Cricket 2.0: Who Really Started It All?
Mar 21st, 2008 | By pazz | Category: Analysis and Speculation, Top Stories
April 18th is just around the corner now. 8 star-studded teams prepare to battle it out for what is being called ‘Cricket ka Karm Yuddh’. Lots of star players, celebrities, fancy stuff and of course a whole lot of money. IPL by all means looks set to change the face of cricket. But before you bow down and worship the great minds at BCCI for IPL spare at thought for their poor cousins - ICL.
Amidst the hullabaloo of the IPL most of us are already forgetting the very thing that started this ‘revolution’ in cricket (Cricket V 2.0 as its being called).
Let’s refresh our memories to April 2007 to the ICC Cricket World Cup in the West Indies. Let those haunting images of Mashrafe Mortaza knocking Sehwag’s stumps out of the ground, and of Tamim Iqbal marching down the track and knocking Zaheer Khan right back over his head for six return to your mind. Remember how India crashed out in the first round of the World Cup?
In my opinion THAT was the turning point in Indian cricket. The beginning of the very revolution that we are witnessing at this point. Let’s continue walking down memory lane. What did the BCCI do when Indian cricket was at it’s lowest? If I remember correctly, all we witnessed post-World Cup were blame-games and mud-slinging between the players and the management. Dravid this, Chappell that and God knows what else!
What did the BCCI do then, you ask? Remember a certain South African gentleman by the name Graham Ford? Well, the lesser said about that phase the better it is. It finally took Ravi Shastri’s stepping up to the plate as team-manager to get things rolling again. These are things the Indian fan does not remember when images of our triumphant team at the T20 World Cup are flashed on our screens, with the hijacked hockey anthem ‘Chak De’ playing in the background. Nor did the fans remember those times when a young Indian team defeated the Aussies in their own backyard. Thanks to the short term memory loss that most Indian fans suffer from, the BCCI has been able to conveniently sweep these inconvenient questions under the rug. And now as it prepares to launch the IPL, it’s hard not to believe that they may indeed usher in a new era of cricket. Sounds all good right? Well not quite..
I didn’t mention one very important event during that very period in the above-mentioned paragraphs. Immediately after the dismal showing at the 2007 World Cup, the turning point in Indian Cricket, a revolution began. And this wasn’t initiated by the BCCI. It was ushered in by a man no one associated with cricket - Subhash Chandra (The head-honcho of ZEE TV and the Essel Group). Decades ago, the same man revolutionized Indian television when he launched ZEE TV. Today, though ZEE TV may have been left behind by Star, Sony and the likes, it’s impossible to forget that it was ZEE TV that started it all. In 2007, Subhash Chandra launched the Indian Cricket League or the ICL - which did for Indian cricket what ZEE TV did for Indian television.
Say what you may to our players for a mediocre performance at the World Cup, but there is no denying that the BCCI with all it’s red tape is one of the biggest hurdles the sport faces in the nation. Quite often the Board loses sight of what is best for the game and the lovers of the game and focuses on profits instead. Case in point, the television telecast rights for cricket. Zee Telefilms on more than one occasion placed the highest bid, but was denied each time. Determined not to stay down they decided to face the BCCI head-on.
Subhash Chandra made a thumping reply to BCCI’s denial for content by launching the ICL with an initial investment of Rs.100 crore and a prize money of $1 million for a T20 tournament between 6 teams comprising of young, ignored, untapped talent in India and senior players both national and international. Thus building a conducive environment for the young talent to blossom under the guidance of senior players. As opposed to the BCCI which was profit-centric, the ICL was player-centric. Unlike regular domestic cricket where those who don’t make the final 11 of the national team languish on the side-lines for their whole careers with little financial remuneration, the ICL ensured that every ignored talent was contracted and ensured a handsome pay for the duration of their contracts. Something which was absolutely unheard of in the BCCI’s domestic circuit.
The innovations didn’t stop there, the team structure under the ICL was revolutionary as well. Each team was coached by a former international player who was assisted by a world-class support staff and comprised of 4 international players, 2 Indian international players and 8 budding domestic talents. These proportions ensured a perfect balance between youth and experience. The ICL also openly declared and still maintains that the BCCI is free to choose any player from its talent pool for the national team.
