Loyalty towards international cricket - How important is it?

[SaiSrini]

I have always been hampered by this question, more so in recent times with the onslaught of domestic leagues like IPL, ICL, Big Bash, etc. More so the IPL which has ignited the debate of country vs league and players are being put under tremendous pressure to choose their country over the leagues (which offer them bigger money).

Let me ask this first - why do we have this loyalty towards international cricket (or to explicitly say 'country vs country' cricket)? If say India and Pakistan, or Australia and England are playing each other in international cricket, are the two countries at war on a cricket field? Does it add in anyway to the development of the nation or does it help in eradicating problems or weaknesses that already exist for a particular nation? From what I see, playing a sport doesn't help solve problems for a nation in general, and if you say it pays players to lead a better life, the domestic leagues do a zillion times better job. And if you say it generates revenue, all that revenue goes to the broadcasters, the stadium owners, the cricket boards, etc. None of the money goes to the nation's development or welfare (at least I am sure this is what is prevailing in India where the BCCI calls itself a private entity).

What international cricket has been doing till now is, it has satiated the people's fantasies of imagining a war/battle between two countries, and international cricket has used it to its advantage. There is no need for any loyalty for a player towards international cricket, and if ever there exists a loyalty within a respective player, he is under the common misconception that playing for BCCI XI or PCB XI or CA XI is equivalent to fighting it out for his country in a war versus another country.

P.s: I am sure there must be a lot of international cricket loyalists here, but I am just posting what I have in my mind. Please feel free to disagree (of course disagreeing respectully would be ideal).

 

[AbhishekS]

I don't think there is anything wrong if a player does not shows loyalty towards international cricket and prefers playing in the leagues.

Take the example of a common man; he educates himself and goes abroad for a job (a common case here in India). People do not interrogate him on his loyalty for the country.
Similarly a cricketer's job is to play cricket, and it need not be international cricket always. Everyone in this world wants money to look after himself and his family, and if a cricketer can earn more by playing in leagues than international cricket then there is nothing wrong if he considers playing in the league.

Just as a common man, a cricketer has to do his job (after all cricket is his career) and should have complete freedom on his availability for various leagues and the national team.

 

[SaiSrini]

Quite true! Then this will also relate to test cricket as well. A Chris Gayle or a Malinga or a Lee retiring from test cricket to expand their career in the shorter format should not be scorned at or blamed for their decision. They are not there to satisfy our enjoyment of watching test cricket. They are there to fulfill their own careers, and money plays a significant part.

If people want test cricket to rule supreme, try to make it look as attractive as T20 cricket (i.e. bring in the audience in those large numbers and make them sit for all the days, make the cricket exciting enough to match a T20 game, etc). Or else, you just enjoy your game of test/international cricket and move on instead of blaming players for choosing what they think is best for their own lives.

 

[6ry4nj]

Leagues that buy players out of playing for their country are enemies of cricket. I don't care how well they pay - in fact that's part of the problem. I'm sorry if BCCI, CWI or SLCB can't pay as well as the IPL, but that's no excuse for a player to defect from their national side. More importantly, no league should be allowed to ask them to. To me it's no different to corrupting a public official with a huge bribe. Playing for your country is a duty.

I'm not sure if there have been cases where league and international commitments have actually clashed - perhaps it's bound to happen sooner or later - especially when every country wants its own IPL. If leagues and international cricket come into conflict, I'd certainly hope the leagues come off second best.

I don't mind Kolpak-style arrangements - but they have to be players who genuinely aren't needed by their nation. Which is sometimes hugely difficult to predict - eg. Dwayne Smith back in the WIndies T20 team?! I'd like to see a situation of buyer beware across the board, where all domestic clubs know that their star players' international obligations will take precedence.

 

[SaiSrini]

but that's no excuse for a player to defect from their national side. More importantly, no league should be allowed to ask them to. To me it's no different to corrupting a public official with a huge bribe. Playing for your country is a duty.

I am precisely concerned about this part of your post. Define 'duty' for me, please! I keep reading this often and that's why I started this thread. What is this 'duty' that a player has towards his so-called 'national side'? Is he fighting a war where the nation's resources or strengths or capabilities are at threat? Why should be look at it as a duty to play for a side that calls itself the national side?

 

[angryangy]

People like narratives. They like to see players they're familiar with and like to believe there's something to be played for. They don't particularly care what the players are paid, unless it's "I can't believe they pay this guy". Test cricket is a game of narratives. Continuity in world cricket lasts decades.

To talk of loyalty towards international cricket is to imply it has similar importance in T20 leagues. It really doesn't. They create new teams and shuffle players all the time. They're always creating new teams. There are a handful of teams that have achieved the amazing feat of sticking half a dozen players together for a couple of years, but it's ultimately driven by success. When that runs dry the team is effectively ended, replaced by a convincing copy.

