The suggestion by the big three in cricket, India, India and India (sorry I mean, India, Australia and England) that they should have more control of the game, would surely put a chill through the hearts of most New Zealand supporters. Even now, New Zealand seems to struggle to get full test series against the stronger nations and the worry is that the current proposal would see us relegated to playing the also-rans more often with just the occasional top test, and chance to join the big boys, in World Cup events. I assume the logic from the point of view of the three most powerful nations is to generate more income and grow the game. From this side of the world it seems that this may mean grow the game in their backyard, while we pick up the scraps. Some may argue however, that this is not significantly different from what we have now?
The meeting to discuss all of this was to be held in late January and by the time anyone reads this comment the goal posts (or wickets) will no doubt have moved. The underlying theme is the same as it has been for some time; more for the rich, with apparently more short sighted, money driven, decision making, focussed on feeding the appetite of the media and the coffers of the powerful Triumvirate. We must accept that the relatively small audience a test match between New Zealand and Sri Lanka generates does little to excite paying television viewers across the world, while the Ashes for example generates millions. But is there a duty of care on the lead nations to protect “the game” and the countries that play it beyond their own shores? Don’t those countries who generate hundreds of millions of dollars out of cricket actually owe something to the game worldwide – not just New Zealand, but Ireland, Kenya, the Netherlands etc? From our point of view the answer is obviously yes they do. Narrowing the game and reducing those shown playing it via the International media to just the top few nations will have great benefit for them for a time, but will the short term gain lead to long term pain? Surely the world will get sick of the same diet, just as the rugby public seem to be getting tired of seeing us play South Africa and Australia far too many times each season. Rare tours by the “Lions” on the other hand, hold real appeal and interest.
So before we get our noses too far out of joint, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the All Blacks are a little similar in their approach. We play Australia and South Africa repeatedly, in various locations, as much for the income it generates as for the love of first-rate competition. The Northern Hemisphere is visited every November with a selected few tests to kick start their season and fill their (and to a lesser extent our) coffers. Teams that tour here often send weak teams and the lesser nations, such as those from the Pacific, rarely get a test at all. If they do, then only at the whim of ‘the big boys’ and at a time when nothing much else is on our calendar. The proposal of India, England and Australia in cricket is almost exactly what we do with rugby.
Are we seeing a similar problem in secondary school cricket? Are the schools with strong sides and long traditions seeking to expand the local and national game by giving lesser teams access to a higher level of cricket. The answer is no they are not. They are more likely to target talented players from lesser teams for enrolment, with a view to building their own talent pool. An approach by the way that always makes me feel sorry for the boy or girl who is being replaced and who has been loyal to their school from an early age.
But why should strong teams play “the rest”? Games against weak opposition which result in little interest for spectators, no challenge for the strong and embarrassment for the weak, don’t ‘grow the game’, they discourage players and may, in fact, erode the game.
So what are our options? It may be necessary to either earn our place at the big table by winning the opportunities that are put in front of us, or accept that we must play with our mates in the second tier. A third and apparently current option, is to get in early, vote for the proposal and reap the rewards of friendship by gaining some of the media dollars and at least some sort of fixtures programme over the next ten years.
I don’t envy the administrators and decision makers of New Zealand Cricket at any level. They know that the game like most International sport demands big money and that consequently the media thirst must be quenched. At the same time, we all want boys and girls (and men and women) of all abilities to learn and play and enjoy the game. Where to allocate our scarce resources to achieve this, and how to respond to the demands of the leading nations must be proving a major headache.
Even more reason to say thank goodness for The Willows, dedicated to showing our cricketers first hand, the traditional values associated with cricket. Playing for the love of the game, and growing cricket by having more play it rather than make more money from it.