The BCCI who should have ideally focused on what was best for the sport and recognized the ICL, tagged it instead as a rebel league akin to Kerry Packer’s World-Series Cricket in the 1980s. Using it’s clout over the ICC, it was successful in ensuring that the ICL did not get recognition from the international governing body of cricket as well. Soon cricket boards all over the world followed suit and banned players who signed up with the ICL leading to a great deal of controversy. The ICL however went ahead regardless of the obstacles and successfully completed it’s first T20 league in 2007 which received a better response than any domestic tournament held by the BCCI to date.
This brings us back to our key question - What did the BCCI do? They launched the IPL, a copy-cat T20 league albeit with a lot more money and current international stars. The groundwork had already been laid by the ICL, the revolution had already begun. What the BCCI lacked in creativity it made up with raw financial power and slowly but surely it systematically sidelined the ICL.
Though today the ICL has already commenced with it’s second tournament within a year, few would give it a glance once the IPL comes into action. But before we go gaga over the IPL, we must ask ourselves whether there would be an IPL if there were no ICL?
The IPL has better financial backing, has more star-power (both from the cricketing fraternity and from outside the cricketing fraternity) and by all means seems better equipped to execute ICL’s original concept. But as I just mentioned, come what may, the concept remains ICL’s, no matter what the BCCI may claim.
It is of little doubt that the IPL would win hands down in an ICL-IPL showdown, but the two need not cancel each other. It was never the intention of the ICL to get current international Indian players to defect from the BCCI, it’s intentions never were to be a ‘rebel-league’. That ,I must remind you, is an image the BCCI created, sensing a threat to it’s profits.
Will the ICL be able to survive once the IPL gets into full swing? Skeptics might say no, but I feel that that the ICL was built on the idea of innovation. As long as they stay true to that, I see no reason why it cannot simultaneously exist with the IPL.
Paras Sharma a.k.a. Pazz
Loading ...
Bingo Right on the money Good point mentioned about ICL
ICL was more innovative and novel in its concept but IPL is just a example of what money & publicity can do.
know what…
I am actually thinking that IPL is primarily for urban audience. The uneducated India, the India that keeps itself updated with the score on radio will have no interest in IPL whatsoever…atleast that’s what I think.
Now advertiser’s pay so that the urban audience buys their product. So it’s nice and sweet and cool.
Also, I feel this concept (to grow more) should branch out in other countries (no craze anywhere else) and 10 years from now we should have different league for a tournament of clubs from diff. countries.
Like UEFA champions league has it in…
1. EPL
2.Spanish la liga
3. german bundesliga
etc..etc..
I am also looking forward to the fact that the players who perform well for their country would perform well for their club too…or vice versa.
Anyways, I am very disappointed by the mumbai team and will support Kolkata….solely and solely because of SRK..
Mumbai sucks in ICL and Will suck in IPL…
Also about ICL…I didn’t watch it coz’ i didn’t have zee sports…and when now they started showing on ten sports..I have lost interest because of the fact that it’s unsuccesful.
I kinda have to agree with Sameer here. I hadn’t really thought about it, but the IPL is aimed squarely at the Urban middle class. Luckily for them, this market is large enough, but they have to be careful to price the tickets properly so that most folks can treat an IPL match like going to the movies. If it is any more expensive, then folks might start to lose interest, just like how people don’t watch all movies that are released!
“But before we go gaga over the IPL, we must ask ourselves whether there would be an IPL if there were no ICL?”
Modi had spoken about an inter-city T20 league almost two years back. I had blogged about it 18 months back (long before ICL was announced) here: http://aralikatte.blogspot.com/2006/10/cricket-moving-to-club-format-gonna.html
Tickets would be sold out…the real revenue comes from advertisements.
And Mohan, Interesting point you made there…I didn’t know that.
But anyways, ICL sure did speed up IPL if not incept it…
Mohan: The idea of a inter-city league is nothing new… Everyone had talked about it… But the devil is always in the details.The point is that ICL did something about it and figured it out.
