Lets play what India wants to play

If you've been following cricket closely for quite some time, you would have noticed that there has been a growing Indian influence on the game. The Steves, Michaels, Daves have been replaced with the Dalmiyas, Pawars, Modis etc. And that is precisely the reason why there is such a huge debate over the future of cricket in terms of what formats should stay and which ones should go.

Two Indian journalists write on a renowned cricket website that the recently-concluded ODI series between Australia and India attracted record audiences and TV ratings. All six matches were sold out, while TV ratings were several times higher than the two preceding ICC events (World Twenty20 and Champions Trophy).
Digging deeper into the article, we come across an interesting comparison. The average TRP (mesaure of TV ratings) for the 27 matches of ICC World Twenty20 was 2.11. The TRP for India's matches was considerably higher at 3.98. Then the Champions Trophy. India's matches fetched a TRP of 3.16 but the tournament had an average TRP of a mere 1.11. On the other hand, the six India vs Australia games accorded a record TRP of 5.52.

The formula is simple: If you want higher TV ratings, just play what India wants to play. And that is why we hear it too often that tournaments like Indian Premier League and Champions League have 'breathed new life' into the game of cricket. Of course Indian players do well in the IPL. Why wouldn't they? If they wouldn't, how would you ever come to know about Subramaniam Badrinath or Manpreet Gony? (You're excused if you still don't know them). Did Lalit Modi mention two IPLs every year from 2012? I say make it six a year. The more Indian players are in action, the more TV ratings you get. The more Badrinaths and Gonys you will see instead of the Michael Clarkes, Umar Guls, Shane Bonds etc. Who cares about the quality of cricket? What is more important is that golden number called TRP.

For a change, if you still want some international cricket, lets play that too. But hey, don't forget the rule: play what India wants to play. Why play World Twenty20 or Champions Trophy when India can't do well in it? World T20 - a tournament India's bitterest rival Pakistan ended up winning - is useless. After all, a 2.11 rating is nothing compared to 5.52. Champions Trophy - a tournament in which India were again agonizingly knocked out by none other than Pakistan - has a rating of 1.11. Even Star Plus soaps would attract a better rating! So what India's absence from the bulk of these tournaments affects TV ratings? The Indian theory is simple: We're billion-strong, and you can't do anything about it. So if you want international cricket, let India play what and where they can play well. Away tours should be done away with. ICC tournaments are unnecessary, do away with them too. And one day, trust me ONE DAY, cricket will surely match the TRPs of football matches! But for that you'll also have to do away with the unimportant, annoyingly close encounters between South Africa and England or Pakistan and New Zealand. Do that and see the magic.

Do the figures really mean Champions Trophy was a flop compared to India-Australia ODIs? A 5.52 TRP for India vs Australia. Five times as popular as Champions Trophy? Maybe yes. But hey, NO! Did you forget there are more Indians in this world than the rest of the major cricketing nations' population combined? My friend in Toronto doesn't know who Munaf Patel is. But he surely remembers Ricky Ponting lifting the trophy in Johannesburg. Or what about a 12-year old kid who paid £300 to watch the World T20 final at Lord's? He'll remember Shahid Afridi standing with his arms aloft in celebration of victory for a lifetime. Does he really know how a moment of madness from Ravindra Jadeja cost India the match? I don't think so.

But the bottom line remains - let's play what India wants to play!

The Champion-less Lalit Modi Show

The first edition of Champions League came to an end after 16 days of cricket - some polar mismatches while others producing nail-biting finishes. The tournament, with all its flavor and happenings, seems certain to stay. Despite the positives, the tournament fell short on two accounts. First, the overbearing presence of the mastermind of Champions League - Lalit Modi and, second, the absence of a Pakistani team.

First coming to Lalit Modi, or Mr. Lalit Modi should I say? As we saw in the Indian Premier League (IPL), the broadcasters seemed more like slaves of Lalit Modi than a media firm which has rightfully paid and brought the TV rights for an exorbitant amount. Constantly flashing Lalit Modi's face with a wide smile stamped on his face as if he's auditioning for a toothpaste advert left the viewers at home bitter, specially the audiences in England and West Indies where IPL was not followed as keenly due to the absence of their players for a major chunk of the tournament. And as if Lalit Modi's speech at the closing ceremony of IPL Season 2 wasn't embarrassing enough for the Indians (he was thanking his wife and children for supporting as if he had won an Oscar!), he made a mockery of himself once again - this time by being present at the post-match ceremony of the final and claiming that he wants to make Champions League even bigger than UEFA Champions League. Good joke Modi. Firstly, UEFA Champions League is football - the most followed sport of the world. Cricket enjoys only a fraction of its following. Secondly, UEFA runs Champions League as a system, not as a one-man show. You don't see Michael Platini unnecessarily on the screen, and he also does not make boastful and misplaced speeches at the ceremonies.

Another interesting observation about the tournament was the absence of a Pakistani team. A team which deserved to be a part of the Champions League more than anyone else was Sialkot Stallions. Out of the five domestic T20 competitions that have been held in Pakistan, Stallions have won every time except the first one. The decision to eliminate a Pakistani team was taken way back in January, much out of shortsightedness. Lalit Modi assumed, in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, that Pakistani players will not be allowed to travel to India by the Pakistani government. Mr. Modi, how did Yasir Arafat then travel with Sussex Sharks to India, and that too on a Pakistani passport? If one person can travel to India, so can 15 others. The financial greed surely reflected in Modi's statement when he said that that they cannot risk to invite a Pakistani team to such a high-profile tournament when their government might not allow them to travel at the last moment. Therefore, he took the safe option - eliminated Pakistan, inducted a third Indian team in Delhi Daredevils, and made the sponsors, broadcasters and home associations happier as all of them were sure to earn more revenues with the presence of a third Indian team.

So, was this really 'Champions League', with its tagline 'Only the Champions'? Not really. Even the runners-up were playing. In fact, even third-placed finishers were included. Home advantage, no? Was the tournament as successful as the Champions Trophy? I doubt. Audiences in England were least bothered. Moreover, its the media that plays an integral part in building the hype of a tournament. With stringent checks over media coverage requiring news agencies to pay high sums of money to cover the event, there was hardly any coverage by AFP or Reuters. Even Cricinfo has only one photo per match. The same happened with IPL. And the same happened with Champions League. Mr. Modi, perhaps you have something to think about now instead of preparing speeches!