On face value, it is very difficult to take the Champions League T20 seriously.
It is not, as its name suggests, a competition of winners. After all,
the second, third and fourth placed teams in a league of nine are
participating along with the runners-up of some tournaments and victors
of others.
Beyond the format, there are other oddities. The opening concert will be
headlined by a person who calls himself DJ Earworm, a mash up artist.
For those who don't know that does not involve potatoes but mixing of
sounds to form what the Billboard 100 charts say is very popular music.
What that has to do with cricket is as much as cheerleaders and
fireworks. So, in other words, a lot.
Let's not bemoan that cricket is not simply cricket anymore because it
has been taken over by side shows. We've known that for a while and
secretly a lot of us like it because it is, even if it is just a little,
fun. Who doesn't like a bit of dancing in between regular life? In the
middle of all the fun, we could forget about the real issues that
surround a tournament like this.
The imbalanced nature of the competition is its greatest flaw. With four
IPL teams, two South African franchises and two Australian gaining
automatic entry into the event, the rest are right to feel a little left
out. Of the remaining Full Member countries, two - Zimbabwe and
Bangladesh - were not even invited to qualify while the other five were
give two spots to fight over. Even those were not evenly handed out as
England were allowed two teams in qualifying while Pakistan, New Zealand
and Sri Lanka were only permitted one each.
The result is a main event that just does not seem fair. If the
marketing says the competition will be played between champions, why are
so many absent?
The answer lies where so many other answers do: in money. When a novel
concept like the CLT20 was mooted, its intentions must have been to play
a real league of champions. The boards of India, South Africa and
Australia quickly realised the only way they could make money out of it
would be if more Indian teams were involved to appeal to larger Indian audience, who the advertisers pay to target.
That economic law of supply and demand was enough to steer the course of
the entire tournament. Because more Indian teams need to be involved,
fewer other teams can participate to avoid the event becoming much
longer. Because South Africa and Australia are shareholders, they needed
to see some benefit other than having a stake in it, so they get two
teams. Because everyone else is not part of the administration of the
tournament, they get what's left over.
Surely then some concoction of a tournament name like the 'Ind-SA-Aus
T20 with invited guests' would be more appropriate and more honest. It
would settle the question about who really owns the competition, who
benefits from it and who dictates terms. It would be a private event and
no-one would have any right to complain about it.
Such a neat solution is not possible though, because the ICC endorses
the CLT20 in its current form. Why else would they permit a window for
it in every year on the FTP? No other multi-team tournament that is not a
World Cup (even the Champions Trophy is at an end) and certainly no
other domestic event has this right. The game's governing body has
rubber stamped the CLT20 and that would give it little reason to alter
its composition in future.
Perhaps ICC involvement could make a difference in future, if it assumes
some governing rights over the CLT20. Take UEFA's Champions League,
which the CLT20 is often compared with, as an example. First of all,
note that the top three leagues in Europe are allowed to enter four
teams into the event, while some of the other countries are not even
given a spot, so even the footballing equivalent is skewed.
The difference is that the system used in European Football is based on
rankings, not ownership of an event. UEFA use a footballing coefficient
to determine which leagues are placed where on the rankings system. The
coefficient takes into account how the clubs from each country have
performed in previous Champions Leagues, so those who have done better
in the past have more spots in the future.
A system like that would ensure that Trinidad and Tobago are rewarded
for reaching the 2009 final and could even see a team like the Sialkot
Stallions get some recognition for holding the world record for the most
consecutive wins in the 20-overs format. It would mean that money does
not control the entire organisation of the event, as it does now.
Even moving the tournament to South Africa was, to some extent, driven
by money. A Pakistan team could probably not have toured India with the
current tensions, and religious festivals across the country would have
made it difficult to host at certain venues. Instead, South Africa,
default hosts for everything from the African Nations' Cup that was due
to be held in Libya to a Champions Trophy once destined for Pakistan,
were asked to step in so money that would be made from this year's CLT20
is not lost.
CSA itself will not make much more money from the event. They will
receive the same shareholding as usual and will have to pay the hosting
fees to stadiums out of that cash. It could result in them getting less
money. Additional income will stem from hotel, airline and restaurant
revenue as a large number of people descend on the country for the
showpiece.
Make no mistake that it will be a showpiece. Despite the administrative
issues, the tournament remains a home to some of the world's best
players. Almost every big-name player, be it in the 20-overs format or
not, is participating. World T20 Man-of-the-Series Shane Watson will
turn out for Sydney, Sunil Narine and Kieron Pollard will play for their
respective IPL sides, exciting prospects like Chris Morris of the
Lions, Gary Ballance of Yorkshire and Shahbaz Nadeem of Delhi will be
able to make names for themselves.
But even on the playing side, there is an strangeness. The player whose
name is almost permanently aligned to a T20 competition, Chris Gayle, is
absent. Gayle has played in every 20-overs competition besides New
Zealand's and England's (he played for Worcestershire but not in the
shortest format). Remarkably, none of the teams he represented made it
to the main draw of the tournament.
Gayle was due to play for Uva Next in the SLPL but had to withdraw
because of injury, meaning even if they had got past the qualifiers, he
would not have been in their squad. His absence is so extraordinary that
Mahela Jayawardene, who will captain Delhi, was even able to crack a
joke about it. "Obviously Chris has set standards and he will be
missed," he said. "But he has to lift his game and try and bring one of
his teams to CLT20 next year."
Now that is something to take pretty seriously indeed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment