Opinion What a difference the one-day made
The movement started again about three months ago,at first in a whisper here and a murmur there.
The movement started again about three months ago,at first in a whisper here and a murmur there. Then some of world crickets biggest names stared lending their voices to the cause,and soon the battle-lines were drawn as experts furiously debated the future of one-day cricket questioning the need for its existence,calling it boring,unpredictable and redundant in the sports postmodern age.
The naysayers and the defenders were still fighting when they reached the threshold of the Champions Trophy in South Africa. And,as the stalemate continued,the onus of taking a decision was placed on the feeble shoulders of a tournament that has had a tumultuous past since its inception 11 years ago.
No single cricket event must have ever faced as much pressure as this edition of the Champions Trophy in South Africa. With all eyes veered in its direction to spot the smallest suggestion of weakness and the tiniest indication of strength,the tournament is engaged in a raging battle both for and against the future of one-day cricket.
The Champions Trophy has been a doomed concept right from the start. The first edition in 1998 a brainchild of Jagmohan Dalmiya was held in Dhaka to bring Bangladesh into focus at a time when cricket administrators were desperate to accord them Test status. The pointlessness behind the tournament took a while to fully manifest itself but no doubts remained once India and Sri Lanka were declared joint winners after two farcical attempts at holding the final were,almost fittingly,quashed by equatorial rain in Colombo in 2002.
From there,the Champions Trophy drifted along aimlessly,first to England and then to India. The format was changed both times,more teams were accommodated to fulfill the demands of globalisation,and its final lasting memory was the Australian team peevishly shoving people off the victory dais at the Brabourne Stadium in Mumbai.
Now forced to take up a cause that is larger than itself,it is almost ironical that the Champions Trophy is being seen as vehicle for the resurrection of one-day cricket,while so far it has been a manifestation of one of the factors that pulled the 50-over game in the first place.
The one thing going for this edition,however,and consequently for ODIs as a whole at this flash point,is that the International Cricket Council has managed to get the format right (a relief,because the ICC doesnt get things right too often). Eight teams not 10,12 or 16 have been divided into well-balanced groups of four. Two snappy round-robins,the top two from each group making the semis,and a title clash 15 days after the opening night. Its not so short that the event seems meaningless,and not so long that we only remember the beginning and the end,like the 2007 World Cup that ran for 45 soporific days.
It is not one-day cricket itself,but its gross mismanagement too many bilateral matches,too many meaningless tri-series,and pitches that prompt teams to form a non-aggressive pact in the middle overs that has made us forget the format has a glorious side as well. Javed Miandads last-ball six,Anil Kumbles 6-12,Sachin Tendulkars 143,and Aravinda de Silvas match-winning century in the 1996 World Cup final,were all performances that could have true meaning only in this form of the game.
Tendulkar,though himself an advocate of change,showed with his innings of sheer mastery in Colombo last week that there was no reason why one-day cricket couldnt resuscitate itself. In a world that respects Test crickets premium on patience while celebrating T20s rebellious hitting,a format that combines both skill sets shouldnt ideally find itself out of place.
One-dayers need the right platform to be judged fairly,and the revamped Champions Trophy in South Africa may indeed be a beginning. But the end will be determined by what is done with ODIs all year round. And therein lies the problem.
kunal.pradhan@expressindia.com
Share
