'We have to ensure international cricket remains attractive'
Test cricket should be promoted and we can't just rest on the fact that it has existed for such a long time, according to Haroon Lorgat
Alex Brown
31-May-2009
Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, says the ICC would be foolish not to recognise that the environment in the world of cricket is changing. He feels that the future lies in striking a right balance between Tests, ODIs and Twenty20
This is a good time to talk about the future of Twenty20, given that we're now between the IPL and a World Twenty20. How do you see the 20-over game being scheduled in four years from now?
If I have got some serious influence on the Twenty20 competition, it should be not much different to what we see today. That's simply because we are very fortunate that we have got three viable formats. We know Twenty20 is hugely attractive. We've got to be careful how much of that dosage we pass onto the audience. We have to balance in some respect between Tests, 50-overs and Twenty20. I think at the moment we've got it right. Its attraction is unequalled, and here we are on the eve of a world tournament.
If I have got some serious influence on the Twenty20 competition, it should be not much different to what we see today. That's simply because we are very fortunate that we have got three viable formats. We know Twenty20 is hugely attractive. We've got to be careful how much of that dosage we pass onto the audience. We have to balance in some respect between Tests, 50-overs and Twenty20. I think at the moment we've got it right. Its attraction is unequalled, and here we are on the eve of a world tournament.
Tim Nielsen, the Australian coach, last week called for Twenty20 internationals to be played in series, rather than one-off exhibition games during the season. He believes that with a World Twenty20 now at stake, boards should schedule Twenty20 matches more frequently. Do you agree?
(They are) certainly not exhibition games for me. It's a real form of the game. Players have certainly improved their skills. They've cottoned on to the strategies that are Twenty20. It works in the sense it is a real form of the game. I don't agree with the concept of it being an exhibition game. What I do believe is that it should be more a domestic form of the game rather than international. We've got great forms in Test cricket, being the pinnacle of the game and the 50-over game I still believe is alive and well. We will see that in due course. I agree with the current balance that we've got with internationals being limited in terms of the 20-over form.
(They are) certainly not exhibition games for me. It's a real form of the game. Players have certainly improved their skills. They've cottoned on to the strategies that are Twenty20. It works in the sense it is a real form of the game. I don't agree with the concept of it being an exhibition game. What I do believe is that it should be more a domestic form of the game rather than international. We've got great forms in Test cricket, being the pinnacle of the game and the 50-over game I still believe is alive and well. We will see that in due course. I agree with the current balance that we've got with internationals being limited in terms of the 20-over form.
So you don't envisage an expansion of Twenty20 internationally?
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse? The (World) Twenty20 event is just about to commence. I'm confident it's going to be a fascinating event. A lot of the players who were involved in this event are seriously skilled in Twenty20 cricket. They play a lot of domestic versions of it and they understand this game. Two or three years back I would have been concerned but when I look at the skills today, I'm completely confident that we will have a fabulous event. How much is enough? We think the balance we've got at the moment is right. We focus on a few Twenty20 internationals, we've got a world event. We're going to run it every two years so there's going to be a fair amount of that in terms of the Twenty20. The rest is focused on 50-over or Test cricket.
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse? The (World) Twenty20 event is just about to commence. I'm confident it's going to be a fascinating event. A lot of the players who were involved in this event are seriously skilled in Twenty20 cricket. They play a lot of domestic versions of it and they understand this game. Two or three years back I would have been concerned but when I look at the skills today, I'm completely confident that we will have a fabulous event. How much is enough? We think the balance we've got at the moment is right. We focus on a few Twenty20 internationals, we've got a world event. We're going to run it every two years so there's going to be a fair amount of that in terms of the Twenty20. The rest is focused on 50-over or Test cricket.
There has been much talk recently as to whether current cricket schedules are sustainable. We have a situation where the ICC controls three events, boards appear to be cramming more and more commercially-focused fixtures into their calendars and players are pursuing avenues such as the IPL, which have not previously been open to them before. Can the game continue like this?
