Swashbuckler
First Class Captain
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Runs
- 4,672
- Post of the Week
- 3
So here's a proposal, sorry for the length of the post. Feel free to debate, bash, criticize, agree, disagree - whatever you wish.
In cricket we have separate ranking lists for tests, ODIs and T20s. To judge a team's (and player's if need be) overall ability won't it be a better idea to consider all results rather than restricting ourselves to ranking them formatwise? I believe that by doing this we can better assess the overall strength of the unit, hence resulting in an accurate ranking.
Note to traditionalists who may baulk at the idea of mixing their holy format with the lowly white ball formats: Like it or not test cricket is not the only format that matters as was the case a few decades back. Times are changing and ODIs, T20s draw bigger crowds and engage more eyeballs than the traditional format. Younger generation has a shorter attention span and we risk losing an entire generation of cricket followers if we remain snobbish and aloof wrt test cricket. Not just that the shorter formats are keeping test cricket alive by bringing in the money, except maybe England and Australia the shorter formats are covering up the losses incurred by test cricket. For test cricket to survive it needs ODIs/T20s more than the other way round. I am not proposing to devalue the 5 day format but to incorporate the other 2 formats and give them the respect that is due.
For quite some time teams aren't taking international T20s and bilateral ODIs that seriously, instead testing the bench strength or saving the star players for high profile test series, ICC tournaments and domestic T20 leagues (they won't openly admit). Post IPL/BBL/CPL/PSL boom crowds are gradually losing interest in bilaterals because there is no context. We all know which teams will qualify for WT20/WC (unlike FIFA WC) and hence there is no intrigue in bilaterals. Moreover seedings don't matter in major cricket events unlike say tennis where top ranked players get easier passage in the initial rounds of tournaments . Cricket has only around 10 serious teams and with the prevalent formats in WCs/WT20s the top seeded teams don't get any advantage whatsoever. Shorter format rankings/results aren't followed with keen interest and in the international arena it is all about winning multi-nation tournaments, as evidenced by the Asia Cup held recently.
I propose unifying the formats into one ranking system. We can always use weightage factors like 1 for tests, 0.3 for ODIs and 0.15 for T20s, of course the exact weightage can be worked out by experts/statisticians later. In recent times ECB had this concept of assigning weights for all 3 formats and declaring an overall winner, this is similar but it won't be isolated or applicable to just a series here or there. This should be a continuous live process operating 24x7x365 taking into account every single international match and coming up with the year end number 1 team (cut off can be 3rd week of December, boxing day match results get incorporated into the next cycle). Now we have context and to incentivize the teams, instead of the ICC test mace the year end top team can get a Championship Trophy and a humongously large prize money. 2nd and 3rd placed teams too can be rewarded handsomely. Similarly the top batsmen, bowlers, ARs, keepers, coaches etc too can get recognition at the year ending awards ceremony like it happens in other sports.
Some of the advantages of this unified ranking:
1. It is an accurate judge of a player's overall standing. Gone are the days when Gavaskar or Sobers could fool around in ODI cricket without any eyebrow raised. Modern cricket demands excellence and versatility in multiple formats. Players can't be excused if they aren't making an attempt to improve in other formats. Test specialists like Pujara, Yasir, Cook, Herath, Elgar etc can't get away with any excuse because all formats are popular in today's age and there are enough tools to improve their weaker suits. Someone who is good enough in all formats has shown more adaptability and hence deserves to be rated above a format specialist. All formats demand special skillsets and it isn't that easy to transfer the skills as some old timers here may argue, anyway let's leave that topic for another day.
2. It is fairer for teams. Now take the example of the Pakistani T20 team. They were dismal in 2016 (year of last WT20) and then went on a tear the next 2 years. What is there to show for their efforts? Next WT20 is in 2020 and if Pakistan have a decline that year, these 2-3 years of insane T20 domination will be forgotten by all. But with the new system their ruthless efficiency will be well rewarded in the form of a boost to their combined ranking. What they lack in tests/ODIs they can make up in their best format and challenge for the 3rd position which would entail a sizable financial package. Same with England in ODIs, afterall they have sacrificed their test success to become world beaters in this format and that deserves recognition even if they fail to win ICC WC or CT.
