First up, a disclaimer. I don't dislike the IPL. I have not really become a fan but neither do I completely ignore it. In theory, the idea of a cricketing league similar in structure (and maybe one day in popularity) to football leagues the world over is great. As a passionate follower of the game, I would be delighted if that came to fruition in the future but again as a passionate follower of the game, I find the IPL lacking in something. Maybe its the fact that the format is too heavily loaded in favour of the batsmen. Or that there are too many games and it becomes impossible to distinguish one game from another (heaven knows how Americans follow the MLB with 162 games per team!!). Or (and I'm being snobbish here) the fact that Dwayne Smith plays ahead of Ricky Ponting because he is a better slogger. But mostly I think its the fact that the quality is not consistently good enough. It would be simplistic I think to attribute that to the format alone. Yes, T20 games can be skittish but if that were the only reason why is it that the World T20 tournaments have produced many more memorable contests in far fewer games (or maybe that's one reason)?
Sample this stat from this year's edition. Of the nine teams playing, seven had nine or more players who played in five games or fewer (Chennai Super Kings and Sunrisers Hyderabad were the only exceptions with just five each). That's nearly a third of the squad who got to play in less than a third of the games. Not to mention the many players who didn't get a game at all. This clearly suggest that most teams struggled to find 11 players that were good enough to persist with for a bulk of the duration of the tournament. And its these weak links (if that's not being too harsh on the players in question) that reduce the overall quality. Much like India's premier four-day domestic tournament which suffers from too many teams and not enough players of the right standard, the IPL too demonstrates that the pool of local players of the right quality is not deep enough to sustain nine teams over two months. Maybe that will improve over time. But maybe it won't and there will only be more teams that dilute the contests further.
And then there's the whole conflicts and corruption issues. Personally, the former bothers me much more than the latter. Given the betting set-up in a country like India (as Ed Hawkins points out in this great piece), and the fact that athletes have a short time to earn their living, if you're a has-been (like Sreesanth) or not particularly talented (like Chandila), its easy to see how the temptation sets in. Fixing and corruption is a problem common to all team sports leagues around the world and will be as long as human beings are the ones participating. Conflict of interests on the other hand (like Srinivasan's multiple roles) should be easier to weed out structurally and to me its a lack of intent rather than inherent weaknesses that cause them. Or maybe the lack of intent is just another form of weakness or corruption. Siddhartha Vaidyanathan has a great article on his (excellent though not prolific enough) blog that covers these in much more detail and much more eloquently.
Its not all bad though. The IPL is a great platform for young players to demonstrate what they might be capable of and why they deserve more opportunities (as Harsha Bhogle describes in his usual from the heart manner here). Not only that, it also breaks down the barriers across international players and allows players like Chris Morris to learn from MS Dhoni and Mike Hussey. The fact that it has expanded the audience for the game (even if many of those new followers don't actually follow the other forms of the game), and led to the creation of some great new stadiums are also more than fringe benefits. And best of all, it has shifted market power from boards to the hands of the players which is the right balance.
Now if only I could get myself to actually watch a few games....
Sample this stat from this year's edition. Of the nine teams playing, seven had nine or more players who played in five games or fewer (Chennai Super Kings and Sunrisers Hyderabad were the only exceptions with just five each). That's nearly a third of the squad who got to play in less than a third of the games. Not to mention the many players who didn't get a game at all. This clearly suggest that most teams struggled to find 11 players that were good enough to persist with for a bulk of the duration of the tournament. And its these weak links (if that's not being too harsh on the players in question) that reduce the overall quality. Much like India's premier four-day domestic tournament which suffers from too many teams and not enough players of the right standard, the IPL too demonstrates that the pool of local players of the right quality is not deep enough to sustain nine teams over two months. Maybe that will improve over time. But maybe it won't and there will only be more teams that dilute the contests further.
And then there's the whole conflicts and corruption issues. Personally, the former bothers me much more than the latter. Given the betting set-up in a country like India (as Ed Hawkins points out in this great piece), and the fact that athletes have a short time to earn their living, if you're a has-been (like Sreesanth) or not particularly talented (like Chandila), its easy to see how the temptation sets in. Fixing and corruption is a problem common to all team sports leagues around the world and will be as long as human beings are the ones participating. Conflict of interests on the other hand (like Srinivasan's multiple roles) should be easier to weed out structurally and to me its a lack of intent rather than inherent weaknesses that cause them. Or maybe the lack of intent is just another form of weakness or corruption. Siddhartha Vaidyanathan has a great article on his (excellent though not prolific enough) blog that covers these in much more detail and much more eloquently.
Its not all bad though. The IPL is a great platform for young players to demonstrate what they might be capable of and why they deserve more opportunities (as Harsha Bhogle describes in his usual from the heart manner here). Not only that, it also breaks down the barriers across international players and allows players like Chris Morris to learn from MS Dhoni and Mike Hussey. The fact that it has expanded the audience for the game (even if many of those new followers don't actually follow the other forms of the game), and led to the creation of some great new stadiums are also more than fringe benefits. And best of all, it has shifted market power from boards to the hands of the players which is the right balance.
Now if only I could get myself to actually watch a few games....
Comments