The World Series of cricket – the ultimate prize

ITHINK I know what the problem is. There is a general feeling that cricket is different and somehow unsatisfactory compared to other major sports, but it’s hard to put your finger on it. I am not referring to the local fiasco regarding bonuses or even the underlying stench of spot fixing. Regardless of these cancers, something is just not right. Then it hit me.

All the other sports have a defined, accepted, sporting way of deciding who are the ultimate champions. Soccer has its World Cup and regardless of national or continental competitions, Spain rule the roost – until Brazil in two years’ time. In rugby, New Zealand need not win a game for four years but they can operate as world champions without any argument. Boxing has its titles, athletics has its championships, although we know in reality that Olympic gold is king. F1 has its Grand Prix circuit, gridiron has the Superbowl, baseball the World Series, and so it continues.

We know where we stand and it all comes to a glo- rious point in time.

However, cricket has its World Cup based around the ODI form of the game and now we have something similar for the dreadful – or progressive, depending on your age – T20 format.

The trouble is that we are told that Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game but it is all over the place. For financial reasons you simply cannot treat all sides the same. The Ashes must be played with increasing regularity and it is losing currency but making money, whereas we play New Zealand almost every decade. The West Indies are a spent force and Pakistan have to play in the UAE. Every so often we hear that soand-so are top of the rankings and they get a bit of cash and a strange looking mace and that is that. Who really cares? When we play the Poms or Australia, we play for the series and bragging rights, not for the ranking points, and this is the problem. It sets cricket aside as an unsatisfactory hybrid between the past and what is required today. Limited overs is trying to fill the gap and it doesn’t do it. It is like saying that the Sevens winners are the ultimate champions in rugby. They are not.

As a result, we have Test players retiring early and wandering the earth looking for easy T20 pickings. What is the answer?

We need a super, organised, unequivocal way of deciding the best team and it has to be done on the pitch in a series and not too often. Don’t give me that guff about planning issues and cash and logistics, either. Cricket needs a definite cycle that can encompass seeds and marketing issues but somehow we need to establish the top two sides without any argument. This can take three, four or six years – who cares? The point is that all must know that this will result in the ultimate contest in the sport bar none at a certain point in time. The hit-and-giggle can continue to titillate and bring in cash, but cricket must commit to offering an ultimate prize, qualification for a World Series of five Tests. Maybe each can be played in a different country. Think of a final series over two months with Tests in the UK, India, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa and somewhere else. Think about it. This must be a chance for players to earn immortality in their sport. It must eclipse anything that has gone before. Millions can be up for grabs but cricket needs to set up a path to something that is the ultimate ambition of everyone who plays the game – to win that series. This is what is lacking. Golf Majors are played over four days and get bigger and bigger. Don’t tell me we can’t have the same for cricket once every blue moon. That is the challenge for cricket and it is so obvious. Until we have it, we don’t have a sport but a mish-mash.