I'll start out by saying that I love the concept of the Champions League T20.
There needs to be more focus on domestic cricket, because that is a much more reliable way of growing the game than trying to grow it at the international level. Strong clubs/provinces will pick up players from lesser nations, and give them a chance to develop and succeed. A couple of examples of this from football are George Weah, who is from Liberia, but managed to win a Serie A title with AC Milano and obtained significant recognition for his skills that would not have been possible if he had only been playing for Liberia (who only twice even managed to qualify for the African Cup of Nations during Weah's 19 year career.
Likewise the New Zealand football team managed to go unbeaten in the 2010 Football World Cup, mostly thanks to a solid defense of Winston Reid, who had learned his football playing for a Midtjylland in Denmark, Ryan Nelsen, who had played for DC United and Blackburn Rovers Tommy Smith from Ipswich Town and Ivan Vicelich who had played for Roda JC and RKC Waalwijk in the Netherlands. It is hard to imagine those three players being as compotent if they had just played domestically in New Zealand, for the likes of North Shore, Christchurch United and Auckland City. New Zealand had such a solid defense largely due to the strong club nature of football.
The problem I have with the current Champions League is that it is not a fair competition.
Firstly every first class team is not able to compete, secondly the rankings are arbitrary, and not result based, thirdly the competition is set up in a way that has to much of an element of luck involved.
The Mountaineers from Zimbabwe won the Stanbic Bank Cup quite comfortably. But that is as far as they can go, despite having at least 7 current or former international players in their squad. Likewise the Dhaka Gladiators won the Bangladesh Premier League, contain 9 international players, but were not invited to the tournament.
The rankings are completely wrong. Every time Trinidad and Tobago have been in the tournament they have finished ahead of the South African teams and at least one of the Australia teams. Every time there has been an English team there, their top team has finished ahead of the second South African and Australian team. And yet South Africa and Australia get two teams in the main draw, while the English and West Indian teams need to qualify. This ranking system is ranking teams on how much money they can pull in, rather than how good they are. That is inherently wrong.
The third problem is with the tournament structure. The nature of T20 cricket is that the best team does not always win. However they will win more games over the course of a series. This makes it difficult to have a fair system that is concise enough to not drag on for months. However the current system is far from fair.
The big problem is the qualifying stage. A three team single round-robin is possibly the worst way to decide qualification imaginable. To demonstrate this I ran a simulation using the Pakistani domestic results from the last 3 years. I chose Pakistan because they were the competition that had one team being the most dominant.
The Sialkot Stallions have a formidable record. In the last 3 years they have lost only one match in the Pakistani competition. They have averaged 8.35 runs per over in that time, while their opponents have only averaged 7.23 runs per over. In a fair competition they should almost always make it through the group stages.
The only time they didn't win was the time where Pakistan also used the 3 team single round-robin method of qualification.
I took the Sialkot Stallions' results and then made 3 other teams who were all significantly less strong, but roughly equal to each other. They were all roughly average for other Pakistani teams. I then ran a simulation 1000 times. First with a 3 team single round robin, then with a standard 4 teams pool, where two go through. (if anyone would like a copy of the simulation that I used, just email me)
In the first option (3 team single round-robin) Sialkot went through 62.4% of the time. This means that they missed out in more than one in 3 of the tournaments, despite being a vastly superior team. In the second option, (4 team standard group) Sialkot went through 786 times. This meant that they missed out only 21.4% of the time.
With these numbers the 3 team single round-robin was 76% more likely to eliminate the best team.
I believe that the 3 team single round-robin should be avoided at all costs. Here is the format that I would like to see:
Teams: 3 from India. 2 from Australia, South Africa and England. 1 from West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. This makes 15 teams. The extra team then is either the team that won the previous competition, or if they already qualified the next best team from their country. For example, the last champions league winners were the Mumbai Indians. Mumbai lost the elimination final in the IPL, so they were effectively 4th overall. Hence they qualify for themselves. If instead RCB had won the final of the Champions League last year, then they would have gone through instead.
This then results in 16 teams. If we were to then have 4 groups of 4, going into 2 groups of 4 then to semis and finals we would need to play 39 matches. The matches could be played 3 per day for the initial round. (One morning, one afternoon and one night, with one double header and one played at another stadium). The second group round could be played 2 matches per day, and then (following a rest day (which would probably be used for travel for some teams) semi-finals and finals.
