Andrew Strauss is all smiles, but he’ll never play in the ICC test championship now
We knew it was coming, but it doesn’t make it any easier to swallow. The ICC today confirmed that the inaugural test championship will no longer be held in 2013. It has been postponed until at least 2017 – a whopping six years away – which means that the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, and even Kevin Pietersen, will never grace what purists hope will become the leading event on the international calendar.
The ICC are supposed to be the custodians of our game. However, Haroon Lorgat, the ICC’s chief executive, explained that due to ‘the reality of the commitments we have already got through to 2015’, the staging of the test championship is ‘no longer possible’. What on earth does that mean? Surely the sanctity of test cricket is an ongoing commitment too?
The message English cricket fans will take it this: The ICC have got a lot of commitments, but the one they’re going to shelve is the most important of them all … yes, it’s ridiculous logic, and yes, it does make the ICC seem a bit useless, but what do you expect – they are a bit useless’.
Maybe that’s a bit harsh – the ICC don’t have a totally free hand in these matters – but that’s what thousands of cricket fans will feel. It’s just so exasperating. If you read the small print, the reason why the test championship can’t go ahead is because the ICC’s broadcaster, ESPN Star Sports, rejected the ICC’s plan to cancel the tedious and irrelevant Champions Trophy in order to make room for the test showpiece – and without the financial backing of the primary broadcaster, all bets are off.
Test cricket is therefore dying, and the plan to resuscitate it has been cancelled, because suited stooges in a distant office (people who seem to care more about advertising revenue than the health of a best sport in the world) believe it’s less of a risk to broadcast a turgid ODI event than a fresh and invigorating concept that could revolutionise and revitalise international cricket.
Let’s just get this into perspective for a moment. The ICC Champions Trophy is the fourth or fifth most important limited overs competition in the world after the World Cup, the T20 World Cup, the IPL, and maybe even the T20 Champions League. The Test Championship was supposed to be the pinnacle of the entire sport – but because it’s new, and because audiences in Asia show a preference for the irrelevant treadmill of one day cricket, the TV executives have decided that the 2013 Champions Trophy must stay. How on earth did it come to this?
I’m afraid we don’t have inside knowledge of broadcasting negotiations in Asia, but surely the obvious point is this: by backing the Champions Trophy and risking the long term vitality of test cricket, it’s debatable whether ESPN STAR Sports has the best interests of the game at heart; and if this is the case, are they fit to be the ICC’s broadcast partner? Is there really nobody else that can step into the breach?
As for the ICC, they should ask themselves this: ‘what is the point of the International Cricket Council? What is its mission statement and long term goal? One would have thought it would be the preservation of cricket’s traditions and the primacy of what purists consider to be the pinnacle of the sport – test cricket.
It’s all very well blaming commercial considerations – everyone understands these are important – but the bottom line is this: by allowing the test championship to be postponed, the ICC are failing to meet their primary responsibility. Is there really such a vacuum of ideas that nothing whatsoever can be done?
James Morgan
The Test Championship is “what purists hope will become the leading event on the international calendar.”?
I thought purists are those who want test series to be at least 4 games long, and that the idea of a single match between sides goes against everything a purist think of. The beauty of Test cricket is that each side is given sufficiently enough time to bring their game on, either on the batting or the bowling side, with two innings each side, and following that, another 3 or even 4 matches to make sure there’s no coincidence, no slippage, and the best side is the one who won.
How is that fit with the concept of a 3 match tournament where two teams play one and two others play 2 matches, assuming no draws?
It is all compromise. A World Cup of Test Cricket would be the utopian solution, but it would go on for too long. Whatever people think of the format for the proposed Test Championship, there is surely a need for test cricket to have a showpiece – to generate interest and to provide a focal point for the international test calendar. Test cricket needs to build up to something tangible … England and Australia have the Ashes, but what about the rest of the world? Furthermore, even the Ashes would lose their appeal somewhat if neither of the participants was world no1.
We agree that a 4 (preferably 5) match test series is the ideal way to determine who is the better side, but a test championship final would create so much drama that it’s bound to create interest in test cricket – which is the whole point. The winners of the ODI World Cup are not necessarily the best team – they’re simply the best team on the day, out of two finalists, and the form team of the moment. One another day, at a different venue, Sri Lanka may have beaten India … who knows. It is the same with any competition in the world, whatever the sport. However, the showpiece is always a special occasion, and this overides, to some extent, the weakness of the format.
The other extreme, of course, is that we all go the way of baseball, which plays out a World Series Final in which the two participants play each other 420 thousands times or something ridiculous ;-)
Your first mistake is in your conception of the ICC. They are not a global sports body like FIFA or the IRB, nor a sports organiser like the NBA or EPL. The administrative arm of the ICC has no vote on the executive, and very little money (most ICC money is funnelled to full members). Lorgat is effectively a spokesperson, whose main job is to try and rationalise whatever daft and inconsistent decision emerges from the executive.
Which is why you need to understand the executive. It has 13 members, three associate representatives and one from each of the full members. Those representatives will vote for what is in their own interest, not the game as a whole, but the game in their country.
