I found the article interesting. I will not comment on whether it is right or wrong. Here is my take:
- Cook's perspective was from the point of view of someone who never played in the IPL. And his game was also not designed for that. He was always available for the county season from day 1. At the same time, Kevin Pietersen's style of batting was aggressive, and he never minded playing unorthodox/attacking shots in longer formats, the one that we see in T20 cricket. DK was also in a similar mould and played his shots as and when needed. So from a learning perspective, both Cook and KP will always have disagreements.
- Now coming to the point about West Indian cricket. I think the decline is not just limited to the IPL. It is T20 cricket and the money attached to it. Mr Stanford & co. Their cricket board have always struggled with finances, and the players always felt underpaid. So they took the T20 route. At the same time, the quality of talent in their domestic first-class declined. There have not been any cricketers in their domestic set-up who average 40+ in first-class cricket. So even when Gayle, Bravo and others were there, the decline in West Indies cricket had already started. And it further grew because they started prioritising money over effort.
Yeah, and now the most talented West Indian batters barely play for the national side. Nicholas Pooran, for instance, has played five first-class matches.
And Darren Bravo's career ended prematurely. Pooran decided to go the freelancing way because of the demand at the franchise circuit. The best batting talent for them at the moment is Shai Hope, who has seen a resurgence in Test cricket in the last year or so. And there is not much talent coming up the ranks, especially the batters.
Yes, every cricket nation/board is prioritising franchise cricket/T20 cricket. Now New Zealand will be launching their next season. And the money factor makes it tough for some boards to restrict their cricketers from participating in the leagues. Then there are cases where boards allow their centrally contracted players to play elsewhere. For example, New Zealand recently played in the West Indies while their main batter, Rachin Ravindra and Lockie Ferguson were involved in the MLC.
I think the boards are looking to make money without worrying much about international cricket. At the same time, the ICC is becoming toothless day by day due to the T20 leagues crowding the cricket calendar.
I am afraid, the ETPL in Europe will lead to the players from Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland to prioritise T20 cricket over test and ODIs because they will get to earn more by playing less.
I think SA20 can survive. CPL,BBL, Hundred are still figuring it out. My biggest fear is not cricket losing to cricket but it is cricket losing to capitalism. The fear that players and boards will follow the money while the game is left behind.
Yes correct. And where ever Indian money is going, things are going to change, not sure in what direction. Whatever it is, the future of international cricket, despite multiple word events, looks bleak.
Interesting article. I dunno though guys I see it as very straightforward: if you want to play Test cricket for England, be available for the start of the red ball season in England. If you don't, that's fine and a personal choice - but you can't have it both ways. And how the ECB allow centrally contracted players to be unavailable for Test matches is beyond me.
The only end point is for a code split in English cricket between red and white ball players. I think the ECB should lean into that and manage a transition to two codes. That would allow for red ball cricket to regain the rightful place as the backbone of the English summer.
BTW I have no animus towards the IPL. It's fine, but the franchise/draft system seems to me to break much continuity of players from one season to the next; it gives the impression of musical chairs. The Hundred is the same really. I just don't get how anyone can develop an allegiance to a team where the players change so much- apart from Indian fans who support their local team, of course. So after all these years of the IPL - and indeed of the Hundred - I simply couldn't care less who wins the tournament because it doesn't have any real context outside of the season itself.
Most of the points raised in this piece make sense; I just have two points, not necessarily disagreement, but just points related to it.
One - Cook, in that original podcast, had said that he knows a lot of players do not enjoy IPL; they just do not want to say it, and IPL is not as good a tournament cricket-wise as it is claimed (in India).
Second, West Indies has been on a decline way before 2008, and Archer is not playing test cricket for West Indies not because of IPL or even Bethell to some extent. I listened to the BBC TMS podcast after his Sydney hundred, and his father had said that Bethell's grandfather would have been very unhappy that he chose England over West Indies, or, as it was in the 70s, that Glenn Turner preferred to play county over playing for NZ because he got paid more there. The argument here is that this problem has existed before IPL existed, whether it was county, or Packer's World Series, or rebel tours to South Africa.
Since this year's hullabaloo was related coincidentally to two players who chose to play for England rather than the West Indies at different ages, which is a professional choice a sportsperson makes, why criticise them when they are doing the same with IPL?