The whole tournament would easily fit within the 20 day window that the tournament has been using so far, and could even be squeezed to 16 days. (This would require the use of 2 stadiums that are quite close together - like Lords and the Oval, Chandigarh and Mohali, Centurion and the Wanderers, Eden Park and Seddon Park. etc)
It would also be a much fairer system. Each team would have exactly the same mountain in front of them. If anyone can win 8 in a row, they win the cup. In the current system Yorkshire could win 6 in a row, and only be in the semi-finals, where if (for example) KKR win 2 and lose 2 they could also potentially make the semi-finals. Something doesn't seem right about that.
So that's my take on the Champions League. Eventually I'd like it to get to a system where the champion from each country go through, then the next 6 are based on performance at the previous Champions League. So a team coming in the top 6 qualifies an extra spot from their country. (Similar to how the Basketball World Championships work.)
Showing posts with label SLPL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SLPL. Show all posts
Saturday, 13 October 2012
Saturday, 16 June 2012
The curious case of the SLPL
A few years ago I ran a small business as a side project buying and selling computer parts. I had a few people who used to get me to source things for them, and one main supplier, who was one of the cheapest in the country and who gave me a (small) discount.
I was sitting at my parents house looking through my suppliers catalog when one of my father's friends arrived. He is a very successful businessman, who supplies clothing for most of the large clothing retainers in New Zealand. He was looking over my shoulder, and we started talking about what I was doing.
I told him about what a good deal I was getting. A lot of my parts were Korean and when I tried to import them myself I was surprised to find that I was getting them cheaper off my supplier in New Zealand than I could buy them for in Korea. At this point he asked me a curious question: "have you checked if your supplier is making money?"
I didn't really care if my supplier was making money. Provided they were prepared to sell me my product at a particular rate, I was going to buy it. If they were making a loss, that was their problem, not mine. He told me that he always made sure his suppliers were making money. As most of his suppliers were in China, he actually flew over there to talk to his suppliers and make sure the deals he was doing was profitable for both of them. This seemed a very strange idea to me.
A few months later I ordered a DVD drive and they had a free delivery special, so I got it delivered and waited for it to arrive. But 3 days later it hadn't turned up. They were normally very good, so I then tried phoning them to find out what was happening, but there was no answer. I went to their office, but the lights were off, and the doors were locked.
I went online to see if anyone else knew anything, and what I found was not good news. They had put in the policy of the free deliveries, and then the owners had taken everybody's money and headed for the airport. Fortunately they police had put out an advisory for them about 2 minutes before they cleared customs, and they were arrested, but they had already "lost" most of the money. I was never going to see my $38 again, but fortunately it was only $38; two weeks earlier I had spent close to $2000 with them.
Perhaps if I had taken my father's friend's advice I might not have lost that $38. If I had ensured that I was dealing with a company that was making money they would have continued to give me exemplary service.
The BCCI are finding themselves in a similar situation to what I was in at the moment. One of their biggest ways of making money is from meaningful tours to and from their nearest competitive and politically expedient neighbour Sri Lanka.
And yet India are not thinking ahead in their dealings with the Sri Lanka Cricket.
Now to be fair, it's not always a good idea to think too far ahead with SLC, because it's likely to only be a year or so before there is some turmoil and another commissioner is appointed by someone with a political axe to bear. This is how things work in Sri Lanka. However in the case of the SLPL it is definitely in India's best interest to make sure it runs well.
The BCCI need to look at Sri Lanka as a supplier, rather than as a competitor. They supply a team that can create revenue for India. They supply some of the most interesting players in world cricket for the IPL. They supply fans who will happily buy t-shirts and caps from IPL franchises. Now they are looking at running a competition that is at a different time to any Indian commitments, and will keep the cricket fans talking about cricket.
Only the BCCI is talking about not releasing any Indian players for the SLPL.
It is understandable that they don't want to release all of their top players for the competition, as they have to manage workloads and ensure that their most talented players don't burn out. However during the time that the SLPL is scheduled to run, the likes of Ashok Dinda, Rahul Sharma and Shikar Dhawan are all likely to be playing very little cricket. And having them playing in the SLPL could have 3 possible benefits.
Firstly it will mean that they are playing, instead of not playing. Very few players become much better just by playing in the nets. There needs to be a combination of practice and meaningful matches. The SLPL will provide this, as well as experience touring and playing in different conditions. Secondly it will allow the selectors to observe some of these players in non-Indian conditions, playing different opposition. The final, and most important benefit is that there is no chance of it setting off a "trade war" between cricket boards.
If India are to persist in blocking their players from playing in Sri Lanka, there is the potential that Sri Lanka might block their players from playing in India. While Sri Lanka are not in a strong enough financial position to be able to really stop them, the English Cricket Board are, and a move by Sri Lanka could set off a domino effect which could potentially greatly diminish the value of the IPL for the BCCI. It could also risk upsetting the powerful Asia/Africa voting block in the ICC, which allows India to effectively veto decisions that it doesn't like.
