The Ind-Zim 3rd match also ended in another easy
India win, leaving the commentators and TV analysts searching for fringe
positives. Empty-stands, no local sponsors and bad television covering; has
been the bigger outcomes of this series rather than the cricket. But a midst all
these the big question coming in to the picture is “what is cricket gaining
from these types of series’?”
A bilateral series where the No. 1 ranked side tours the No.
10 ranked nation(and the ranking stops there!), can only be reasonably realized
as an try by the ICC to give some exposure to the weaker team, boost cricket in
the particular country and may be some financial gain for the home board. I
dare to believe any of these ideas have really transformed!
If the first 3 matches are taken as an indication, it is
going to be a 5-0 drubbing from the hands of a second string top side and still
without any real fight. If an exposure turns out to be such thrashing, it can
only damage your confidence without any real good experience level. It would
have been better on the part of ICC to let them fight against teams with
equivalent cricket skills or a make a group of fast improving cricketing
nations make them fight out among themselves and put the constantly performing
teams against lower ranked Test playing nations to
fine tune their skills again before taking on a giant side; which on my view is
the best way to step up. But In the last 3 games the way the Zimbabwe team has
played, may it throwing their wickets or playing wild strokes on against a seaming
new ball or dropping easy catches, doesn't show any of that traits in them.
Now let’s come to the point of getting the spectators into
the field and financial gains (both are co-related), the empty-stands stand as
the proof of failure of that idea too. The fans will never throng up to watch a
mediocre game of cricket between such two mismatched sides. Some triangular/quadrangular
series’ between top nations will better serve the purpose. An Ind-Pak or
Aus-Eng or Aus-SA like game will bring more crowds in a small (cricketing
scope-wise) nation rather than the home side facing the above giants. While
sponsorship is the direct reflection of spectator/fan size, it will surely
increase. And they wouldn't have to sponsor the boundary ropes through a
“masala” company.
Apart from all these the ICC need to understand success is
always a step-wise process. The above may not show instant benefits but will
stand in good stead in the days to come. Was watching the highlights of the
2000 champions’ trophy held in Nairobi, Kenya; and the spectator number just
confirms my belief on the success chances of the above.
