Champion stuff? Too little coffee, too much water

When the number of people in the dressing room is a significant ratio of the number of people in the stands, it cannot be good for the game. It means the spectators have passed their verdict. People do not pay money when there is no contest and that is why Ricky Ponting is so right to have castigated the event. If cricket seeks big money, then cricket must provide just returns. The week proved that cricket wants money but is hesitant to deliver value.

Ponting was right in saying as well that for a team to qualify for the big league it should be significantly better than those in the little league. If different teams qualify each time, it means there isn’t much to choose between them, that no team is striding ahead of the others. And he was right in questioning whether the exposure actually does any good to the teams that come and get whitewashed.

When Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe used to qualify from the little leagues for the World Cup they were far too good for the others and it showed in their performances. In 1996, we had UAE and Holland at the World Cup, in 1999 we had Scotland and in 2003, Canada, Namibia and Holland. They haven’t looked like being better teams as a result.

Even more alarming is the way Bangladesh is playing. At the Asia Cup they were pathetic and here at the Champion’s Trophy they have been no different from the other qualifiers and they must now ask hard questions of themselves. The ICC has been extraordinarily generous to them, they have played more cricket and received more money than any of the teams they have been traditionally clubbed with.

By contrast, Kenya has been the step-son and in spite of the exit of Maurice Odumbe puts out three players (Ravindu Shah, Steve Tikolo and Thomas Odoyo) better than anyone Bangladesh has. An auditor would have questioned the expenditure on Bangladesh.

And cricket lovers need to question the staging of this tournament in September as well. If the Champion’s Trophy was meant to be a show-piece event it should have been played at the best time in the English summer; in end July and early August.

But England chose to, and were allowed to, put their own schedule ahead of this tournament. In doing so they have been able to protect their own commercial arrangements and dilute those in which they have a smaller stake. That is why teams are having to play in cold and wet weather, making cricket look even gloomier than it is.

It will be sad if everyone decides to play a similar game — India could, for example, host the next edition in April in hot weather and on used pitches. If the Champion’s Trophy has to go the established nations, then they must be willing to make room for it.

Currently the World Cup is too long and the Champion’s Trophy is too long; a bit like expanding a half hour plot into a three hour movie; like using one spoon of coffee over eight mugs of water. The World Cup has a developmental role to play, the Champion’s Trophy doesn’t; if indeed it can still be called that. In the first week, it didn’t seem like it was an event only for champions.