Clearly, for most players, the main attraction is the money. That is true for most sports people across most sports and nobody should really decry the likes of Archer and Bethell from making the most of their earning potential.
West Indies cricket has been in decline, really, since the mid-90s, when Australia dethroned them in the Caribbean. The issue with the IPL is that the West Indies struggles to field its best players consistently since 2008.
Gayle, for instance, dipped in and out of the international game in the second half of his career, while he made millions in IPL and IPL-affiliated tournaments.
Yes, I agree with this in principle, but I am not sure if Gayle is the right example. He must have missed matches because of the IPL, but which IPL affliliated tournaments we are speaking here? The oldest leagues are IPL, BBL, CPL and PSL. The rest of them have come in the 2020s when Gayle was in his 40s. We definitely know BBL and PSL are not IPL-affiliated; the first IPL team investment in CPL was in 2015, but CPL does not clash with West Indies tests. Unless you mean to say that because IPL started, that is why BBL, PSL, etc came so in a way IPL is responsiblle for them too. This is where the whole argument goes back to where your piece started: the sense in India is that English associate every bit of T20 cricket with India.
That’s fair but if one employer pays you, say, ten times less to work twice as much (and increase the risk of injury), would you accept that offer? Maybe for the prestige, but it’s certainly not straightforward.
It’s a credit to the likes of Alzarri Joseph that he still plays international cricket when he could have joined the T20 circuit ages ago. Andre Russell, as an example, chose to go in another direction and that’s fine. But franchise money, and IPL money in particular, has clearly distorted the market. And that distortion is particularly damaging to the likes of the West Indies.
That’s not a criticism of the IPL at all. It’s a money-making enterprise and that’s just the nature of a free market.
Yeah, I agree with this. IPL money has changed the face of cricket to an extent where it can never go back to how it was, and the worst affected is West Indies test cricket. West Indies cricketers are better paid because of it, but the format we love has taken the back seat. And that is how capitalism works. Ideally, I would have preferred international cricket as it was. Fundamentally, I agree with everything you are saying. And honestly, IPL deserves its criticisms; my base point is just about the theme of the article discussing a sense in India that IPL is hated by the English. In that regard, I would say what Cook said originally (that IPL does not have the quality of cricket and players don't want to say it) carried an undertone of it. I am sure a lot of English media does not really hate IPL, but they say extreme things because they believe it positions them better in the domestic market, which is also a trick of capitalism and populism.
Detailed and balanced article which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Yes the English criticism of IPL is somewhat justified in that a few of the English players miss the early season county games and a test or two BUT it’s a straightforward choice they make . Either :
Stay out of the IPL and make cursory county appearances ( if the ECB allows you to do so while on a Central contract ) and perhaps play the 1st test of the summer after getting a feel of red ball cricket . Loyalty to king and country .. and to the idiosyncratic ways of the ECB .
OR
Enjoy a great paycheck whether in the playing 11 or not with an Indian franchise , be treated well in most respects by your employers , rub shoulders with legends of the game and put aside a hefty amount of money for your immediate and post retirement needs ( including money for Tv commercials which would never be offered in England ) . Plus play your favourite game of golf in bright sunshine now and then !
Patriotism versus Purse is the basic choice here .
On balance, the IPL doesn’t have a particularly damaging impact on the English game. The players are well-paid and their T20 games clearly benefit from the experience.
The cases of Archer and Bethell are the exception rather than the norm. And while it impacts the quality of overseas players in the county championship, the structure is a bigger issue than the personnel.
I would be more worried about the influence of players getting smashed ( by booze , bouncers , Samoan rugby players ) than about players choosing to make good money at the expense of missing a match or two . Alastair Cook had a grouse about Archer / Bethel not being available ( on the podcast ) but no criticism for Brook making an idiot of himself on the eve of a match , Ducket out of his senses staggering around in Noosa or Stokes flouting his curfew . Such selective criticism irks me . And to think that after the Ashes I felt Cook would be the right guy to replace Key makes me realise how badly I misjudged him .
I found the article interesting. I will not comment on whether it is right or wrong. Here is my take:
- Cook's perspective was from the point of view of someone who never played in the IPL. And his game was also not designed for that. He was always available for the county season from day 1. At the same time, Kevin Pietersen's style of batting was aggressive, and he never minded playing unorthodox/attacking shots in longer formats, the one that we see in T20 cricket. DK was also in a similar mould and played his shots as and when needed. So from a learning perspective, both Cook and KP will always have disagreements.
