Apprehensions and doubts persist. All said and done, spectators have been far fewer than expected.
A moth attack just when Australia’s openers were ready to begin their run chase against England on Friday night added an exciting and hitherto unforeseen dimension to the Champions Trophy, but even this was not good enough to stymie the debate about the future of one-day matches.
I am being facetious, of course, for the problem is serious enough for this debate to rage right through the tournament’s fortnight, and with growing intensity. So, have one-day matches reached a dead-end?
The premature exits of India and South Africa —- the two biggest draws – may have robbed the tournament of ‘live’ spectatorship and eyeballs for television, but the mandarins in the ICC will point at the several upset results (as I write this, England have given themselves a reasonable chance to beat Australia) and one nerve-racking cliff-hanger (Pakistan versus Australia) to perhaps revalidate the one-day format.
The quality of cricket has undoubtedly been good, and there have been stellar individual performances in batting and bowling. Early season pitches have afforded bowlers enough opportunities to make the contest with batsmen less one-sided than is usual in limited overs cricket. The organization, in the best South African tradition, has been above reproach.
Yet apprehensions and doubts persist. All said and done, spectators have been far fewer than expected. Tournament fatigue (South Africa played a home Test series against Australia, followed by the IPL) as well as the home team’s early exit have been touted as major reasons why spectators have kept away.
But even as the tournament wound its way to its climax came the decision by Cricket South Africa to reduce their domestic one-day matches from 50 to 40 overs a side. This follows England’s decision to do the same a few weeks earlier, except that the South African board has gone a step further by stipulating that each side will be allowed 12 players, with substitutions permissible in batting or bowling, though only 11 players can take the field.
This is an improvisation on the ‘supersubs’ rule tried out earlier, but whether it can help improve ratings and ‘feelings’ for one day cricket remains to be seen. Recent innovations like three Powerplays have proved to be value – but only briefly. The struggle to prevent one-day cricket being swept away by the cyclonic fury of Twenty20 is manifest. Which way the wind will blow in the future is the million dollar question.
***
Pakistan’s cricketers, of course, are seeking the two million dollar prize money to consolidate their return to international cricket.
Seemingly oblivious to the debate over the future of the one-day game, they appear intent on winning this tournament. Coupled with the triumph in the Twenty20 World Championships, it would help leverage for more international series’, perhaps even build up pressure to become part of the 2011 World Cup again.
At nets on Friday, Younus Khan put his players through their paces with a rigour not normally associated with Pakistan cricket. Perhaps the fact that they were so poorly rewarded at the ICC awards has added an edge to ambition.
Bolstered by the return of Rana Naved, Imran Nazir and Mohammad Yousuf, Pakistan look not only highly skilled, but also have the most variety and depth in their team. For most cricket followers, however, they also remain the most unpredictable team in international cricket.
Can they surprise their detractors by playing true to form this time is, well, the two million dollar question.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}