There is currently some debate going on in the public arena in regards to the relevance of 50 overs a side cricket. In my view, the purest forms of cricket are 50-50 and Test cricket, the genuine gentleman's game.
I did watch the IPL and the ICL on televison and kept in touch through the wonders of the internet. My honest opinion is that there is a lot of money flowing around in international cricket (and the BCCI for that matter) right now. The administrators have got some screws loose in their heads, because there is simply too much cricket going on. There is no need for extravaganza of any sort, be it IPL or ICL. It is sad for a traditionalist like myself to see a great game like cricket being diluted to 20-20 "hit and giggle" cricket. Cricket does not need to be Americanised, with the skimpy cheerleaders after every boundary and the shortened number of over per side. There was even talk of Bangladesh playing "night-time" Tests against England with a pink ball. Unbelievable I think! Just keep cricket the way it is and don't change it - that is my view. Are you listening David Morgan, Sharad Pawar and your board members?
I know most people who are modern in their thinking would have a different viewpoint to me. Most people these days are looking for novelties and 20-20 cricket appeals to them. This is basically a bold gimmick to capture the unconquered North American and European markets. There will be issues emerging in the future (and there have been a few instances recently) where players have to decide what comes first - National team duties or Club allegiances? With million dollar contracts, playing for your country of origin will diminish and people will just be in it for the money. Already people have been questioning themself along the lines of "why should I play for my local club & country if I can earn $5 million in 3 years playing in the IPL".
In this context, going back to the main point of this post, is the fact that a rivetting 7-ODI series is being played between India and Australia. Australia looked like thrashing India in the !st ODI, but India came back strongly (the tail wagged) and Harbajan "The Turbanator" Singh (with 49) and Praveen "Precision" Kumar (with 40) threatened to win the game for India. It was some feisty batting from the two - Harbajan irritating the Aussies, yet again, with his mighty effort! If only Ashish Nehra had given the strike to Praveen Kumar and Kumar had gone for it...
Anyways, the 'Boys in Blue' (Team India) came back very strongly and posted a more than competitive score (7-354) with Mahendra Singh Dhoni (124 off 107), Gautam Gambhir (76 off 80) and Suresh Raina (62 off 50). They followed this with an inspired fielding display (an Achilles heel for Indian teams in the past) and took wickets at regular intervals, highlighted by the fact that Mike Hussey was the top scorer in the Aussie innings with 53 off 60 balls.
The moral of the story: 50 overs cricket is alive and kicking! To the doubters, I say that this mega-series between India and Australia will prove to be the reason of kickstarting the stumbling car engine (which is the common perception) of 50 overs cricket worldwide. It's competitive, thrilling and down to the wire. You can't ask for anything better than it!
It will be an intriguing series to follow. I would be a bit suprised if the doubters are still loudly exclaiming the virtues of 20-20 cricket after the current series is completed.
Do I need more any more evidence to get the message through to you?