You're free to be thoroughly modern and eschew the whole team support concept, instead just following your favourite players. But what does that deal get you? You get to watch Chris Gayle slog all the hacks and rookies across four continents. Depending on coverage, you might see a lot of cricket, certainly a few sixes, but how many good contests? How many times do you get to say "well this guy is just the best, no bowler could have stopped that". If I was only in it to see him play, I think I'd rather see him play a handful of internationals.

 

[6ry4nj]

Firstly, "so called national side"? WTF is with that? I know you do understand the concept of representing your country, so there's no point in pretending you don't. The national side is the national side, there is no ambiguity or doubt about it whatsoever.

You are either patriotic or you aren't. Personally I'm patriotic. I don't see anything wrong with it if you aren't - we can agree to disagree. I would only take issue with someone - a hypothetical cricketer for example - who leeched off their country for sponsorship/training etc., but refused to 'give anything back'.

Clearly some cricketers have been treated very badly by their country (Gayle, Katich), and are more owed than owing. But imo the majority are supported and invested in by their country in the reasonable expectation that they will represent if called upon. No it's not a war and lives are not at stake, but loyalty and acknowledgment of responsibilities are virtues that are just as important in peacetime.

 

[Owzat]

Simply don't offer players international contracts if they choose $$$$$$$$ over country. I would think more of the established and therefore older players would go for the IPL which I think may lose its influence in a few years, surely even the Indians will get bored of making a lot of noise and waving at cameras

And if players choose say IPL commitments over their country's tour of wherever then exclude them from international cricket for 2-3 years, a further offence if/when recalled = ban.

I can understand cricketers from countries like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies putting $$$$$ before their country, who would want to get their backsides tanned playing among ordinary fellow nationals when they could go for an all star XI and get paid more to get their backsides tanned.

The IPL is bad for cricket in so many ways, and frankly the cricket is pretty tedious. I would have thought most would have reached saturation point after 5-6 games, there's little variation and collapses when they happen really don't have any long term impact and more often than not just make the rest of the games pointless. As least in a Test or ODI there is time to rebuild and maybe change a one way outcome.

 

[sifter132]

Let me ask this first - why do we have this loyalty towards international cricket (or to explicitly say 'country vs country' cricket)? If say India and Pakistan, or Australia and England are playing each other in international cricket, are the two countries at war on a cricket field?

I'm not sure I've ever heard this idea before. I think if you asked the players why they like international cricket, I don't think you would hear them talking about war. Instead I think you would hear them talking about how international cricket is the pinnacle of the sport, the highest standard of cricket, and how proud they are to represent their nation and help them win. That would be how they can help their nation, by getting international success and proving how good an Indian/Australian/West Indian etc. can do on the international stage.

As for players picking international or domestic - well money wise it's been a no-brainer for a long time. Only when IPL started has there been more money in domestic cricket. There is still a lot to get used to in the new environment. But I personally think that until IPL gives more international players a chance then why should international cricket be stopped for it?? 9 teams with 4 internationals means only 36 players are getting a go. If it were a truly global league I'd have no problem with it. But at the moment it's just feeding BCCI more cash - why should I support that?

 

[Sedition]

I'm pretty confused why this topic was brought up to be honest.

I could understand playing devil's advocate if there were a number of players who chose to play domestic comps over representing their country and they were being crucified for it, but it's only Gayle and he has some legitimate reasons and understandably people are just disappointed to see the WI not able to field the best team they can.

I see Lee and Malinga were also referenced. Lee certainly hasn't turned down any opportunity to play for Australia, even rushing himself back from a broken toe to finish the tri-series and then heading for the Caribbean while the IPL was kicking off. He's getting on in age, injuries were becoming a major problem and it's not like he walked out on the test side and left us wanting.

Malinga I don't know too much about, but if the rigors of test cricket were taking it's toll on his body, then fair enough for stepping aside. It's not like he was averaging 25 anyway.

 

[SaiSrini]

Its the season of the IPL and with players always being questioned as to whether they should play for their country or whether they should think about their financial future and play for these domestic leagues and giving it more priority. Thats why I started this thread. I have been reading comments often in many online forums and message boards that players who give IPL more importance than international duty are not being loyal to the country and most often, people arguing in such domain bring up "loyalty to country" debate, which frankly irks me because cricket is not the platform where loyalty to country should be questioned.

International cricket need not be stopped at all. But if players want to play for leagues which pay them more money and not play international cricket that has a conflict with the concerned league's timings, they should be allowed to do so. And questioning a player's credibility when he plays the IPL and then gets injured and misses international games, he should not be blamed.

 

[sifter132]

If anything it's the Indian players who are 'forced' to choose IPL over country. We often hear how exhausted Dhoni is or how Tendulkar is taking this series off, but there would be a bit of an outcry if one of India's stars decided to take the IPL off - they probably could use the rest, but it's important for Indian cricket that they play in India's biggest tournament.

 

[angryangy]

And questioning a player's credibility when he plays the IPL and then gets injured and misses international games, he should not be blamed.

Players get injured, it's reality. What is to be criticised is players who carry niggles through IPL only to fall apart by the end of it. It might be shrewd business, but you'd be hard pressed to find a cricinfo profile that mentions a player's business acumen.