In October 2019, Virat Kohli made a suggestion that was quite different from what Indian cricket had seen before. After winning the Ranchi Test against South Africa, Kohli suggested that the BCCI should follow a similar system to other countries like Australia, England, and South Africa by fixing only 5 venues for Test cricket in India. His point was simple – it would not only help Team India but also allow visiting teams to know what kind of conditions they would face and improve fan engagement at specific venues.
Five years later, Kohli’s statement still seems relevant, and many are now questioning why the BCCI has yet to take it seriously.
What Was Kohli’s Suggestion?
In 2019, after a comprehensive series win over South Africa, Kohli was vocal in the post-match press conference. He pointed out that while India has many Test venues, only a handful of stadiums consistently attract large crowds for Test matches. According to Kohli, India should focus on just 5 venues, much like how England has Lord’s, Australia has the MCG, and South Africa has Newlands.
Kohli’s idea was driven by two main factors:
- Fan Engagement: Cities like Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata have always seen significant crowds for Test matches, while smaller cities often fail to attract large numbers.
- Consistency in Conditions: With set venues, both the Indian team and visiting teams would better understand pitch conditions, leading to more competitive matches.
Why Is Kohli’s Idea Important?
1. Crowd Engagement:
Test cricket in India is in a peculiar position. While IPL and limited-overs formats are extremely popular, Test cricket still struggles to fill stadiums in certain parts of the country. Stadiums in major cities like Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata see packed crowds, especially when there is a strong opposition, but many other venues see sparse attendance.
Kanpur’s Green Park Stadium is a recent example of this. Hosting a Test match between India and Bangladesh, the stadium faced numerous challenges, including poor maintenance and limited fan interest. While it is a historical venue with Test matches played since 1952, it no longer draws crowds as it once did. This echoes Kohli’s concern: fewer venues, more focus, and better crowd support.
2. Better Prepared Grounds:
Test matches in countries like Australia and England are played in a few key stadiums year after year. This allows ground staff to better prepare for the conditions that suit their teams and offer a better playing experience for cricketers. If BCCI fixes 5 venues, it would give time for better preparation and improve the playing surface.
An example of how this could have helped was seen in the Kanpur Test. Due to rain, the Indian team captain Rohit Sharma won the toss and decided to bowl, which is rare in Indian conditions. The team played with three pacers, hoping the rainy conditions would assist the fast bowlers. However, the expected swing did not materialize, and spin turned out to be the dominant factor, as is usually the case in Kanpur. With better familiarity with the conditions, the team might have made a different choice in team selection and strategy.
3. Match Scheduling and Weather Conditions:
Another major advantage of having a few fixed venues is the ability to plan around weather conditions. In recent years, we’ve seen multiple instances of rain affecting matches. During the Kanpur Test, the first day was washed out after only 35 overs due to rain. By fixing venues, the BCCI could choose the best months for cricket at each location to minimize disruptions due to weather.
Why Hasn’t BCCI Adopted This Idea Yet?
Even though Virat Kohli’s suggestion makes a lot of sense from both a cricketing and a fan engagement perspective, there are several reasons why it hasn’t been implemented yet:
- Politics and Voting: Indian cricket is not just about the national team; it’s also deeply rooted in state-level associations. Over 30 state cricket associations are part of the BCCI, and each of these associations has voting rights. To maintain political power within the BCCI, the central leadership often makes promises to these associations, including hosting Test matches. This ensures that different state associations feel included and benefit financially. Fixing only 5 venues would alienate many associations, which could lead to a loss of support for those running the BCCI.
- Financial Incentives for State Associations: Another reason is money. Each state association receives financial support from the BCCI for hosting international matches. Hosting a Test match can earn them Rs 25 lakh, while ODIs and T20s bring in Rs 15 lakh each. By limiting the number of Test venues, state associations would lose this revenue, leading to pushback from those who rely on hosting these games for financial stability.
- Venue Maintenance and Infrastructure: Many state cricket associations argue that hosting international matches helps them maintain their stadiums and infrastructure. Without the opportunity to host, their stadiums would fall into disrepair, and they would have fewer opportunities to justify investments in upgrades. BCCI distributes funds for stadium upkeep, but hosting matches brings in additional revenue, which is crucial for many state bodies.
Time to Reconsider?
While these reasons hold weight, the recent events at Kanpur’s Green Park and other under-prepared venues highlight the need for change. The BCCI has the opportunity to make Test cricket in India more consistent, enjoyable, and successful. The sport thrives when the fans are engaged, and that happens best in venues with a deep-rooted connection to the format.
By implementing Kohli’s suggestion of fixed venues, the BCCI could create an atmosphere where Test cricket gets the attention it deserves, both from the players and the fans. India already has a proud Test cricket tradition, but improving fan experience and ensuring better playing conditions could help maintain the format’s relevance in the modern game.