As long as we do it in the fashion we currently do. We are pleased we are engaging. We discuss the scheduling challenges. We are right now trying to put the FTP together for post-2012. If that attitude is at the table then we'll find the right balance.
Do you envisage the new FTP resembling the existing one?
A bit early for me to get a definitive idea on that because we're working on it at the moment, we're trying to schedule between all of the countries. I don't think it would be too dissimilar - I'm trying to guess the position - but with a few tweaks, getting more attractive series better scheduled. That's what may be different but I think it will be largely what we've got.
A bit early for me to get a definitive idea on that because we're working on it at the moment, we're trying to schedule between all of the countries. I don't think it would be too dissimilar - I'm trying to guess the position - but with a few tweaks, getting more attractive series better scheduled. That's what may be different but I think it will be largely what we've got.
There have been some calls for the FTP to be scrapped altogether and for boards to make their own bilateral arrangements. That, then, could create a two-tier system, with the 'big market' teams facing each other more often, leaving the second tier to play amongst themselves. What are your thoughts?
Personally, I would not like to see that happen. I think we've got an obligation to grow the game properly. Sri Lanka is an attractive team, I think Pakistan is a fantastic team, so why would one want to leave them out? If we can get a spread that is equitable, it would certainly be the position we would want to achieve. There has to be a framework.
Personally, I would not like to see that happen. I think we've got an obligation to grow the game properly. Sri Lanka is an attractive team, I think Pakistan is a fantastic team, so why would one want to leave them out? If we can get a spread that is equitable, it would certainly be the position we would want to achieve. There has to be a framework.
Tim May, the FICA chief executive, has said that an increasing number of players are viewing domestic Twenty20 leagues, such as the IPL as more attractive propositions than international cricket. Does this concern you?
I have also engaged with a few of the players and that's not the feeling I get. Players still aspire to play for their national team. I know the financial rewards are not the same, but the fact of the matter is that I hear a lot of players talk about they want to play for their country. It was fascinating to see recently a lot of the Australian players choosing to take a break in the last month or two because they wanted to prepare themselves for the Ashes. I think sometimes we don't do justice to giving the kind of recognition that players in fact give to playing to their country and playing international cricket.
I have also engaged with a few of the players and that's not the feeling I get. Players still aspire to play for their national team. I know the financial rewards are not the same, but the fact of the matter is that I hear a lot of players talk about they want to play for their country. It was fascinating to see recently a lot of the Australian players choosing to take a break in the last month or two because they wanted to prepare themselves for the Ashes. I think sometimes we don't do justice to giving the kind of recognition that players in fact give to playing to their country and playing international cricket.
We know Twenty20 is hugely attractive. We've got to be careful how much of that dosage we pass onto the audience. We have to balance in some respect between Tests, 50-overs and Twenty20. I think at the moment we've got it right.
Presumably May has strong and credible sources in this area. So, again, does this sentiment concern you?
I have no doubt that there will be some players who will believe that, who would see that. But I know there are equally a lot of players who will want to keep their avenues open to playing and competing at an international level. There would be some who would prefer or enjoy making the best financial rewards, and there are others who will want a balance between what they make in terms of a good reward and representing their countries.
I have no doubt that there will be some players who will believe that, who would see that. But I know there are equally a lot of players who will want to keep their avenues open to playing and competing at an international level. There would be some who would prefer or enjoy making the best financial rewards, and there are others who will want a balance between what they make in terms of a good reward and representing their countries.
How, then, do you safeguard international cricket, and ensure the best players are available for their national teams?
