Kanpur: Groundsmen at the Green Park Stadium during the third day of the 2nd Test cricket match between India and Bangladesh, in Kanpur, Sunday, Sep. 29, 2024. (PTI Photo/Vijay Verma)
To explore cricket in India is to experience the richness of the country. An astounding 81 venues have hosted international games. With India emerging as a cricket powerhouse, the list has been pruned to 30. Several small towns have lost their place on the cricketing map – Jalandhar and Jodhpur, for instance. Of the 30 only 16 are active Test centres which take turns to host the longer format of the game. However, the Kanpur gaffe where an entire day’s play against Bangladesh was lost due to poor drainage facilities and nearly stalled India’s World Test Championship prospects, has intensified an old debate: Should India streamline its Test-venue pie, like most other countries? Australia has long stopped allotting Test matches to scenic but far-flung locales like Cairns and Gold Coast, England does not hold Tests in Bristol or Chester-le-Street.
Some of India’s leading cricketers want the board to embrace the system. Virat Kohli was a vociferous champion of the cause in his captaincy days. After the Kanpur Test, Ashwin too argued for restricting Test cricket to a few designated stadiums. He listed the virtues of this move – familiarity with stadiums, the insurance of high-class facilities and infrastructure. One can add to what he didn’t say: The ease of logistics, for players, the board and the broadcast crew.
All these ring true, but choosing those cities — five as Kohli believes— is a complicated exercise. The first problem is definition. The distinction between traditional and non-traditional cricketing centres is vague. There are newly sprung Test hubs such as Ranchi and Dharamshala, places where cricket culture was once either non-existent or existed on the periphery. But most of the centres which host Test matches, even non-metros, can brag about a vibrant cricket heritage. Rajkot, for instance, is just a breezy ride on the sprawling highway to Jamnagar, the birthplace of the legendary Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji. Saurashtra could field as formidable an all-time playing eleven as domestic powerhouses Mumbai. Or Indore, which was once the headquarters of the Holkar dynasty. Before the Holkar team was disbanded, it had won five Ranji Trophy titles, one more than Hyderabad and Tamil Nadu combined. Visakhapatnam, and Gwalior, cities which are remnants of the game’s royal patronage, can also claim to have inherited a rich tradition.
If infrastructure is a criterion, as it should be, some of the new stadiums could make the supposedly traditional ones blush. The practice facilities in Ranchi are more modern than the Eden Gardens and the stands in Indore offer a better match experience than the creaky plastic chairs and the stinking toilets of Feroze Shah Kotla. If attendance is a yardstick, the stands in the second-tier cities are as filled, if not better, than the so-called mainstream locations. All three days of the Test between India and Australia in Indore ran to a nearly full house. Thousands turned up on the ill-fated third day of the Kanpur Test. Besides, all of these cities are air-connected and dotted with five-star hotels.
It would be cruel to confine the game to a handful of arenas. It could, as Ashwin weighed the pros and cons of specific centres, create a disconnect for fledgling cricketers, at a time when cricket has blurred geographical barriers. It could muddy the image that cricket is the country’s greatest unifier, limit the diverse experiences offered by the country and homogenise the distinct colours, sounds and cuisine the cricketing destinations offer.
At the same time, the board should ensure that episode like what happened on the third day in Kanpur is not repeated. An entire day’s cricket cannot be scrapped just because the drainage facilities are sloppy. It is akin to insulting the teams, the audience and the game. Before allotting a venue, the calendar-makers should weigh in several factors, from the weather to the state of the outfield and even the sensitive socio-cultural equations. A match should not force a city to issue prohibitory orders. It takes away from the fun of watching the game and it creates uneasiness among cricketers. The BCCI, the most powerful board in the world, should strike a balance between preserving the cricketing experience as well as providing the best conditions for players and spectators. Taking cricket out of smaller cities is not the perfect solution, but creating an ideal environment for a game to run its full course of life certainly should be.
sandip.gopal@expressindia.com
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 04-10-2024 at 18:47 IST
