Beijing 2008: Irfan bowling to Afridi?

Cricket must not accept its condemnation as a game that appeals only to those raised within the old British Empire. Rather the game must argue its case with determination. Plenty of sports have been accepted whose range is much smaller. Nor does the fact that it has not previously been considered the sort of sport appropriate for an athletic meeting affect its prospects. Soccer and tennis have been accepted (and cricket was played in 1900, albeit between two countries, France and Britain).

Not without reason, many observers preferred the Olympics when athletics, swimming and various martial arts dominated proceedings, sports for which reaching the games and winning a medal was the highest aspiration.

Somehow it seemed inappropriate that Roger Federer would win an Olympic Gold medal. After all the focus of his career has been elsewhere. Tennis players grow up dreaming of winning Wimbledon, not standing on the podium at an Olympics. Soccer players think about World Cups and seem out of place amongst traditional Olympians. Baseball players surely regard the Olympics as a bit of fun after a long campaign, a reward for achievement as opposed to an end in itself. None of the activities belong at Olympic Games but that ship sailed long ago and it is not coming back to port.

Since the Olympics has grown as fat as Billy Bunter it is up to cricket to show that it deserves a piece of the pie. Objections could be made in the past that it had too small a following and takes up too much space and time. But India is a vast country and is becoming an economic power. Why should not its main game become an Olympic sport? Naturally leaders will be concentrating on more important matters but when the chance arises they could challenge the Americanised assumptions upon which the modern Olympics has been founded. Cricket could benefit from their support .

Nor does the idea that cricket is too painstaking a game for an Olympics any longer hold water. To the contrary, it is a faster moving game these days, and need take no longer than baseball. In the past cricket has been as solemn and time-consuming as a performance of Mr Wagner’s Ring but nowadays it can move along at the sort of crack that appeals to a younger generation raised upon lighter fare.

Although the attractions of 20-over matches have not yet reached these shores they have been tried in England and South Africa and the reaction has been astonishing. Crowds have flocked to the grounds to watch the evening games and have enjoyed the dash of the cricket, the pleasures of the twilight and the wider entertainments provided to retain the interest of those whose thoughts are inclined to stray whenever a defensive shot is played.

Grounds have been filled by those seeking an enjoyable night out in the company of friends and with the possibility arising of a few laughs along the way, and some lively sport as well. Twenty-over cricket has worked better than its staunchest supporters dared to hope.

Accordingly, the time is ripe for cricket to press the case for the inclusion of 20-over cricket in the next Olympics. Several matches can be played on a single day so time is not a problem. A substantial television audience could be expected to follow the matches. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka might even win a medal, a situation likely to stir interest in the games across the subcontinent. Imagine Tendulkar, Sangakkara and Inzamam carrying the fags of their country at the opening ceremony!. Are they not deserving of the tribute?

Must the current situation be accepted merely because it appeals to the Americans and Europeans? Either the Olympics returns to its basics or it accepts cricket within its fold. But cricket cannot wait for officials to bestow their largesse. Rather it must roll up its sleeves and fight. Fortune never won a fair maid, nor yet a place at the biggest sporting event of them all.