Cricket needs to change – or die in denial

There are many things wrong with cricket as a spectator sport, in all versions of the game. For example, take Test cricket. The game is a five-day affair; often, incredibly, the game is played over five weekdays, certainly not the most consumer-friendly. To make matters worse, Test matches stop for a drinks break, then for lunch, then for another drinks break, then for tea, then for another drinks break — every day. If it rains, the ‘covers’ come on and the players troop into the comfort of the pavilion and the spectators, especially those in the uncovered stands (and there are many such across the best grounds in the world) and without protective wear, get drenched while play is suspended. Play can be stopped, even if artificial lights are available on the ground, if the two teams have not agreed to their use and the umpires feel the light is not good enough for play, even if it’s 11 in the morning. [caption id=“attachment_466073” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Matches in all three formats can be washed out, rain-curtailed and end in a tie. AP[/caption] After suffering all this, the spectator is not even sure of being witness to a result; the match may, after five days, end up as a boring, insipid, lifeless draw. There are no reserve days for time lost to rain or to bad light. One day cricket is a little better. As the name suggests, the games take up just one day. The matches have two drinks breaks, a break for a meal, and two more drinks breaks. Rain can interrupt a match, as it can in the five-day version. Like in the five-day version, the match can be rained out, if rain prevents at least 20 overs for the team batting first and 15 overs for the team batting second. In the Twenty 20 version of the game, it’s worse. In a rain curtailed match, the team batting second needs to bat for a minimum of 5 overs. Matches in all three formats can be washed out, rain-curtailed and end in a tie. Paying spectators (and brands who have bought, for example, signage on the grounds) have to fork out the entire amount even if play is called off after a single ball is bowled. In the 1992 World, for example, in a rain-affected match, a new rain rule meant South Africa found themselves needing to score 21 runs off one ball to win. A few minutes (and some brief showers) earlier, the South Africans had needed 22 runs from 13 balls — an eminently gettable ask. So here we are, in the second decade of the 2000s, with a game that may or not be decided by full play (in the longest version), a game that can get curtailed or cancelled by rain or bad light (in all versions of the game), a game that takes breaks for players to have meals(!!!), a game that could get decided by some mathematical calculations which will have Ramanujam in a tizzy. And this game competes with other popular sports that adhere to time, which take into account weather changes (yesterday’s F1 race was curtailed as the time allotted — two hours — had run out. That’s concern for viewers — in the stands and in front of their TVs at home. And, at the end of the race, you have winners and losers). And last week, in the T20 World Cup, two major matches get decided by the awful Duckworth-Lewis system, with the West Indies putting up a fine total against Australia before losing out to them. The World Cup. And those controlling cricket are wondering why the stadia are empty and the viewership ratings going down? What world are they living in? Change the game and the attitude towards those who make sports successful — the fans. Continue to ignore the fans and watch them disappear.