But its interesting anyway. I didn’t know Modi had talked about it. This certainly puts Modi in new (and better) light for me.
@ Mohan :True, I wasn’t aware of Modi’s announcement, but the point is, it took the ICL to get the BCCI to finally implement the IPL, remind yourself that until the T20 world cup, BCCI didn’t even take the T20 format seriously, I think ICL isn’t as interesting as the IPL would be because honestly nobody wants to watch players before they’ve made an international name for themselves. And in the case of ICL players, the ICC decree has ensured that will never happen, but try watching one of their matches, it’s way better than any Ranji or Duleep Trophy Game ever…
@ Sameer : Fun fact about Shahrukh Khan. Shahrukh has had a long-standing relationship with Zee. He’s hosted their award shows many a time. He launched their new logo some time ago at one of those award ceremonies…and he is also the brand ambassador of Dish TV, owned by the Essel Group once again….and after all that surprisingly, he sided with the IPL and not the ICL
Hey since the ICL is already considered a rival by the IPL, dont you guys think they should take their differences to the field ……imagine Kolkata Tigers v/s Kolkata KnightRiders…..Mumbai ‘Indians’ v/s Mumbai Champs!
ICL v/s IPL on the field would totally kick ass!
@pazz: I think the reason bcci didn’t want to play too many international T20’s is because they wanted to preserve the format for this inter-city league. If India had played lots of T20’s, then there wouldn’t have been this kind of excitement and buzz about IPL.
nice post … It’s a plain truth that many a times credit doesn’t go to one who deserves. However, anyone thought that these leagues are there in football are there from many years then why it was not conceived in cricket ? Because the shortest format in cricket was ODI of 8-9 hr duration which has occasional sparks in power-plays and slog overs.
Therefore, in my opinion, we should also give a share of credit to the person who created Twenty20 format. Of all the short duration cricket innovations ’six-a-side’ to ‘double-wicket’ formats, Twenty20 is more like cricket. Due to this cricket like shorter format these people(read BCCI) are able to conduct league with so much jamboree. Before Twenty20 world cup BCCI was very skeptical of this format and Sharad Pawar had said several times on the record that “Twenty20 is NOT cricket”. But after the success of Twenty20 world cup with respect to TRP ratings BCCI realized the potential of this format.
Cricket 2.0 started with the creation of Twenty20 format !
@pazz:
Dude…
Why should Shahrukh support ICL…
SRK has a long standing relationship with sony too…(Filmfare rocks solely bcoz of him)…
SRK has a long standing relationship with Star also..(KBC and the soon to come “Kya aap paanchvi paas se tez hain..”)
Zee is a big media house and SRK is a big media person…there are bound to be relations…
And anyways, I don’t remember SRK hosting the awards for Zee…He hosted it for Sony…4 times for filmfare and once for a PNC award show.
He mainly does performance gigs for Zee…and has a nice relationship with Subhash Chandra…and that’s it.
He ain’t the face of ZEE TV.
I think SRK is primarily interested in money and publicity, and whoever is getting him more of it, he’ll follow that.
@sameer i already spoke to you online about my point but ill further clarify….i didnt say shahrukh was the face of Zee TV, I said he does share a great rapport with Subhash Chandra, something which he has said in the past on a ZEE Cine Awards show, he has hosted segments as well…..Filmfare is not sony’s award show btw…..anyway, my point is shahrukh is not the face of Zee agreed….but definitely nowhere close to being the face of BCCI….remember they accused him of publicizing Om Shanti Om at cricket matches….remember how shahrukh vowed never to watch any match in the stadium….my point is what aditya said. The moment he saw the money that was to be made with IPL, he buried all differences and bought out a team!
Only one or two people accused him(from BCCI) and not the BCCI…
Niranjan Shah later apologized.
And anyways, Shahrukh is betting his life’s earnings on this IPL…If this turns out to be unsuccessful..He stands to lose everything. He’ll gain it back but then you get my point.
[...] wonderful tournament. And a special thanks to Subhash Chandra(Zee TV) for taking the first step in starting it all. //OBSTART:do_NOT_remove_this_comment var [...]