Changing the goalposts

The ramifications of Bangladesh's win over England extends beyond the immediate euphoria and the Lions' exit from cricket's World Cup. Even as crystal ball gazing began as to the changes that may be brought to the game in time for the next chapter in England four years hence, another.

In 2007 the ICC fell backwards trying to come up with a format that guaranteed the 'heavyweights' passage to the next round. It would appear that they would have to repeat the exercise now. The big three that now has the dubious distinction of lording over what cricket will shape up to be, has a problem of their own to solve. Beyond the shenanigans that have brewed up idiotic changes to the format of the game lies the ever intrusive commercial considerations. The knives have been unsheathed and the guillotines sharpened for the inquest of English cricket-days after the English Cricket Board has revealed a new strategy to revamp domestic cricket.

It goes without question that no one will seek the relegation of England from top flight cricket even though they have never won the World Cup. It 'isn't cricket' to ask rude questions of the country which invented the game! And it is just that they haven't played well enough! For Associate Nations and lower ranked Test Playing nations -- it would have probably been 'off with their heads'.

One recalls the infamous changes to the game of hockey, designed to wrest winning control from India and Pakistan resulting in the game degenerating from the field to the AstroTurf, thereby causing the demise of the beautiful skills of stick work. Then came the tinkering with the Rules of the 50 over one-day game and now we see a probable return to the 40 over format. Strange, considering that the sub-continent was forced to move away from 40 overs, the west from 60 overs.

The glorious uncertainty provided by turning wickets gave way to flatter, harder tracks to help the western inclined countries and now we have the ridiculous situation where 300+ scores are a dime and dozen. It not only makes the game boring and predictable but completely negates the beauty of a fast bowler on song. Yes, there are the exceptions of exceptional performances; too far in. The tragedy will of course be the colonialisation of the very game that was to be made global. The excuses of the lop-sided competitiveness ignored the lack of privileges and facilities for the aspirants and as has been evident in this edition of the competition, reveals simply that the big boys are now scared, mortifyingly so. England have failed to beat a single test playing nation. South Africa, touted as one of the favourites have lost to the to sub-continental teams and the only prediction to come true has been the form of Australia and New Zealand. The local conditions and small grounds have been exploited to the full on both sides of the Tasman.

Probably the biggest puzzle that remains is figuring out how to match the double improvisation required; in terms of the game and in terms of a spectator friendly sport. Every sport has a skill set that inspires enthusiasm and cricket has its own. Whether the mysterious timing of banning some of the most talented bowlers on display has had an impact is another factor to be considered. Is it by chance that these bowlers are all from outside the Big Three?  Maybe time has come to re-examine whether the game should continue with all of its tradition and aristocratic trappings or evolve as a new sport together. The renaming of the game may well be a good point to start from.

     mahmudrahman@gmail.com