Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Fast and Furious...

...two adjectives that would aptly describe the recently concluded 20/20 Cricket World Cup. Some might say "too fast, too furious", but I think the speed was just about right. This was the best cricket tournament since '99 World Cup - the last such one where at least 2 other teams (SA & Pak) were as good as the Aussies before the men in gold and green surged ahead to leave the rest of the world languishing in doldrums.

It is a common business transformation strategy to change a company's focus from its products and revenue to its consumers and many leading companies have turned around losing businesses by successfully implementing it. Cricket over the last 10 years had become a game run by lawyers/politicians for lawyers/politicians with focus on its product (ODIs) and revenue (broadcasting revenue). Along the way the needs and pulse of the consumer was forgotten. While on the verge of alienating the fans from the game, serendipitously or not, the ICC has just implemented one such successful transformation.

Despite numerous experts questioning the purity of the concept (Articles 1, 2 & 3), I am convinced that the game has received the perfect dose of caffeine to keep it going. While it definitely doesn't tamper with the purity and position of the more pristine form of the game that is test cricket, it certainly marks the beginning of the end of the 50 over game and nothing highlighted that more than the contrasting nature of the two world cups staged over the last 6 months - one whose winner was obvious 4 years before it started and the other whose winner was unknown until the last 4 balls were bowled!

While the purists correctly argue that test cricket is the true test of skills, truly close contests of the highest quality are too far and few in between to attract anyone but purists to the game. Over the last 10 years there have been only 2 mindblowing test series (Aus vs. India 2001 & Aus vs. Eng 2005) to satisfy the non-purist. Steve Waugh and his fearless Aussies revolutionized the game by scoring at an unheard of rate of 4 an over in tests, but few other teams could consistently match them to make things interesting. Arguably, the shorter version levels the field for a more even contest where ephemeral brilliance rather than sustained genius is sufficient to win games. But in doing so, it has unearthed the the key to closer contests and tighter finishes that has become a rarity in the game. Also, the average cricket fan does not have 5 days to watch the game in stadiums and appreciate the purity of the game. He prefers the luxury of Cricinfo to give him the executive summary. 20/20 has truly brought the fan back to the grounds.

And finally, to critics who site that the version may not produce a Sachin or a Lara, the counter argument is that Sachins and Laras are supreme talents that will show up and shine irrespective of the format of the game. It might be worthwhile to remember that SRT first announced his talent to the cricket world by taking the life out of Abdul Qadir (described by none other than Viv Richards as the toughest bowler he had faced) in an exhibition match in Pakistan before he went on to greater deeds and bigger stages. Hence the argument is moot.

Twenty Twenty is victory for the cricket consumer and hence I rest my case!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good article and original thoughts on the game.

Anonymous said...

I like the reference to business transformation.

Maverick said...

T20 is just baseballisation of cricket cutting out the slack in the middle overs of the odi's (which is by the way the financial driver of the game) might make it more smaller thus more entertaining but that doesn't necessarily make it better.

Naga said...

Kaushik,

The scope of my article was not to necessarily say that T20 is better or worse than other forms. My argument is that it is the best way to bring fans back to the game after the monotone of ODIs.

catcharun said...

do u really think they started T20 to ensure consumer satisfaction? T20 is designed to be the money cow for cricket. not sure if u've read the IPL business plan yet..its an absolute copy of the U.S system. that it naturally lends itself to more crowds in stadia is merely a side effect. the main revenue is still going to be from ad revenue and tv rights. bcci is going to become richer than buffet before he donated his billions.

however i hope they dont get too greedy and price tickets out of the reach of common folks..u can still get a bleacher seat at wrigley for $12.00 ( not in the following weeks maybe).

Naga said...

Catch,

I haven't said that the ICC started 20/20 consciously to bring back the consumer. "Serendipitously or not, the ICC has managed to do so" is my observation.

The ICL/IPL creation is purely driven by money, no doubt.

Maverick said...

If you had noticed the kind of new audience this has attracted in SA,NZ and England u would have noticed the people who are flocking to T20 seem to less about cricket than about beer. Do we need this new audience ? Asia is the financial powerhouse everyone realises that ODI's are still popular there then why have a shorter cruder format just because 3 countries seem to get more money out of it. You are killing the golden goose.

Naga said...

Of course we need that audience. Cricket should be more about going to the field and having fun rather than the suit clad bureaucrats in England bringing their palms together for a measured applause like in England.