IPL must pass Dravid’s test of lifting Indian game
Others dispute this claim by pointing out that IPL’s 20-over, 210-minute format is tuned to mediocrity, not excellence. It allows players with limited skills to succeed but the same players get caught out when challenged in tougher Test situations.
Like students who ace objective exams but are stumped when asked for analytical answers.
Plus, if Test cricket is everyone’s pinnacle, the IPL is not the best preparation for climbing the summit.
Another criticism of T20/IPL is that it hurts cricket and inhibits a player’s growth.
When the ECB recently announced its T20 league, counties worried that the new tournament would hijack fans and sponsors from traditional cricket. Franchise cricket defenders say this is unfair criticism.
Balancing the three different formats is a challenge for administrators who must ensure the formats coexist and remain in their allocated place.
Achieving this balance is a tough ask. Cricket’s economics has clearly declared that T20 franchise cricket enjoys overwhelming support of stakeholders, players/fans/sponsors. Even if cricket purists consider Tests as the apex, the popular landslide mandate favours the IPL.
In this ongoing debate, there is a general acceptance that the supply of T20 needs control. The ICC has already capped bilateral T20 games but this has not prevented England and SA from launching ambitious domestic tournaments.
With T20 events springing up like monsoon weeds, the BCCI fortunately has abandoned its plans for a Grade 2 mini IPL in Tier Two cities.
Had that happened, two consequences were certain. One, a complete takeover of domestic cricket by T20 cricket, with the undermining and devaluing of first-class cricket.
Second, a clear signal to players that limited skills were good enough for achieving success.
That would have enriched players but in the long run impoverished Indian cricket. And Dravid would have asked: why should any youngster do the hard yards?