Just more, not merrier!

So the first one dayer with the new rules ended with England winning and the Aussies groaning about when they can just get on with the main course. The two supersubs didn't do much in the game, though Hogg took the only English wicket to fall. The new rules really didn't make much of an impact and time will tell how much of a success they will be. And this begs the question, is cricket in its current state good enough to warrant expansion in other countries?

Cricket, unlike other sports, has held on to its somewhat elitist and aloof nature. The game for too long had been nurtured and protected by the old-school romantics. That's why the ICC trophy is a noble effort to promote the game in newer countries and give them a chance to compete in the World Cup. But even with the beaten-to-death phrase of "cricket's glorius uncertainties", its difficult to imagine these countries being able to sustain the level of competition. It's a tough call to be able to give them exposure and at the same time prevent too many one-sided games. And that has been one-day cricket's inherent problem in the last 6 years (let's leave test cricket aside). The high proportion of unimportant, one-sided matches. The last world cup saw Namibia, Netherlands and Canada in the fray with the big boys. And despite John Davison's brilliant century against the Windies, how many matches from the last World cup can you actually remember? The final obviously, which in its total one-sidedness could almost rival the mauling Pakistan got in the 1999 edition. SAF-Windies, Eng-Aus and the Ind-Pak encounters are all I can recall. There were talks among journalists and cricketers about the length of the tournament and the tiring schedule. And thats the other problem, the schedule. Add Bermuda, Ireland, Kenya and say Scotland into the picture and there is no off season for the players. The injuries would never heal, the importance of bench strength becomes bigger and careers would be shortened given the workload. Not to mention the cheap runs and wickets that can be collected against these minnows. That would also lessen the number of test matches that are played, and being somewhat of a romantic myself, I'd hate to see that.

Commercially speaking, cricket promises huge potential for sponsors. Which other sport allows you to show commercials every two minutes in the game? And this even after you've decorated the ground and the players with your logo. But when you look at the largest untapped market, the US, how do you sell a game that needs 5 days to come to a decision (or maybe not) or an 8 hour affair in a single day to people who are bred on the more fast-paced fare of football, basketball or Nascar? This is the fine balance the ICC and other countries have to strike; to create an entertaining medium without diluting the history and spirit of the game. Twenty-Twenty promises much but needs a whole sea change in the attitude of the players before they, including the Aussies, stop laughing it off. Sure! We'd love more teams and more action on the field. But we don't want to effectively end the terms "grafter", "anchor" and "flight and loop" in cricket. After all, didn't we all love watching Dravid or Thorpe fight to save a match or Warne's leg-break drift in to leg and hit off?