- Now coming to the point about West Indian cricket. I think the decline is not just limited to the IPL. It is T20 cricket and the money attached to it. Mr Stanford & co. Their cricket board have always struggled with finances, and the players always felt underpaid. So they took the T20 route. At the same time, the quality of talent in their domestic first-class declined. There have not been any cricketers in their domestic set-up who average 40+ in first-class cricket. So even when Gayle, Bravo and others were there, the decline in West Indies cricket had already started. And it further grew because they started prioritising money over effort.
Yeah, and now the most talented West Indian batters barely play for the national side. Nicholas Pooran, for instance, has played five first-class matches.
And Darren Bravo's career ended prematurely. Pooran decided to go the freelancing way because of the demand at the franchise circuit. The best batting talent for them at the moment is Shai Hope, who has seen a resurgence in Test cricket in the last year or so. And there is not much talent coming up the ranks, especially the batters.
The problem is, because of franchise cricket, not all teams field their strongest sides. It devalues international cricket.
Yes, every cricket nation/board is prioritising franchise cricket/T20 cricket. Now New Zealand will be launching their next season. And the money factor makes it tough for some boards to restrict their cricketers from participating in the leagues. Then there are cases where boards allow their centrally contracted players to play elsewhere. For example, New Zealand recently played in the West Indies while their main batter, Rachin Ravindra and Lockie Ferguson were involved in the MLC.
I think the boards are looking to make money without worrying much about international cricket. At the same time, the ICC is becoming toothless day by day due to the T20 leagues crowding the cricket calendar.
I am afraid, the ETPL in Europe will lead to the players from Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland to prioritise T20 cricket over test and ODIs because they will get to earn more by playing less.
That’s true, but many of these leagues are unlikely to survive long term. Theres just not masses of money to be made from cricket outside of Asia.
I think SA20 can survive. CPL,BBL, Hundred are still figuring it out. My biggest fear is not cricket losing to cricket but it is cricket losing to capitalism. The fear that players and boards will follow the money while the game is left behind.
The issue is, the money is almost-all centered in India. Cricket just isn’t that big or profitable elsewhere to sustain some of the T20 salaries.
Yes correct. And where ever Indian money is going, things are going to change, not sure in what direction. Whatever it is, the future of international cricket, despite multiple word events, looks bleak.
Interesting article. I dunno though guys I see it as very straightforward: if you want to play Test cricket for England, be available for the start of the red ball season in England. If you don't, that's fine and a personal choice - but you can't have it both ways. And how the ECB allow centrally contracted players to be unavailable for Test matches is beyond me.
The only end point is for a code split in English cricket between red and white ball players. I think the ECB should lean into that and manage a transition to two codes. That would allow for red ball cricket to regain the rightful place as the backbone of the English summer.
BTW I have no animus towards the IPL. It's fine, but the franchise/draft system seems to me to break much continuity of players from one season to the next; it gives the impression of musical chairs. The Hundred is the same really. I just don't get how anyone can develop an allegiance to a team where the players change so much- apart from Indian fans who support their local team, of course. So after all these years of the IPL - and indeed of the Hundred - I simply couldn't care less who wins the tournament because it doesn't have any real context outside of the season itself.
The issue, really, is one for the ECB to solve. Either reach a sensible compromise or give players an ultimatum.
At the minute, the likes of Archer and Bethell enjoy the freedom of a freelance worker and the security of a full-time employee.
Most of the points raised in this piece make sense; I just have two points, not necessarily disagreement, but just points related to it.
One - Cook, in that original podcast, had said that he knows a lot of players do not enjoy IPL; they just do not want to say it, and IPL is not as good a tournament cricket-wise as it is claimed (in India).
Second, West Indies has been on a decline way before 2008, and Archer is not playing test cricket for West Indies not because of IPL or even Bethell to some extent. I listened to the BBC TMS podcast after his Sydney hundred, and his father had said that Bethell's grandfather would have been very unhappy that he chose England over West Indies, or, as it was in the 70s, that Glenn Turner preferred to play county over playing for NZ because he got paid more there. The argument here is that this problem has existed before IPL existed, whether it was county, or Packer's World Series, or rebel tours to South Africa.
