IPL- A detailed analysis

In the beginning, I want to make it clear that criticism of IPL is not criticism of T20 cricket. There was T20 before IPL and there are many non-IPL T20 cricket tournaments. Having said that, I find many of the criticism against IPL baffling.

Writers, mostly of English origin, accuse IPL of undermining Test cricket. Surprisingly, the accusation was not levelled at T20 cricket before IPL came into vogue. T20 was started to reverse the trend of dwindling crowds. I personally like tests and I do not see how can IPL or T20 kill tests as long as players and board are committed to it. And if IPL is the culprit, why are the Twenty20 cup in England, the KFC Big Bash, or the World T20 cup not considered as co-culprits in undermining Test cricket?

IPL is accused of undermining international cricket. IPL franchisee are not the only domestic cricket side to feature foreign players. English counties have been doing it for more than a century. How come they were never accused of undermining international cricket but instead lionized as the bedrock and bastion of cricket. English county cricket did deprive most domestic teams, outside England, of their most valuable players as those players went to play the more lucrative county cricket.Is it IPL's problem that it pays players more money than county cricket?

This does not mean that the IPL is a blessing. The IPL is the property of BCCI, the apex governing body of cricket in India. BCCI's team represents India in all ICC sanctioned matches in all the three formats - Test, one-day, and T20. BCCI is an conglomerate of cricket associations, most of which represent Indian states. To develop the Indian team, the BCCI organizes domestic cricket tournaments in India. Except for IPL and Corporate Trophy, the participating teams in the other tournaments, represent BCCI's member associations.

The IPL, as a tournament, is more popular than the Coporate Trophy. The non-IPL T20 domestic tournament was instituted after IPL and is almost invisible in IPL's shadow. On the other hand, all First Class tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting Test players) and most List A tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting one day players) are played between BCCI's member associations. So T20 is the only format in which there is considerable BCCI-sanctioned involvement of non-BCCI affiliated organizations.

Hence, the success or failure of IPL, in pure cricketing terms, can be best measured by comparing the success rates of India in T20, ODI (one day international)and Tests. In the last two years, since the first season of IPL, BCCI's team has the best win-loss ratio in Test, the third best win-loss ratio in ODIs and the eighth best win-loss ratio in T20 among the tem full members of ICC. The Test and ODI win-loss ratio are above the pre-IPL win-loss ratio but the T20 win-loss ratio is worse than the pre-IPL win-loss ratio.

It may be claimed that IPL improved the general standard of T20. This claim is debatable as Pakistan, the most successful T20 side is the one with the least involvement in IPL. India on the other hand has the maximum involvement in IPL and its relative position has declined.

Worse than that, the IPL thing shows the Inian capitalists in avery poor light. In the first IPL season, they splurged huge sums on the members of Indian World Cup team and spent relatively less on the so-called greats of cricket. 2 years down the line, most of those young Indian players have proved failures in T20 while the so-called great players have usually reoterated their greatness by their failure. The herd-like, irrational behavior which jacked up the rates of young Indian players bodes ill for India.

The IPL owners hiring plans and spend seem to have no link with reality. The concept of pay for performance is noticeableby its absence. Ishant Sharma, a two T20 veteran, with an average of above 50.00 and an economy rate of near 8 was bought for $9,50,000. On the other Umar Gul, the best bowler in World T20 cup, was bought for only $1,50,000 in the plyer auction despite his average of 22.00 and economy rate of below 6.

As the IPL players are selected via auction the high prices for these Indian players (in comparison to their base price) reflect the idiocy of almost all team owners as almost all of them joined in the bidding war for these players. The team owners, or at least some team owners, also seem to lack a respect in their profession. Modi, the administrator of IPL, considered Hyderabad unsafe for IPL. Deccan Chronicle, the owner of the Hyderabad-based team, and a Hyderabad-based giant media company contested Modi's view. However, despite its much better credentials, it did not contest Modi's view further after it was allowed two games in Cuttack as home games. The acceptance of Modi's decision portrays Deccan Chronicle as a newspaper that either does not know the happenings in its own neighborhood or does not have the confidence to present its differing and expert opinion to authorities.

Hence, in my view, the decision to start IPL has done more good than bad to cricket.