3. It helps all formats equally. Since tests will have maximum weightage, teams will strive to do their best there. Since ODIs/T20s have a more important role, teams will be forced to take bilaterals more seriously. You saw the teams Australia fielded in T20s this year, surely they would be forced to field better teams and strive to win rather than testing bench strength/long term planning. Better players means more interest, better crowds, better TV ratings. Fans will follow with more interest keeping in mind the big picture, there is scope for healthier sponsorship and better broadcast deals, more money means better for test cricket which is a loss making entity. If it is good for test cricket, it is good for the overall health of the sport because great cricketers are primarily produced in the long format. Also the concept of dead rubbers will be eliminated and every match will be a must win situation, more drama for everyone. What we lack right now is context and if we can bring in that element, it will be beneficial for all.
4. It is easier to understand for lay men or first time cricket watchers. Cricket is a very confusing sport for the non initiated because of multiple formats. Now the nature of the sport is such that we can't do away with some format, we can never become like tennis, football, hockey, basketball which are standardized in almost all aspects right from field/court/goal dimensions to rules, regulations, time etc. If I show a random Polish guy on the street snippets of all 3 formats played in 3 different countries and the variance in team/player's rankings he will be confused. Forget that, even a casual desi fan into IPL/PSL will fail to grasp the other formats. But if we get a unified system it might reduce the complexity. I know I am not being clear here but it seems to me that we need to dumb down aspects of cricket to appeal to the wider mass and a unified ranking system is an essential way to go towards that path. Now we can't standardize everything, a pitch in Mumbai and Perth can't and shouldn't converge in terms of behaviour but stuff like rankings can be an ideal place to start if we are serious about globalizing the game. If tennis starts introducing different rankings for clay, indoor, outdoor HC, grass, 3 setters, 5 setters, team events etc won't it be more confusing for a casual viewer who doesn't follow the sport throughout the year? I know this is an extreme example but my point remains.
5. It can stop the surge of T20 leagues. The cricket world order has changed drastically post the emergence of IPL. I am not being paranoid if I say that in 15 years time T20 leagues will occupy 6 months of the cricket calendar, that is the stark reality confronting us. The present arrangements can't withstand the force of this new beast. Already number of tests and ODIs are reducing (new FTP) and eventually people will get bored of international T20s. WCs are once in 4 years for a 6 week window, WT20s are again irregular and an even smaller window, marquee test series can't occupy a significant chunk of the calender. Eventually we may be left with WCs, WT20s, 3-4 test series plus whole lots of IPL, PSL, CPL, BPL, BBL etc. But if we can market cricket in a different way and have an annual Championship system taking into account all 3 formats maybe then the ensuing fan interest and economics can withstand the onslaught of T20 leagues for longer. This may be the only way to save the future of international matches.
In cricket we have separate ranking lists for tests, ODIs and T20s. To judge a team's (and player's if need be) overall ability won't it be a better idea to consider all results rather than restricting ourselves to ranking them formatwise? I believe that by doing this we can better assess the overall strength of the unit, hence resulting in an accurate ranking.
Note to traditionalists who may baulk at the idea of mixing their holy format with the lowly white ball formats: Like it or not test cricket is not the only format that matters as was the case a few decades back. Times are changing and ODIs, T20s draw bigger crowds and engage more eyeballs than the traditional format. Younger generation has a shorter attention span and we risk losing an entire generation of cricket followers if we remain snobbish and aloof wrt test cricket. Not just that the shorter formats are keeping test cricket alive by bringing in the money, except maybe England and Australia the shorter formats are covering up the losses incurred by test cricket. For test cricket to survive it needs ODIs/T20s more than the other way round. I am not proposing to devalue the 5 day format but to incorporate the other 2 formats and give them the respect that is due.
For quite some time teams aren't taking international T20s and bilateral ODIs that seriously, instead testing the bench strength or saving the star players for high profile test series, ICC tournaments and domestic T20 leagues (they won't openly admit). Post IPL/BBL/CPL/PSL boom crowds are gradually losing interest in bilaterals because there is no context. We all know which teams will qualify for WT20/WC (unlike FIFA WC) and hence there is no intrigue in bilaterals. Moreover seedings don't matter in major cricket events unlike say tennis where top ranked players get easier passage in the initial rounds of tournaments . Cricket has only around 10 serious teams and with the prevalent formats in WCs/WT20s the top seeded teams don't get any advantage whatsoever. Shorter format rankings/results aren't followed with keen interest and in the international arena it is all about winning multi-nation tournaments, as evidenced by the Asia Cup held recently.
