LONDON: In cricketing history, the exploits of Vaibhav Suryavanshi are assured of a prime place. At 14 years of age, he scored a century in 35 deliveries for the Rajasthan Royals in the Indian Premier League on April 28, 2025.

The outing was only his third IPL match, having memorably hit the first ball he received on his debut for six. The century was the second-fastest in IPL history. The attack Suryavanshi plundered for 11 sixes and seven fours contained established internationals such as Afghanistan’s Rashid Khan. 

Suryavanshi has also shown his talents with a 58-ball hundred for India U-19s against Australia U-19s in an unofficial Test in Chennai last October. He has scored half-centuries at U-19 level against Sri Lanka and the UAE, as well as 71 off 42 balls for Bihar against Broda in India's domestic 50-over competition. This is good to hear in an era when T20 cricket is fast becoming cricket’s dominant format, threatening to obscure the longer formats.

It occurred to me that the generation that has grown up with the rise of T20 cricket may be unaware what declaration cricket means. Declarations are not usually a feature of short-format cricket but they are available in Test match and first-class cricket matches in which both teams can bat twice. A declaration is a strategic tool, when the batting team decides to end its innings before all players are out. There are various circumstances when this may be relevant, but it is usually to try and enforce a victory.

A common reason for declaring is to set a target for the opposition to chase. By declaring at a certain point, the captain aims to give the opposition a difficult, but achievable, target in the time remaining. This encourages the opposition to take risks while chasing the score, increasing the likelihood of them losing wickets. Several variables need to be taken into account by the captain who is considering a declaration. These include the time remaining in the match, pitch conditions — if it is deteriorating, for example — strength of the opposition, weather forecasts and the level of team support for the decision.

A recent example of a declaration that did not work out satisfactorily was that made by Nottinghamshire against Warwickshire in the County Championship. The latter were bowled out for 97 in their first innings. Nottinghamshire then amassed 367, but rather slowly at the end of the innings. Warwickshire, trailing by 274 on first innings, entered the fourth and final day on 163 for six in their second innings.

But rain, which was forecast, prevented play until 15.45, leaving Nottinghamshire’s bowlers just 36 overs to bowl out their opponents on a benign pitch. They failed to do so against some obdurate batting and were left to rue a failure to press home their advantage through an earlier declaration.

Declaration is both an art and a science. Vast amounts of data are available in today’s game to analysts to determine optimum times for declaration, but the ultimate decision rests with the captain and coach.

Three hundred years ago, it rested with the captain, based upon his assessment of prevailing conditions, perhaps with input from trusted colleagues. Declaration was the buttress of the game. It remained so, in my experience, in southern England into the early 1970s before league cricket, with its limitations or prohibition on declarations, became the norm, spreading from the north and midlands.

Throughout this period of change there has been a resistant strand. Perhaps, on reflection, not resistant but a desire to carry on an ageing tradition of declaration cricket, unaffiliated to formalised league cricket. Recently, I was able to witness an example of this. Tim Peters, a member of the cup-winning Drifters team in Chiang Mai, invited me to attend a match between the Royal Household Cricket Club and a wandering team, the Invalids, for whom he was playing.

This arcane, fascinating, part of cricket’s ecosystem, is far removed from Suryavanshi’s IPL feat. The setting was pastoral, in the shadow of Windsor Castle, adjoined by paddocks where the previous monarch’s horses pranced at will. After negotiating security, I wondered, on approaching the ground through long leafy driveways, if the match would be declaration based. Surely it would be, in time-honored tradition.

The Invalids CC is a wandering team. It has no home ground. There are a decreasing number of such fascinating clubs. The oldest one is I Zingari, founded in 1845 by a group of young aristocrats whose intention was to own no cricket ground of their own, but sought to foster and spread the spirit of amateur cricket at any country house where the hosts would provide hospitality and generosity. In recognition of this, the hosts would not be asked to provide any “professional,” paid bowlers, as was the custom at the time.        

The origins of the Invalids CC were different. It was founded in 1919 by J.C. Squire, poet, critic and editor of the London Mercury magazine. The name was given in honor of several players wounded in the First World War, while the chosen club colours, inspired by army officers’ hospital pyjamas, were hospital blue and old gold. A pair of crossed crutches was chosen as the club’s crest. In the early days, Squire assembled a team of writers, journalists and actors, whose thirst for the game exceeded their abilities.

Their opponents were mainly village sides and this is still largely the case today. Although the Royal Household ground is not a part of a village it carries a similar ambience. The club was founded in 1905 by King Edward VII. Its pavilion displays photographs and autographs of famous players, artifacts from previous matches, tours and visiting teams. One of these was the Vatican Cricket Club. In a moment of serendipity, a frame enclosed a bat signed by Pope Francis hung on the wall. It was the day of his funeral.

On the field, the match was declaration based. The Royal Household declared on 119 for nine wickets on the stroke of the cut-off time when tea was to be taken. After a fine English tea, the Invalids collapsed to 14 for four. A recovery was achieved and 35 runs were required from the last six overs, only two Invalids wickets remaining. At this point the home team adopted a field setting in which almost all fielders were on the boundary.

Those who know only of T20 cricket would have been puzzled. In that format, there is a limit on the number of boundary fielders and a stipulation that there must be a certain number of fielders within a 30-metre circle drawn from the centre of the pitch. This is a restriction that has crept into most league cricket but has been resisted by those seeking to preserve old traditions. At Windsor the old tactic worked for the home team as the remaining Invalids batters failed to outmanoeuvre the cunning field settings, losing the match by a few runs. 