The BCCI is not there to run world cricket. They exist to make sure Indian cricket is strong. Most of their decisions that people in the rest of the world have got upset about are ones that benefit India, and so therefore are decisions that the BCCI was right to make. However in this case the best interest of Indian cricket is to look after Sri Lanka. It will be interesting to see if they have sufficient vision to realise that, or if they are intent on just milking their supplier, until they collapse.
I was sitting at my parents house looking through my suppliers catalog when one of my father's friends arrived. He is a very successful businessman, who supplies clothing for most of the large clothing retainers in New Zealand. He was looking over my shoulder, and we started talking about what I was doing.
I told him about what a good deal I was getting. A lot of my parts were Korean and when I tried to import them myself I was surprised to find that I was getting them cheaper off my supplier in New Zealand than I could buy them for in Korea. At this point he asked me a curious question: "have you checked if your supplier is making money?"
I didn't really care if my supplier was making money. Provided they were prepared to sell me my product at a particular rate, I was going to buy it. If they were making a loss, that was their problem, not mine. He told me that he always made sure his suppliers were making money. As most of his suppliers were in China, he actually flew over there to talk to his suppliers and make sure the deals he was doing was profitable for both of them. This seemed a very strange idea to me.
A few months later I ordered a DVD drive and they had a free delivery special, so I got it delivered and waited for it to arrive. But 3 days later it hadn't turned up. They were normally very good, so I then tried phoning them to find out what was happening, but there was no answer. I went to their office, but the lights were off, and the doors were locked.
I went online to see if anyone else knew anything, and what I found was not good news. They had put in the policy of the free deliveries, and then the owners had taken everybody's money and headed for the airport. Fortunately they police had put out an advisory for them about 2 minutes before they cleared customs, and they were arrested, but they had already "lost" most of the money. I was never going to see my $38 again, but fortunately it was only $38; two weeks earlier I had spent close to $2000 with them.
Perhaps if I had taken my father's friend's advice I might not have lost that $38. If I had ensured that I was dealing with a company that was making money they would have continued to give me exemplary service.
The BCCI are finding themselves in a similar situation to what I was in at the moment. One of their biggest ways of making money is from meaningful tours to and from their nearest competitive and politically expedient neighbour Sri Lanka.
And yet India are not thinking ahead in their dealings with the Sri Lanka Cricket.
Now to be fair, it's not always a good idea to think too far ahead with SLC, because it's likely to only be a year or so before there is some turmoil and another commissioner is appointed by someone with a political axe to bear. This is how things work in Sri Lanka. However in the case of the SLPL it is definitely in India's best interest to make sure it runs well.
The BCCI need to look at Sri Lanka as a supplier, rather than as a competitor. They supply a team that can create revenue for India. They supply some of the most interesting players in world cricket for the IPL. They supply fans who will happily buy t-shirts and caps from IPL franchises. Now they are looking at running a competition that is at a different time to any Indian commitments, and will keep the cricket fans talking about cricket.
Only the BCCI is talking about not releasing any Indian players for the SLPL.
It is understandable that they don't want to release all of their top players for the competition, as they have to manage workloads and ensure that their most talented players don't burn out. However during the time that the SLPL is scheduled to run, the likes of Ashok Dinda, Rahul Sharma and Shikar Dhawan are all likely to be playing very little cricket. And having them playing in the SLPL could have 3 possible benefits.
Firstly it will mean that they are playing, instead of not playing. Very few players become much better just by playing in the nets. There needs to be a combination of practice and meaningful matches. The SLPL will provide this, as well as experience touring and playing in different conditions. Secondly it will allow the selectors to observe some of these players in non-Indian conditions, playing different opposition. The final, and most important benefit is that there is no chance of it setting off a "trade war" between cricket boards.
If India are to persist in blocking their players from playing in Sri Lanka, there is the potential that Sri Lanka might block their players from playing in India. While Sri Lanka are not in a strong enough financial position to be able to really stop them, the English Cricket Board are, and a move by Sri Lanka could set off a domino effect which could potentially greatly diminish the value of the IPL for the BCCI. It could also risk upsetting the powerful Asia/Africa voting block in the ICC, which allows India to effectively veto decisions that it doesn't like.
The BCCI is not there to run world cricket. They exist to make sure Indian cricket is strong. Most of their decisions that people in the rest of the world have got upset about are ones that benefit India, and so therefore are decisions that the BCCI was right to make. However in this case the best interest of Indian cricket is to look after Sri Lanka. It will be interesting to see if they have sufficient vision to realise that, or if they are intent on just milking their supplier, until they collapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)