A glorified IPL event

The Champions League Twenty20 is approaching the semi-final stage with the pre-tournament favourites from Rajastan and Chennai dominating their matches.  This annual international tournament pitting the top domestic teams from some of the major cricket-playing nations is in its fifth edition and the third to be held in India.

Indeed, it is this preference of venue that suggests where the real power behind the CLT20 lies. Rather than being a true international competition in the purest sense the reality is that it is nothing more than a glorified version of the Indian Premier League (IPL).

The choice of teams unashamedly favours the originators of the event with four teams from India, and two from both Australia and South Africa qualifying for the 12-team competition. Single additional teams qualify from the Caribbean, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and, this year, Pakistan, with only the former being accepted into the main draw, the remainder being asked to qualify from the pre-tournament (which the other two Asian teams from this list failed to do, having occupied the bottom two places in the league format).

Teams from England are not taking part this year due to a clash in the playing times. However, there has never been an easy relationship between the English Cricket Board and the organisers since the inaugural year when the BCCI banned players from participating because they had competed in the Indian Cricket League, a rival to their own IPL. The major impact was on the Kent Spitfires who had a number of their exciting run-makers who had played in the unsanctioned ICL.

It is not only England that has not been involved. Most notable amongst the remaining cricket-playing nations is Bangladesh whose champions, the Dhaka Gladiators, were not allowed to participate despite representations from their management.

However, not too much should be read into the results, or indeed those in the main draw, if you are looking at the relative strengths of the teams participating.
 
This may appear to be a strange claim until you further examine the playing squads, comparing the players that represented each team in their domestic league (helping them to qualify) with those now wearing their teams’ colours in the finals. 

To draw an analogy with football, that would be the equivalent of Lionel Messi agreeing to play for Barcelona in Spain, Chelsea in England and Bayern Munich in Germany – or even Anzi in Russia! Having qualified with each he would then be forced to choose one team in the final!

Put simply, while the teams that qualified through the IPL are almost identical, those from the other nations have ben decimated. 

In this age of global travel and with a plethora of lucrative domestic T20 competitions having emerged, the best individual players in the world play for different teams in many of these leagues. As a result many help different teams qualify for the same champions league final, leaving them with a dilemma as to which team they represent.

In the current edition, all bar one has chosen to play for the team paying them the highest salary – their Indian franchise, in some cases turning their back on a home team that originally helped nurture their talent.

Kumar Sangakkara deserves a special mention as the only player to represent his home team, although the Kandurata Maroons lost every match in the qualifiers.

Two teams have been badly hit. Brisbane Heat have lost Shane Watson (Rajasthan) and Mitchell Johnson (Mumbai) in addition to their own overseas import, Thisara Perera (Hyderabad). At the time of writing they have lost all matches.

In addition, Trinidad and Tobago have had to watch as Bravo, Pollard and Cooper, in particular, have demonstrated with both bat and ball exactly why they are so sought after by the Indian teams.

Not only does the format of the competition make it biased, but so does the selection of the squads.

One solution would be for the ICC to create a true global club competition, scheduled at a time of year (which may vary – along with the venues), that allows for participation of all cricketing nations.  Furthermore, this would encourage the inclusion of domestic sides from Bangladesh and even Ireland, Scotland or Holland, to name but a few. This would also serve to promote cricket in these developing nations, thereby increasing competition at a national level, which is a stated aim of the ICC.

However, more importantly, individual players should be forced to nominate a single side that they will represent. 
This would bring greater parity between the teams and allow a greater spread of opportunity, in the long-term developing the talent pool.  In addition, teams should all face an identical limit on the number of overseas players permitted.

It would be intriguing then to see how many individuals turn their back on their home town team in favour of a reduced ‘quick buck’.

Back to the CLT20, Group A looks intriguing with the top two teams facing off in the final round of league matches. 

Third-placed Mumbai need a massive victory over bottom-of-the-table Perth while hoping that the already qualified Rajasthan fight hard for top billing over Otago who need the win. Rajasthan’s progress in the competition is remarkable given the withdrawal of Sreesanth, Chavan and Chandila following their indictment in the match-fixing scandal.

Group B has been dominated by Chennai who have been well served by the runs of Hussey and Raina and the economical spin of Ashwin.

As cricket waves farewell to Dravid and, possibly, Tendulkar, it is Chennai, under the inspirational leadership of MS Dhoni, who are my favourites for the $2.5million title … not as world club champions but of the IPL invitational.