Perspective: Not quite cricket

I DON’T usually write about sport in my columns — I don’t claim to be an armchair expert.

But I’m not adverse to a bit of cricket,  so   here’s  an exception.

I recently complained to my husband I didn’t know who anyone was any more who played for Australia. He said he could understand why: there are too many teams and too many  versions of the game — and it was slowly destroying the game.

I thought, ‘‘Here comes another rant’’ but then he made some good points.

We agreed that not only have we seen some questionable performances by the national team in the shorter form of the game, but crowds and ratings are down and Cricket Australia is having to resort to such gimmicks as promoting a day at the cricket as a dress-up party.

While the South African Test series was interesting for cricket purists we are seeing the increased influence  Twenty20 and one-day games are having upon the longer form of the game.  

Games that finish well inside the five days are becoming the norm, and the focus has shifted from completion to entertainment.

I can appreciate the heavy load placed on players who now play 12 months a year, but when Australian fans go to watch the game here, they should be able to see our best 11 players on a regular basis.  

But with the combination of three forms of cricket and Cricket Australia’s rotation policy it’s just becoming a confusing mess of rotating players and fancy dress.  

I am afraid we are witnessing a once great sport that is slowly killing itself.  

What do you think?

Smartphone
Tablet - Narrow
Tablet - Wide
Desktop