket should now be scrapped with World Cup as an exception?
Why not scrap the meaningless tedium of 50 over one-day series which cause overseas tours to drag on longer than they should? The Champions Trophy is another event which clogs the calendar and bears little significance. The dwindling crowds during the recent England-West Indies series and the shocking attendance figures at the poorly managed 2007 ICC World Cup spoke volumes.
There was a rumour that the 2011 ICC World Cup might be the last and spell the end of 50 over cricket. However, the ICC deny this and are apparently currently selling rights to a 2015 World Cup. Maybe the 50 over World Cup could exist on its own as a novelty once every 4 years but for the good of cricket, cutbacks need to be made.
There is a solution but only if the men at the top of the game are prepared to look away from the dollar signs.
By David Cox, Twenty20Blog.co.uk
Thoughts on this article are welcomed so please post a comment below or email me at: dcwriter89@googlemail.com
Loading ...