Since this year's hullabaloo was related coincidentally to two players who chose to play for England rather than the West Indies at different ages, which is a professional choice a sportsperson makes, why criticise them when they are doing the same with IPL?
Clearly, for most players, the main attraction is the money. That is true for most sports people across most sports and nobody should really decry the likes of Archer and Bethell from making the most of their earning potential.
West Indies cricket has been in decline, really, since the mid-90s, when Australia dethroned them in the Caribbean. The issue with the IPL is that the West Indies struggles to field its best players consistently since 2008.
Gayle, for instance, dipped in and out of the international game in the second half of his career, while he made millions in IPL and IPL-affiliated tournaments.
Yes, I agree with this in principle, but I am not sure if Gayle is the right example. He must have missed matches because of the IPL, but which IPL affliliated tournaments we are speaking here? The oldest leagues are IPL, BBL, CPL and PSL. The rest of them have come in the 2020s when Gayle was in his 40s. We definitely know BBL and PSL are not IPL-affiliated; the first IPL team investment in CPL was in 2015, but CPL does not clash with West Indies tests. Unless you mean to say that because IPL started, that is why BBL, PSL, etc came so in a way IPL is responsiblle for them too. This is where the whole argument goes back to where your piece started: the sense in India is that English associate every bit of T20 cricket with India.
That’s fair but if one employer pays you, say, ten times less to work twice as much (and increase the risk of injury), would you accept that offer? Maybe for the prestige, but it’s certainly not straightforward.
It’s a credit to the likes of Alzarri Joseph that he still plays international cricket when he could have joined the T20 circuit ages ago. Andre Russell, as an example, chose to go in another direction and that’s fine. But franchise money, and IPL money in particular, has clearly distorted the market. And that distortion is particularly damaging to the likes of the West Indies.
That’s not a criticism of the IPL at all. It’s a money-making enterprise and that’s just the nature of a free market.
Yeah, I agree with this. IPL money has changed the face of cricket to an extent where it can never go back to how it was, and the worst affected is West Indies test cricket. West Indies cricketers are better paid because of it, but the format we love has taken the back seat. And that is how capitalism works. Ideally, I would have preferred international cricket as it was. Fundamentally, I agree with everything you are saying. And honestly, IPL deserves its criticisms; my base point is just about the theme of the article discussing a sense in India that IPL is hated by the English. In that regard, I would say what Cook said originally (that IPL does not have the quality of cricket and players don't want to say it) carried an undertone of it. I am sure a lot of English media does not really hate IPL, but they say extreme things because they believe it positions them better in the domestic market, which is also a trick of capitalism and populism.
Yeah, the media and fans often just look at things through an England-first lens.
Detailed and balanced article which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Yes the English criticism of IPL is somewhat justified in that a few of the English players miss the early season county games and a test or two BUT it’s a straightforward choice they make . Either :
Stay out of the IPL and make cursory county appearances ( if the ECB allows you to do so while on a Central contract ) and perhaps play the 1st test of the summer after getting a feel of red ball cricket . Loyalty to king and country .. and to the idiosyncratic ways of the ECB .
OR
Enjoy a great paycheck whether in the playing 11 or not with an Indian franchise , be treated well in most respects by your employers , rub shoulders with legends of the game and put aside a hefty amount of money for your immediate and post retirement needs ( including money for Tv commercials which would never be offered in England ) . Plus play your favourite game of golf in bright sunshine now and then !
Patriotism versus Purse is the basic choice here .
On balance, the IPL doesn’t have a particularly damaging impact on the English game. The players are well-paid and their T20 games clearly benefit from the experience.
The cases of Archer and Bethell are the exception rather than the norm. And while it impacts the quality of overseas players in the county championship, the structure is a bigger issue than the personnel.
I would be more worried about the influence of players getting smashed ( by booze , bouncers , Samoan rugby players ) than about players choosing to make good money at the expense of missing a match or two . Alastair Cook had a grouse about Archer / Bethel not being available ( on the podcast ) but no criticism for Brook making an idiot of himself on the eve of a match , Ducket out of his senses staggering around in Noosa or Stokes flouting his curfew . Such selective criticism irks me . And to think that after the Ashes I felt Cook would be the right guy to replace Key makes me realise how badly I misjudged him .
Cricket in England exists in a very small bubble, even though crowds are healthy. Archer missing games is an issue but certainly not the issue.