At the beginning of every IPL season we have these subdued
concerns about the length of the schedule sheet. The concerns carry a sense of
aloofness once the season progresses and we don’t mind watching our team play
16 games over 7 weeks, more so if it is winning! Needless to say, 6 seasons
since its launch the IPL is assuming an ODI innings kind of outlook with the length
of the middle overs broadening.
After 66.67% completion of group stages in IPL-6, two teams
(PWI, DD) are out of contention and one team (CSK) has already qualified. Two
teams (RCB, SRH) are on the verge of qualifying and one team (KKR) is on the
verge of elimination! Yes it leaves an anticipative finish for the knock-out race
between 3 teams (MI, RR and KXIP) for one spot and a stiff contest for the
positions on the points table. Simultaneously it leaves quite a few matches of
very little consequence. This implies you have to live with likes MI vs CSK and
PWI vs RR on the same day, for a couple of weeks now!
With big names, even in sides which haven’t qualified, doesn’t
make the rest of their matches dull, but the quantum of matches played under
the pretext of ‘pride’ is too high to make this segment of the tournament cumbersome.
Unlike the current format of the IPL, the league format for other sports works
well as teams are allowed to breathing space over a period of time without the burden
of qualifying within a timeframe.
IPL cannot afford to be a 10-month league, and also cannot
have a multi-knock-out stage format. Within these constraints the home-away
format with only 4 knock-out games is probably the optimal choice of conduct. Yet
with 9 teams (currently) you have every team playing close to 3 games a week! For
a group of players who assemble just before a tournament and don’t share the
dressing room after it finishes (both Indian and away players), 3 weeks are too
less and 8-9 matches (during those 3 weeks) are too many to provide an
exhibition of equally consistent sides.
This in-between kind of formatting allows broadcasters and
organizers to sell their product over a period of two months, but does that
have a subtle possibility of diluting the intensity of on-field competition for
most parts of that period? Is there need for a different format? Probably not (at
the moment) for 6 years is too short a period to derive conclusions. But there
is definite scope for finding a couple of loopholes in the current methodology.
Here is a suggestion (not comprehensive) for an alternate
scheduling in the long run. Divide the teams into two groups (makes sense if
equal number of teams) with them playing home-away games in the group stages.
One team from each group is eliminated at the end of it and the 4 teams qualify
to the next stage. Each team plays against the every other (from the second group)
side once. The top 4 sides then progress to the semi-finals. The plus side
(assuming 10 teams) - a team gets to play a maximum of 12 matches and a minimum
of 8 matches before the semis. This can allow spaced out scheduling, focussed
planning for team managements at every step and ensuring that the quantum of
inconsequential matches is reduced.
T20 cricket is in its nascent stages and unlike other forms
of the game there are no defined patterns for success or failures. Thus at the
moment the performance of teams are primarily driven by momentum and ability to
halt the opponent’s! The USP of the IPL, with the concept of player auctions,
was to encourage equality in terms of player distribution and expect equality
in terms of competition. As it pans out teams with stronger core groups have
become stronger and the level of competition being balanced to the extent of
T20 being the format of competition. Tweaking the scheduling/formatting could be
one way to assign the element evenness to the league in the long run!
Comments
Post a Comment