It is easy to strike moral postures when an international player gives up Test cricket in order to focus on exclusively on T20. But if cricket is a means of livelihood, then you cannot hold it against players looking for financial security. And if the best deals today are in the domestic T20 tournaments, then that is the path many will take.
When New Zealand medium pacer Mitchell McLenaghan decided to quit the international game at 31 to focus on white ball cricket, you could either complain of betrayal and compromise — a likely reaction had it been an Indian player — or acknowledge his pragmatism.
New Zealand Cricket handled the situation with maturity; the player and the governing body parted as adults ought to, with respect and no rancour. Patriotism wasn’t invoked either. McLenaghan turns out for Mumbai Indians in the IPL, St. Lucia Stars in the CPL, and hopes to play Australia’s Big Bash and South Africa’s Global T20 League (for Durban Qalandars).
Present security and future immortality
The choice for players, to put it crudely, is between present security and future immortality. It is no longer about playing at the highest level one is capable of. Should a player give up current financial safety for the shaky promises of becoming a legend of the future? Always assuming, of course, that Test cricket is the highest form of the game, and great performers here are more likely to be remembered by future generations than heroes of white ball cricket.
In South Africa, J-P. Duminy has quit Test cricket to focus on the shorter games, much like M.S. Dhoni did earlier. This trickle (actually, more than a trickle when you consider that an entire West Indies team has opted out of Tests to play T20 leagues) will gain strength. England and Australia apart, no national body can match the salaries in the T20 leagues.
When the IPL was first played ten years ago, the salaries for the top players were chosen based on two criteria — emotion, and overall standing in international cricket. Hence the concept of the ‘icons’, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and others who were paid $1 million each. Then players like Jacques Kallis who made it based on Test match and ODI records. It was important then to have played for the country before an IPL team came calling.
With the spread of the leagues, things have changed. Now leagues feed feed off one another. A good showing in the IPL means a pick for the CPL or Big Bash. The T20 league has developed its own ecosystem, and players wear the badge of high class performers without any reference to international cricket.
McLenaghan’s move is indication that the old system is changing and the new opportunities emerging are likely to disrupt the way the game is organised.
Money factor
Money has often divided cricket. Some four decades back, the Kerry Packer series in Australia attracted top players who were paid salaries higher than their cricket boards were willing to pay. Some players were banned by their boards.
More recently, the Indian Cricket League, the prototype of the IPL, brought together players from across the world for a tournament that was not recognised by the BCCI. Again, players were banned. But these were ideas whose time had come, and however crude and ill-planned the initial offerings, they did succeed in bettering the lot of the players.
If money and security are the problem, then cricket boards will have to find ways to increase the salaries of their players. The BCCI does not allow its players to take part in other leagues, but what if someone showed no interest in playing international cricket and wanted to play the T20 leagues alone? Should players be deprived of choice? As a professional, would a player not want to exhibit his skills where the pay is good?
You cannot ban Indian doctors or engineers from working abroad, so why should it be different for cricketers?
Priortising
These are the questions the BCCI, and cricket boards in general will have to deal with. As T20 evolves, and players skip the traditional stepping stones of first class and representative cricket to go straight into domestic leagues of other countries, the International Cricket Council must decide what its priorities are.
If it is Test cricket, then it will have to find a way of somehow ensuring that there is enough money there to keep the players interested. If it is T20 cricket, it might have to regulate it. Or it might have to throw a bridge between the two formats.
What it cannot afford to do is to pretend that nothing has changed.
Those who were in their mid-to-late 20s when the IPL began, are now on the verge of bidding farewell. Their replacements are more clued in to the format, and many of them see it as the ideal.
Soon in T20 leagues across the world, international cricketers might become scarce, even irrelevant. That might be shocking to some; to others it might merely seem inevitable.