The proposed test championship was a dud idea, both because of what Erez argued, and because it offered nothing to its members. It’s aim was to contextualize cricket in the FTP, but anyone can see that only (at best) 5 or 6 of those members had any chance of qualifying for the finals, and realistically it was almost certainly going to be the big-4. The bulk of the members are being asked to forgo $3m for nothing. Even in its aim it was daft, as the finals would involve the 4 teams that don’t actually need any context or interest in their series.
If test cricket is dying, and that is debatable, it is because the big-4 are marginalising, via the FTP, the other teams: the financially weak test nations and obviously the associates who’d love to play test cricket and can’t. Entirely the fault of the ECB, CA and BCCI, not the ICC.
As for what can be done, start by submitting to the ICC governance review, arguing for why the ICC administration needs to be in control of the sport. Secondly, please read my manifesto for extended thoughts on how a world test championship that incorporates proper series, all nations (including the associates), and a proper context can be constructed, without reducing marquee bilateral series (such as the Ashes). The FTP would need radical reform, but the FTP is no more than an agreement that the big nations will tour small ones to fill their coffers. There are better ways to achieve that.
Thank you, Russ, for your very interesting and well-argued points. The importance of the executive is obviously critical, and it’s an inarguable fact that the likes of Bangladesh or Zimbabwe have no incentive whatsoever to back a test championship at the expense of their participation in an ODI tournament.
But the ICC are more than just an umbrella body – they organise the world cups – and surely they have the responsibility to facilitate progress, rather than simply letting ESPN call the shots.
I don’t think anyone is blaming haroon lorgat specifically. He’s doing his best. We all know the individual icc members are self interested, but the fact remains that the icc – whatever / whoever it consists of – is collectively not doing enough (for whatever reason). The format for the test championship wasn’t ideal (the toss in one off games could be vital) but it was a step in the right direction. As for the smaller nations, they should buy into the idea as it gives them something to aspire to. At the end of the day the icc is failing. When it comes to looking after the interests of test cricket it isnt doing its job. Yes there are good reasons for this … But why doesn’t the icc reform itself so it isn’t as impotent as it currently is. Isn’t that the whole point? By the way russ, it seems a tad illogical to blame the Ecb etc for the demise of test crickets. The MCC and England in particular are great promoters of the game & are trialling new innovations like pink balls. They’re even promoting the idea of day night tests
Bill, the MCC are a very stout defender of test cricket, and a source of ideas that occasionally come to fruition, but the MCC hasn’t been the ECB for 43 years (do try and keep up). A short list of recent ECB initiatives includes rejecting the original proposal for a test league because it involved revenue sharing, organising to play Australia three times in three years instead of lesser nations, consistently opposing additional test nations, consistently putting out an XI for minor fixtures that isn’t their best side and restructuring the FTP so smaller nations only get to tour England every 10 years instead of 5. All fabulous ways of supporting test cricket outside the major 4 nations.
As for why the ICC doesn’t reform itself. That means asking the full member executive to devolve power to the administrative arm. It should happen, but there are a lot of political reasons why it won’t. Not least, the major teams like being able to schedule lucrative if pointless tours without ICC interference.
James, that is a philosophical and governance issue, one currently under review by the ICC and one you should submit your thoughts on. You are quite right that the ICC ought to facilitate progress, but their ability to do so is compromised by the full members on the executive voting in their own interest. The ICC only organise events that the executive allows them to organise (primarily associate/affiliate contests, which, by and large are quite well run). Similarly, ESPN don’t organise anything, they merely bid for what is offered, and their bid for the test championship was obviously less than the existing contract for the champion’s trophy. Ultimately, the people who put forward events to the ICC need to come up with ideas that are acceptable to the committee, and that means more than just the top 4 or 5 teams. From my personal perspective, a test championship/FTP that doesn’t provide value to all its members and allow test cricket to continue to expand to all members as cricket expands is seriously flawed.
But Russ, we’re only talking about a couple of matches here. It’s hardly like the smaller nations are going to miss out big time. The Test Championship isn’t going to be a closed shop where the rich get richer etc (like the football Champions League) it’s just a cup final type thing that happens every so often. Surely there must be room for it on the international calendar somewhere – even alongside the Champions Trophy.
As for ESPN STAR Sports, cricinfo was suggesting that they didn’t make any bid for the test championships. They simply had a deal in place to broadcast the champions trophy, and refused to budge when the ICC suggested they scrap the event and show the test showpiece instead. They are therefore, according to the information we have, the main roadblock in the process.
Most contracts have get-out clauses if goods aren’t delivered. Earlier reports indicated that would cost $3m per member, and that is a hefty price for a small nation to bear (about 10% of their annual income), with nothing to gain in return. I think you are wrong, the Champions League is vastly ore inclusive than the test championship, and is in all ways a meritocracy. The main reason to introduce a test championship is to add context for smaller nations – the marquee series don’t need anything extra. If it fails to achieve that purpose it isn’t worth having.