How much is too much?

Amidst the excitement over India’s fine series win over South Africa, the disappointment over the washout of India Vs Pakistan tie and the sad demise of Dilip ‘Sardee man’ Sardesai, one news seems to have quietly escaped everyone’s attention.

Given the low key reaction to it, I can’t say for certain that this news is not a part of speculative reporting. I only hope it is not.

The International Cricket Council has finally put a cap on the number of tests, ODIs and Twenty20 matches that can be played in a series. It has also decided that the maximum number of Twenty20 matches in a year be capped to seven per team.

ICC has in past, tried out several things to reduce the stalemate that seemed to afflict the game. Super subs, power plays etc were intended to make cricket - ODIs in particular - more exciting. Some of these steps met with moderate success while a few were discarded altogether.

But in terms of sheer impact on the game – in a positive way - I cannot think of any other decision in the recent past, which comes even close to the one currently proposed by the ICC.

It is no coincidence that the decision to limit the number of matches comes against the back drop of India playing seven ODI matches against England this summer and an Englishman, David Morgan, assuming the charge as ICC president. There is an ‘English feel’ to it. And if I may add, also a distinctly ‘unIndian’ one. But even at the risk of sounding like an apologist to the ‘Raj’, I welcome it whole heartedly.

So, how much cricket is too much cricket?

Quantifying the number of matches, would lead to a raging debate. Nonetheless, I am willing to stick my neck out. I believe the number of Tests, ODIs and Twenty20s must be limited to 12, 25 and 10 respectively (give and take a couple), per team per annum.

Not only would it leave enough time to arrange first class matches on an overseas tour, it would also allow players time to recuperate from their injuries. A positive spin off would be the incentive it provides to test players to hone their skills in domestic cricket, thereby making it (the domestic cricket) exciting and competitive.

Having said that, I am not oblivious to the fact that money is integral to the development and sustenance of the game. I believe even with a cap on the number of games, money can still be kept in a ‘free flowing’ mode.

A mere glance at the cricketing calendar of test playing nations suggests that the game can be played 365 days a year, even with the embargo on. February- April in West Indies, May to August in England, Sept - Dec in Sri Lanka and Sept – March in India, Pakistan, Australia, SA and New Zealand. With some more innovation, imagination and a generous sprinkling of common sense, ICC can arrive at a much better schedule than it does at the moment.

Noted New York Times columnist and author, Thomas Friedman, mentions Dov Seidman’s book titled ‘How’ in his recent column. It delves on how the ‘Hows’ matter more than the ‘Whats’ in today’s rapidly changing world, whether corporate or everyday life.

With a cap on the number of matches, ICC has got it’s ‘Whats’ right. Can it summon some more common sense and get its ‘Hows’ right too?

I would dearly hope so.