One of the great charms of the cricket World Cup is that it happens only once every four years. Like the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup, there is a sense of excitement that comes with the rarity of having the nations of the world gathered at a marquee event for a common pursuit.
For ardent followers of the game, the build-up to the tournament has a peculiar appeal - captaincy grooming, squad selection, efficient Powerplay strategies and dot-ball percentages on different wickets are riveting for the cricket "geek" in us. For the casual observer, the tournament means a particular month of keener-than-usual attention to the sport. For the newcomer, the World Cup is a transitory sampling of an esoteric game.
RELATED LINKS
As a student in south-eastern Canada, I have been approached by at least a dozen friends asking for my thoughts on this year's tournament (since they are aware that I am one of the aforementioned "geeks"). They have no cricket-following past, yet from Ireland's upset win ("So, are West Indies supposed to be one of the good teams?") to India v Pakistan's one billion-plus audience ("That's more than the Super Bowl!") to the length of the matches ("I thought each game lasted a week!"), cricket has piqued a new interest base.
Their attention represents wider global awareness over the next few weeks. With constant talk about the longevity and sustainability of cricket, this is a decisive moment. Our sport's custodians must determine how our game can convert momentary attention from curious viewers into long-term interest. In a metaphorical sense, how can we catch lightning in a bottle?
My suggestion, and that of many others, is simple but necessary: cricket needs context.
One would think that the best way to promote a sport would be to display it in its purest light. Cricket is inherently disadvantaged in this regard, though, because "pure" cricket requires a prolonged time commitment. Newcomers are unlikely to sample an arbitrary match by sitting down to a seven- or eight-hour display over an entire day, much less five.
The preliminary response to cricket's length would be that T20s are the key to getting people involved. This is partially true; there is little doubt that cricket's popularisation has largely been thanks to T20 in recent years. However, the T20 fan (whose enjoyment comes from a smash and a crash) has not necessarily tapped into the richness of cricket in toto.
Sources of entertainment, be they sports, movies, books, or otherwise, have a beginning, middle and ending, with intrigue interwoven throughout. In order to get people excited, you have to first get them interested
A deeper appreciation of cricket values defence as much as attack, a well-placed push into a gap as much as a smashed boundary, and an extra slip and an off-stump line as much as flashing bails. The game's complexity and nuance have as much of a role to play as a big six. How, then, do we convey cricket's grander intricacies to the inquisitive newcomer?
The World Cup has shown that context generates curiosity, regardless of the length of matches. New eyes are watching cricket because there is a framework through which they can approach the game. If followers are given an outline within which to reference matches, and are shown that matches have significance in a grander scheme, and are further shown that the grander scheme leads to a climax (i.e. a World Cup), then watchers will be able to relate to our sport better.
Take James, who has become a fan of New Zealand thanks to the World Cup. He will follow them throughout the tournament, cheering them as far as they go. What is James to do with his new-found fandom after this World Cup? In the current dispensation, he can watch New Zealand play ODI cricket again in June, when they face England in five ODIs. He can also check them out later in 2015 versus South Africa and Zimbabwe. New Zealand will be playing those teams because that's what the schedule dictates, but a series win or loss will have very little consequence beyond the ODI rankings. James will probably still follow for a while, but can you blame him for eventually losing interest when the objective of New Zealand's games remains undefined until 2019?
Why would, or should, a newcomer care about a bilateral series in 2017 or a tri-series in 2018? Why would they devote their attention - and, ultimately, spend their money - on games that exist in the ether? Until and unless our sport's administrators properly package cricket within a greater plot, we will continue to wonder about our future.
The IPL is a success; it has context. Other major sports leagues around the world are thriving; they have contexts. The FIFA World Cup, through its qualification rounds leading to a 32-team World Cup Finals tournament, is sports' greatest show; it has context. Sources of entertainment, be they sports, movies, books, or otherwise, have a beginning, middle and ending, with intrigue interwoven throughout. In order to get people excited, you have to first get them interested; they cannot get interested unless they are given a point of reference from which to interpret what they are looking at.
ODI cricket's point of reference is the World Cup. The sport needs context, and it needs it sooner rather than later.
