The world is flat

Thomas Friedman’s widely read book of the same name caused quite a stir, with its summary of a new world order, and witty comments about the effects of globalization (widely quoted was the American parent who tells his child to take his homework seriously, or kids in India and China would take his job). In the world of cricket, a similar stir is being caused due to the incredible advent of T20.

The global cricketing community has always been small (though not always tight knit), and most attempts to expand the sport to new countries have failed. The duration of the game, the perceived complexities, and the lack of pace compared to other sports are often cited as reasons. All of these have had a hand, but another primary reason in my humble opinion, for why cricket probably hasn’t been able to match other sports in global popularity, is a lack of great sustained rivalries.

Every sport conjures up in people’s mind one contest that signifies the epitome of the game. Think boxing, and you have Ali- Frazier. Think soccer and you have Man Utd – Liverpool or Real-Barca. Think tennis and you have Borg-McEnroe, Seles- Graf, or more recently Federer –Nadal. Think cricket, and you have…

Exactly.

The history of cricket on the other hand is signified by a single team dominating world cricket. England was dominant in the infant stages of the game, then Australia, then the golden West Indian era, followed by an almost single handed domination of the game by the Aussies again. Admittedly there have been great teams from South Africa, India and Pakistan from time to time, and some great individual rivalries, but at no stage until recently has cricket seen great sustained team rivalries of the highest order to the same extent as in other sports.

Almost every world tournament had two or three pre-tournament favorites, and the gap between them and the rest was often quite high. Say you are an American visiting England. After watching an exciting Man Utd game at Old Trafford, the next thing on your itinerary is an Ashes test at Lord’s. If in recent years, and not 2005, you come back thinking, cool sport, not unlike baseball, with batters missing less often. But you won’t be wowed by the level of competition, spectator interest and the general intensity of the game. If you are lucky and it is 2005, you will witness Andrew Flintoff’s heroics against a far superior team on paper, and the intensity and atmosphere would mean that the next time you hear about a cricket match live or on TV, you will go to some lengths to watch it. And slowly but surely the game spreads.

The reasons for this are many, the secondary status of cricket in the sporting culture of more developed members, and the political and economic conditions in sub continental teams play a big part. This now seems to be changing more by accident than by design as T20 starts occupying a bigger piece of the pie. With only the first round of the T20 world cup over, we see spirited part timers from Holland (the Dutch press actually had an article saying “cricket is not so boring after all” after their victory over England) and Ireland (who even went through) seeing eye to eye with teams who have been around for a 100 years; Sri Lanka and the Windies combining to dump the Aussies out, and more exciting moments than we saw in the last 2 ODI world cups combined.

This might just be the boost that the game needs. If I may day dream, if the administrators play it right and keep the right balance between the three formats so that player techniques are maintained and the level of the sport doesn’t deteriorate, then the day is not far away when a parent in Brazil will warn his son to take soccer practice seriously, or cricket would be the most popular sport in Brazil!

Share: