The Difference between IPL and Cricket

Is it not the same? No it isnt. Here are the differences...

1. DLF Maximum, Citi Moment of Success.... - Ridiculous Artificiality. Why cant they call a six a six, a wicket a wicket? Whats with this artificial brand endorsement? Where will this all end? With players' names tagged with brands as well? Lets imagine where this may lead to - "Thats a fabulous Airtel Four from Pepsi Sachin"; "A HDFC moment of great stop from Sprite Dhoni"; "A splendid moment of ICICI strategy"; "Asian Paints LBW"; "Oh, Its a Titan sprint from the batsmen"..Huh? Where will this all end? There are breaks at the end of each over, till the first ball of the next over is bowled... when a player is injured, when the player has paused the game for a few seconds just to adjust his pads, when there are discussions on the field... there are innumerable no. of breaks already with enough of brand endorsements, eating into one's living room and head... Why the need to corrupt the commentary? Because its artificial and reduces the respect we had for the cricketers that spoke in there till now.. we feel its orchestrated...And it takes a second or more to register whats the DLF Maximum and whats the "Success" one is talking about? 
   And there was this funny case of a commentator getting his script wrong. He blurted out "Citi Moment of Disaster" to relate an incident... Isnt this the outcome of such ridiculous scripting of even such live utterances such as Commentary? 
2. Butter Fingers - One and All - I just cannot recollect or even imagine another tournament with so many catches dropped, mis-fields, lack of concentration on the field... Just cannot think of any other cricket tournament... Just about every person, even who were decent enough in the field until now have managed to misfield atleast a couple. Catches dropped are innumerable in number, in some cases even more than their individual scores in the entire tournament... Is it because its not considered serious cricket? Or is it too serious? I can bet that the boys in Bangalore playing 20 over cricket have an overall better record in fielding than several of these "big boys".
3. Running (walking, ambling, jogging??) between the wickets - It was a bane of a select few. Such as Inzamam, Ganguly. Now everybody seems to have succumbed to this disease. Not running the first one hard enough. Not sliding the bat in the crease. Not calling well and clear. But some old boys  do still run good - Dravid, Symonds, Hayden, Sachin. Old habits die hard.
4. Sudden outbursts of emotions - Players seem to forget that this is a tournament lasting just about 40 days or so and they have to get back to their national sides and play with a lot of those players that are in their opposition. Emotional outbursts, are at best, childish and at worst, can dampen the great experience of cricket that is on show. Ishant Sharma, I am sure has damanged many a ball, just by throwing it hard on the ground when he is frustrated (which he is most of the time, given the state of KKRs). Munaf Patel does not know the difference between an international cricket field, watched by billions and millions of children as well, and his family drawing room, where he is allowed to behave as immaturely as he chooses to. Yuvraj Singh has been at his arrogant best with his co-Indian Players, just forgetting he is the product of the Indian Team. These and so many more, are honestly, irritating to watch. There was one Sreesanth. In IPL 2, there seem to be many more. Does it mean we need more Harbhajans? :)

What can cricket learn from Formula 1?

Well, essentially, the way its telecast. 

We all know the 2 major sports - one, a billion people and more worship as religion and another, triggers an adrenaline rush thats unparallelled - the glitz and the thrill never short of breathtaking.

Cricket is essentially a sport of Strategy, Skill, Patience. You play for long, battle the hardships of the opponents and the myriad uncontrolled forces (rain, storm) and emerge a winner. The 3 skills - batting, bowling and fielding are sports in themselves. And often, the uncertainty of the result does add to the thrill and the edge of the seat experience for cricket fans.

Formula 1, on the other hand, is more 1 dimensional, atleast on the surface. People use the latest cars, constructors battle through their machines and overall, look at winning the race on the day. It has its clumsiness - the pit stops and the hundreds of rules that govern this, the safety car, so on and so forth. If you actually look at it, its rather a dull game in some sense - the person in the lead usually goes on to win and there are usually a handful potential winners for an entire season.

But on the face of it, by looking at the telecast, the Formula 1, in its presentation of the game to its viewers beats cricket hands down. The energy and the richness is quite something. The exact status of the game, its drivers etc are available all the time. One look at the screen enriches a user's viewing experience and drags one into the game - whether you want it or not.  The  the graphical representation when a brake is applied or when a throttle is used, all this add quite a bit into the experience. And the Team Radio is just so amazing...to listen first hand what goes on in these high intense battles.

Cricket, on the other hand, looks rather dull on the TV screen, though who know the game know very well that each intricacy of the game has a lot to offer. Its a long game but the attempts at making it interesting are amateur. What else one can expect when the administrators, broadcasters, players - one and all - are hell bent on grabbing as much of the gold the goose offers? 

What can cricket accommodate in its telecast to make the viewing a much better experience?For starters,  the current batsmen and bowlers names and stats should always be displayed on the screen. Also the bat speed while it came in contact with the ball would be worth watching. A Line and Length metric can be devised and displayed for analysis of any particular ball bowled. 

There is scope for so much analysis and to create wonder among its viewers. Say, for example, if the reaction time to field or catch a ball by exceptional fielders such as Rhodes/Gibbs are tracked and presented graphically in comparison to other normal fielders, its going to tell us a story. Or the power exerted by Gilchrist when he hits a ball for a six.

And of course, strategy, such as snippets of what goes on in team meetings, the dressing room discussions, the coach's advice to his team. And graphical explanation of how the fielding team "Sets Up a Batsman". There are opportunities galore and one has to just look for it. Alongwith making this a great viewing experience, its going to offer novices and people with less knowledge to understand the nuances and increase their loyalty to the game.