An Old mind trapped in a young head ponders the IPL

Abstract: IPL - load of gimmick based rubbish or not? I ponder the question, decide yes and put forward the theory no-one outside India will actually care about the games. (- There you go Tim)

First up I have to confess that this post is slightly off track for me, being as it doesn't directly relate to The Bears. However being as every other journo and bar-propping theorist is espousing views on the Indian Premier League and the future of cricket I thought it would be remiss of me not to take up the baton myself.

Firstly I want to pose the rhetorical question; "How can the only one of something be the "premier"? Surely there needs to be at least one other lesser league in order that the top one can benefit from any denomination at all. Expect to see the ICC cotton onto this marketing wheeze for the "Premier World Cup of Cricket".

Leaving aside grammatical pedantry for a minute (hard as it is for me), I have some other things that are thoroughly confusing me about this new cricketing phenomena.

The first is the players themselves. It appears that each franchise can 'hold registrations' for up to 8 international players, playing up to 4 of them at any one time. Some of these 'internationals' are current members of the Indian national side, which further confuses me. The thing I really can't get my head around is that currently each franchise has bid for the services of their internationals for a period of three years, presumably having already "bought" them they are committed to paying their wages regardless of injury/loss of form etc. So there doesn't seem to be any scope for introducing new players over the next three years, short of paying off players and sacking them. This seems to be a bizarre oversight on the part of the organisers and I have been searching in vain for something in the rules summarises on the internet to explain it.

I am not going to touch on the player valuations in the auction, because I believe the franchises are trying to make back money first and foremost, and with this in mind have, I believe, thought along football lines and bought, or at least paid for some players on the strength of merchandising sales.

I have been quite interested to read all the articles in the press about how this is a day that changed cricket and to a certain extent I can see what they mean, however a lot of the logic in the pieces talking about the demise of the international game just doesn't stack up. For example:

The week that changed cricket forever

Firstly I feel comparisons with Kerry Packers World Series and with the English football premier league are largely erroneous. The format seems to have a lot more in common with American sports, particularly American Football. World Series Cricket, whatever your feelings on it, was largely based on a moral and financial debate around TV rights, Packer had a clear agenda and that was that by hook or crook he would have international cricket on his TV station. Although he wanted it in order to make money, he had a clear objective.

The English Premier League in contrast is built upon years of tradition, particularly within its participant "franchises". One of the reasons it succeeds overseas is because there are many long-term fans who associate with the teams in question and their history. It is also in a format which grows and develops over 3/4 of the year, feeding people's interest in the developing drama. It is also relatively simple to understand and a single game can, and often does, turn in the space of a few minutes (or seconds).

American Football conversely is harder to understand for the casual observer, is over a much shorter season and is played in few countries, and historically, despite sustained marketing has never successfully caught on outside of its traditional catchment.

Fundamentally I don't feel that this format and idea has the legs to kill off the international game. And I am not convinced it will even catch on with spectators outside of India. The games are scheduled for 9.30 and 14.30 GMT, which is not going to get English or African fans watching, this is late evening and the middle of the night conversely in Australia, which is also unhelpful for them. It is therefore unlikely to gain much live watching interest outside of India, Pakistan and the UAE.

I think if anything what the IPL could spell is the end for is 50-over cricket in general. I believe if India (by this I mean the BCCI and the public) grow lukewarm on the 50 over format we could well see a switch to a couple of 50 over games (if any) on all tours and a full 20-20 series. Over the past few years I would say India and Australia have been the strongest advocates of the 50 over game, Australia have already scrapped the traditional CB Series 50-over-fest, in favour of shorter bilateral OD series and if India shift their support to 20-20 it could see a different "limited overs" game being played primarily. The seeds of popularity having been sown with India's triumph in the 20-20 World Cup (In a similar way that their triumph in a 1970's 60 over version sparked interest in the format at home). This might also (if we're lucky) kill off the woeful Pro40 league on the county circuit.

International cricket may well have to adapt and introduce a window for this tournament to prevent any conflicts, but I just can't see a mass exodus of top international talent to it.

I see the future of this tournament as shoddy cricket being played purely for money making and marketing reasons. Unless they can double, or even treble the number of franchises and matches I can't see it replacing, or even overtaking international cricket. It feels to me a lot more like ITV Digital and the football league than BSkyB and the Premiership.