New centres are better than permanent ones: BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur
What was the idea behind taking Tests to smaller centres?
If you look at the game at Mohali, and even globally, the following of Test cricket is going down. We find less spectators at bigger venues which have huge sitting capacity. Even centres like Mohali couldn’t manage to get enough people to the ground. I think it is important to reach out to the tier-two, tier-three cities where you can have a larger audience. And I personally feel that will help. If you look at Mohali, Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, they host T20 games, IPL all in a year. That’s the reason the crowd stays away from the Tests matches.
What about facilities at smaller centres?
The new Tests centres are as good as other major venues. For example, Pune and Dharmshala are much better grounds than most others. So why should they be left behind? We will give Odisha Test status next September. The reason we didn’t include them this time is because of the (crowd trouble) incident that happened during the South Africa ODI. It brought a bad name to the venue. But we will consider them for Tests during the next AGM.
But how will BCCI convince permanent Tests centres as they will be deprived of Tests matches?
In the coming years, you need to re-think on it as well. Many members say, why do we need ‘permanent’ Test centres? I don’t want to name anyone but the new centres have far better facilities than these ‘permanent centres’. If cricketers from remote cities can play for India, then why can’t Test cricket go to remote places. The idea is to promote the game.
