Will playing the Ranji Trophy at neutral venues work?

Indian cricket has often toyed with the idea of hosting Ranji Trophy matches at neutral venues. Earlier it was only the knockout games, towards the end of the season, but this year all matches will be played at neutral venues.

Opinion has always been divided on this topic. Home advantage plays an important role in a team's fortunes, and so resistance to the idea of neutral games is understandable. In fact, it was at Sachin Tendulkar's behest that knockout matches were moved from neutral venues back to home and away. The pitch, the crowd and the comfort of playing at home cannot be replicated elsewhere.

It's not that those in power aren't aware that people in, say, Punjab are unlikely to turn up to watch a match between Gujarat and Karnataka. They must also know that it's likely to be a logistical nightmare to make every team travel the length and the breadth of the country in an already packed schedule (Ranji teams each play eight four-day matches in nine weeks). So why have they chosen to take a path that looks set to be a struggle from the outset? For the answers, we must delve into the underlying factors involved.

Pitch preparation
Two key elements determine the quality of cricket on display: one, the quality of the teams involved, and two, the quality of the playing surface. By putting teams in three tiers, with relegation and promotion, the BCCI has ensured the quality of teams in any given tier is largely uniform. Barring a couple of matches here and there, most games are between equally matched sides.

But in spite of the BCCI's best efforts, the quality of pitches hasn't changed over the years. Since pitch preparation is the host state's prerogative, the quality of the pitch has solely depended on the team's strengths and on their position in the league phase. The first aspect above is acceptable, while it is debatable whether the second is.

Often we see that when the hosts need a win to avoid relegation or qualify for the knockouts, the pitch isn't good enough to last four days. Last season there were as many as 29 matches that finished inside three days, of which the hosts won 19; the hosts won six of the nine games that finished inside two days.

 

Matches finishing in three days or fewer

Season	Matches over in <=3 days	Matches over in <=2 days
2012-13	15	1
2013-14	18	1
2014-15	20	1
2015-16	29	9

 

On the other hand, if the hosts need only a draw to stay relevant, the same pitch becomes a road. While there's nothing wrong in allowing the hosts a fair amount of say in pitch preparation, the situation as it currently stands is not ideal in terms of developing the skills of the next generation of Indian cricketers.

By moving to neutral venues, the issue of pitches "doctored" to suit the demands of the host team is neutralised completely. Since pitch preparation will be out of the teams' domain, they will be forced to strive harder to pick well-rounded cricketers.

India is blessed to have different-natured pitches across the country. For example, the pitches in Dharamsala, Indore, Lahli in Rohtak, and Moti Bagh in Baroda are seamer-friendly; those in Chennai, Rajkot and Hyderabad can easily be made perfect for spinners; and Mohali, Wankhede and Eden Gardens can be good for batsmen. It would be great if every team is scheduled to play their matches on different kinds of surfaces. That will encourage players to construct their game so it suits all conditions, and ultimately it will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Home advantage?
An important argument for not hosting matches at neutral venues is the lack of crowd support. There's nothing worse than showcasing your skills in empty stadiums. People are unlikely to turn up in numbers to watch a match in which their home team isn't involved.

However, while there's merit in this argument, the fact is, crowds haven't been turning up for Ranji games anyway. I've played matches in which as many as ten current or former international players turned out but there weren't more than a handful of people watching.

Unfortunately there has been an apparent lack of interest or affinity towards state teams in this country, at least in the big cities. It does change a little at smaller venues but only a little. So if people aren't turning up in any case, the argument that home support is missing at neutral venues becomes moot. In my opinion, hosting matches at neutral venues provides an opportunity for the BCCI to change this too. It will take concerted efforts to bring in crowds, but that sort of effort has been lacking from most state associations thus far anyway.

The Cricket Association of Bengal has shown the way by getting people in for the Super League Cup final between two club sides last month. Yes, the match was broadcast live and there was novelty around the pink ball, but it wasn't just that, for a lot of Ranji games are broadcast live too. The match was publicised quite heavily in the local media and people were not just made aware of the fact that entry was free but also encouraged to become a part of history. Eden Gardens saw close to 15,000 people come in across four days, which is incredible given the attendance - or lack of it - for even Ranji finals.

It's important to get the marketing right. All Ranji matches are played on weekends now. In addition to free entry, make games a great day out for the people who take time out to show up. More importantly, make matches a fun family day out. Allow kids to play on the ground during breaks or after the end of the day's play. Run contests that involve the cricketers who are playing. And so on and so forth.

Sometimes you need to get out of your comfort zone to make things happen. By hosting Ranji games at neutral venues, and taking the onus on itself, away from the state associations, the BCCI has made a start towards doing just that.