TWENTY-four years since its first avatar, and 28 years after the first official one-day international, the World Cup is unrecognisable from what it once was. Few thought that the eight-nation little tournament of 1975 would grow into the literally unmanageable beast of 1999. Despite the lack of much marketing this time, the Cup still does tend to generate interest in some countries, notably on the Indian subcontinent.
But is this kind of cricket progress? Or are we going backwards? Ever since one-day cricket became officially accepted as part of a touring team's itinerary, there has been an attempt to sell it as a result-oriented game. (Of course, with few exceptions, the ridiculously short nature of the game means that it cannot be otherwise). And the other side of the argument, often unstated, has been that Test cricket is a bore, five days of defence and a draw more often than not.
Connoisseurs of Test cricket pour scorn on the one-day variety and the diehard one-day advocates often turn around and sneer; the defence of the latter is that if there were no money coming in from the one-day game then Test cricket would have died a long time ago. Two very extreme arguments, both of which, thankfully, are wrong.
Of course, during the early years of one-day cricket, the arguments of its advocates had some truth in it. There were a great many boring Tests (I saw four drab affairs in India when Pakistan toured in 1987) and one-day cricket had not still lost its novelty. The thrill, the tension was not as artificial as it is now. The run-chase was taken seriously. There was little overkill. India and Pakistan did not play each other every second day of the year. And, more importantly, the tactics used in one-day cricket for the most part were similar to those employed in Test cricket -- teams aimed at taking wickets to keep the run rate down, openers aimed at a solid partnership to give the middle and lower order a platform to build. It was not uncommon to see a geunine slip cordon at the start of the innings. And, of course, there were no charges of match-fixing.
That has changed a great deal. There are more teams in the fray now and hence more matches. The belief now is that money is not everything -- it is the only thing. Even the World Cup has become a pyjama party -- till 1983, whites were the rule. And so we have a distinct dichotomy developing. The old man who watched nothing but Test cricket now feels he is watching a totally new and disgusting game. Nobody can blame him if he shies away and knocks his television set off.
But there is the other side as well: folk who spend endless hours on chat channels debating the merits and demerits of their own team. And doling out praise for every second bloke who makes a half-century in a one-day tie at some remote location where two and a half people form the crowd. Cricket has become more about nationalistic jingoism as well over this period and that has crept into the one-day game in large doses.
Getting back to the original question -- is this progress? No doubt the game has changed beyond recognition. But has it all been change for the sake of change? Has someone somewhere down the line lost the plot? Is the one-day cricket which is played today qualitatively superior to that which we saw in 1975? Or 1971? Or is there more of hype and less of substance? Somehow, I get the sneaking feeling that if one were to answer these questions nonestly, then more than half of them would elicit a positive reply. A subjective view, sure, but then that's what the game is all about.