I propose unifying the formats into one ranking system. We can always use weightage factors like 1 for tests, 0.3 for ODIs and 0.15 for T20s, of course the exact weightage can be worked out by experts/statisticians later. In recent times ECB had this concept of assigning weights for all 3 formats and declaring an overall winner, this is similar but it won't be isolated or applicable to just a series here or there. This should be a continuous live process operating 24x7x365 taking into account every single international match and coming up with the year end number 1 team (cut off can be 3rd week of December, boxing day match results get incorporated into the next cycle). Now we have context and to incentivize the teams, instead of the ICC test mace the year end top team can get a Championship Trophy and a humongously large prize money. 2nd and 3rd placed teams too can be rewarded handsomely. Similarly the top batsmen, bowlers, ARs, keepers, coaches etc too can get recognition at the year ending awards ceremony like it happens in other sports.
Some of the advantages of this unified ranking:
1. It is an accurate judge of a player's overall standing. Gone are the days when Gavaskar or Sobers could fool around in ODI cricket without any eyebrow raised. Modern cricket demands excellence and versatility in multiple formats. Players can't be excused if they aren't making an attempt to improve in other formats. Test specialists like Pujara, Yasir, Cook, Herath, Elgar etc can't get away with any excuse because all formats are popular in today's age and there are enough tools to improve their weaker suits. Someone who is good enough in all formats has shown more adaptability and hence deserves to be rated above a format specialist. All formats demand special skillsets and it isn't that easy to transfer the skills as some old timers here may argue, anyway let's leave that topic for another day.
2. It is fairer for teams. Now take the example of the Pakistani T20 team. They were dismal in 2016 (year of last WT20) and then went on a tear the next 2 years. What is there to show for their efforts? Next WT20 is in 2020 and if Pakistan have a decline that year, these 2-3 years of insane T20 domination will be forgotten by all. But with the new system their ruthless efficiency will be well rewarded in the form of a boost to their combined ranking. What they lack in tests/ODIs they can make up in their best format and challenge for the 3rd position which would entail a sizable financial package. Same with England in ODIs, afterall they have sacrificed their test success to become world beaters in this format and that deserves recognition even if they fail to win ICC WC or CT.
3. It helps all formats equally. Since tests will have maximum weightage, teams will strive to do their best there. Since ODIs/T20s have a more important role, teams will be forced to take bilaterals more seriously. You saw the teams Australia fielded in T20s this year, surely they would be forced to field better teams and strive to win rather than testing bench strength/long term planning. Better players means more interest, better crowds, better TV ratings. Fans will follow with more interest keeping in mind the big picture, there is scope for healthier sponsorship and better broadcast deals, more money means better for test cricket which is a loss making entity. If it is good for test cricket, it is good for the overall health of the sport because great cricketers are primarily produced in the long format. Also the concept of dead rubbers will be eliminated and every match will be a must win situation, more drama for everyone. What we lack right now is context and if we can bring in that element, it will be beneficial for all.
4. It is easier to understand for lay men or first time cricket watchers. Cricket is a very confusing sport for the non initiated because of multiple formats. Now the nature of the sport is such that we can't do away with some format, we can never become like tennis, football, hockey, basketball which are standardized in almost all aspects right from field/court/goal dimensions to rules, regulations, time etc. If I show a random Polish guy on the street snippets of all 3 formats played in 3 different countries and the variance in team/player's rankings he will be confused. Forget that, even a casual desi fan into IPL/PSL will fail to grasp the other formats. But if we get a unified system it might reduce the complexity. I know I am not being clear here but it seems to me that we need to dumb down aspects of cricket to appeal to the wider mass and a unified ranking system is an essential way to go towards that path. Now we can't standardize everything, a pitch in Mumbai and Perth can't and shouldn't converge in terms of behaviour but stuff like rankings can be an ideal place to start if we are serious about globalizing the game. If tennis starts introducing different rankings for clay, indoor, outdoor HC, grass, 3 setters, 5 setters, team events etc won't it be more confusing for a casual viewer who doesn't follow the sport throughout the year? I know this is an extreme example but my point remains.
5. It can stop the surge of T20 leagues. The cricket world order has changed drastically post the emergence of IPL. I am not being paranoid if I say that in 15 years time T20 leagues will occupy 6 months of the cricket calendar, that is the stark reality confronting us. The present arrangements can't withstand the force of this new beast. Already number of tests and ODIs are reducing (new FTP) and eventually people will get bored of international T20s. WCs are once in 4 years for a 6 week window, WT20s are again irregular and an even smaller window, marquee test series can't occupy a significant chunk of the calender. Eventually we may be left with WCs, WT20s, 3-4 test series plus whole lots of IPL, PSL, CPL, BPL, BBL etc. But if we can market cricket in a different way and have an annual Championship system taking into account all 3 formats maybe then the ensuing fan interest and economics can withstand the onslaught of T20 leagues for longer. This may be the only way to save the future of international matches.
?
.