I think what we need to do is to ensure international cricket remains attractive, remains competitive. That we promote Test cricket as it should be promoted. We can't just rest on the fact that it has existed for such a long time. We have to put some effort into making sure that they're attractive in their own right. It's the same with the other formats of the game at international level. We've got to make sure that we compete and contest on the basis that makes such a lot of attraction for some of those domestic events. Don't forget those domestic events pour a huge amount of money into marketing and promoting those events, which we do not at international level. Perhaps that's something that we've got to make sure that they're equally attractive and competitive, certainly.
I think what we need to do is to ensure international cricket remains attractive, remains competitive. That we promote Test cricket as it should be promoted. We can't just rest on the fact that it has existed for such a long time. We have to put some effort into making sure that they're attractive in their own right. It's the same with the other formats of the game at international level. We've got to make sure that we compete and contest on the basis that makes such a lot of attraction for some of those domestic events. Don't forget those domestic events pour a huge amount of money into marketing and promoting those events, which we do not at international level. Perhaps that's something that we've got to make sure that they're equally attractive and competitive, certainly.
Were you troubled by Chris Gayle's recent comments, in which he suggested he could discontinue his international career to concentrate on domestic Twenty20 cricket?
Of course. We would be foolish not to recognise that the environment is changing. It was unfortunate that Chris Gayle's comments were portrayed in that fashion. I'm sure on reflection he must be thinking twice about what he said, because if you speak to many, many players - and I do engage with the players - they still recognise Test cricket as the ultimate form of the game. They want to be tested and rated on that form of the game. Maybe Chris Gayle is appearing in a phase of his life where it is less important to him, but I can promise you that the younger generation of players that I speak to are far from the sentiment that Chris Gayle expresses.
Of course. We would be foolish not to recognise that the environment is changing. It was unfortunate that Chris Gayle's comments were portrayed in that fashion. I'm sure on reflection he must be thinking twice about what he said, because if you speak to many, many players - and I do engage with the players - they still recognise Test cricket as the ultimate form of the game. They want to be tested and rated on that form of the game. Maybe Chris Gayle is appearing in a phase of his life where it is less important to him, but I can promise you that the younger generation of players that I speak to are far from the sentiment that Chris Gayle expresses.
What are your thoughts on creating a window in the cricketing calendar to accommodate the IPL, thereby sparing players the club-versus-country decisions?
The IPL doesn't want it, if that's what you're referring to. We do not in the international FTP create a window for domestic cricket or domestic events.
The IPL doesn't want it, if that's what you're referring to. We do not in the international FTP create a window for domestic cricket or domestic events.
But it seems an IPL window would be favoured by most players and unions.
I would take the view that the game is bigger than the individual. The game has existed for centuries. There is no doubt that after you and I it will exist. One particular individual does not make a game to me.
I would take the view that the game is bigger than the individual. The game has existed for centuries. There is no doubt that after you and I it will exist. One particular individual does not make a game to me.
Will you consider creating an IPL window?
We will explore that. We will look at all things. We are busy discussing the FTP post-2012, and we will have to look logically at what is right. But it's very difficult for us to create a window for a domestic event, because that's not what the FTP is. The FTP is an international basket of fixtures. That's what it is. The rest of the domestic seasons for every member country sorts themselves out.
We will explore that. We will look at all things. We are busy discussing the FTP post-2012, and we will have to look logically at what is right. But it's very difficult for us to create a window for a domestic event, because that's not what the FTP is. The FTP is an international basket of fixtures. That's what it is. The rest of the domestic seasons for every member country sorts themselves out.
Presumably you could create the window if that was the will of the ICC and national boards. It may well be an unprecedented move, but wouldn't it be the most pragmatic option available to you?
You could feasibly do it, but why would you do it? It's a domestic event. If you do it in one domestic season, what about all the other domestic seasons? The FTP is done by the members for international fixtures. There could be many others that arise.
You could feasibly do it, but why would you do it? It's a domestic event. If you do it in one domestic season, what about all the other domestic seasons? The FTP is done by the members for international fixtures. There could be many others that arise.
Alex Brown is deputy editor of Cricinfo