The combined runs in the match amounted to 231 scored from close to 500 deliveries. The contrast with Suryavanshi’s feat is stark. Cricket has a rich and long history. At Windsor a part of that was being preserved, but societal change has created very different environment in which the game’s new history is being written by prodigies such as a 14-year-old Indian.

DUBAI: Viewed from several perspectives, it is a real achievement that the Pakistan Super League has reached its 10th year intact. It has survived COVID-19, regular changes in leadership at both Pakistan Cricket Board and political level, on-going unrest, spot-fixing, the rise of competing leagues, security issues and a seeming indifference to it outside of Pakistan.

The original contract between the PCB/PSL and the franchises contained a clause to review their value after 10 years. This now a bone of contention. It was revealed as such during an interview conducted by Arab News with Sameen Rana, co-owner and chief operating officer of the Lahore Qalandars. In a wide-ranging discussion, the motivation for the initial purchase was highlighted, followed by the challenges of building a team and an identity, concluding with a consideration of future prospects.

Rana was clear that the original motivation was “love of the country because the business model did not make sense. It was not something that was going to make money. At time of set up, the Indian Premier League was excluding Pakistani players — for us it was very much a national cause, and we wanted to do it for the country.”

It is apparent from comments made by owners of the other four original franchises that this was a common motivation. Together, the original five paid $93 million for 10 years, in a range of $5 million to $25 million.

Having made their investments, the owners were faced with building a squad of players, coaches and support staff. Rana admitted that this was a challenge. The first year was played in the UAE and, from a personal view he did not like it “as it was not the Pakistani tournament, playing in empty stadiums with small crowds who were brought in via the networks of the franchises.” However, there were “logistical benefits for the overseas players and it also meant that it allowed domestic players to play at a time when international cricket was not being played in Pakistan.”

In 2017, the PSL was played again in the UAE, but the final was played in Lahore. This was a highlight for Rana, seeing the stadium in Lahore jam-packed. The owners “had invested for the country, for the cause, and that that only became live when played in Pakistan.” Yet, that euphoria was tempered by the realities of running a cricket franchise. Rana openly emphasized that he, his brothers and others involved were businesspeople, new to cricket.

“We had no background in cricket at all. This meant we had to learn on the job. Looking back at the first year of the draft, we were unlucky in terms of the emerging category, because we had the last pick. This meant that we could not pick the players whom we wanted and the squad was not up to scratch.”

Lahore Qalandars struggled in the early years, being eliminated in the group stages. Rana revealed that they “felt disadvantaged in building a competitive squad because the more successful franchises were able to retain up to 16 players.” This meant that the top players were unavailable to the Qalandars. A different strategy was needed to build a core squad.

Rana said: “All we were hearing from various players and cricket stakeholders was that there is no talent. So, we decided to challenge that by going into the streets of Pakistan, initiating a player development program, supported by a lot of personal resources, providing player salaries, facilities for development and sending them abroad to play and learn. In this way, we have found new talent and provided the youth of Pakistan with an opportunity to make their career and to achieve their dreams through a fast-track program.”

The strategy worked to such good effect that the Qalandars finished runners-up in 2020 and champions in both 2022 and 2023. Now, there are new challenges to face, as the PSL prepares for its second decade. Disquiet has been expressed publicly by Ali Tareen of the Multan Sultans, suggesting that “the PSL’s marketing has declined, and the excitement around the tournament has also diminished compared to previous years.”

Rana disagrees with any suggestion that the PSL has lost its momentum. He takes the view that, whilst there are challenges to be faced and overcome, the PSL has been a force for good. “Ten years ago, there was no Lahore Qalandars, there was no PSL, there were no opportunities for the younger players to earn financially or to showcase their talent. There were no foreign players coming, there was no competitiveness. We were only dependent on the domestic T20 tournament, which few people watch. So, we have come a long way.”

However, he highlights a key challenge which is being faced. This is the new contract with the PSL. It seems that what the PSL has put on the table is renewal at either the current price, plus 25 percent, or the current price plus a new valuation of each team. At present, the new valuation is not available. Rana’s concern is that this potential hike in fee fails to recognize the part which franchises have played in building the brands.

He argues that “if you have worked hard to do this for the betterment of the PSL, then you are ending up paying more money as a fee, rather than getting credit for the work done. If Lahore Qalandars had not undertaken a player development program, then our valuation would be lower. This contradiction is a fundamental problem in the contract and against the objective of any contract, because it is encouraging the investor to do nothing.”

Franchises have revealed that it has taken years to overcome losses and not all of them have yet done so. A public statement from the owner of the Karachi Kings, Salman Iqbal, suggested that “if teams are still not generating profits in the current environment, the problem likely lies with their own operational models rather than the league itself.”

What must be galling for the franchise owners is that during 10 years of building loyal fanbases, enhancing commercial strategies and honing marketing strategies, the body which has consistently made money is the PSL and, by extension, the PCB.

A detailed financial analysis is beyond the scope of this column but such an analysis would reveal that the PSL has bankrolled the PCB for years. Only the return of international cricket to Pakistan, which has generated ICC and ACC revenues, has changed the balance. It is understandable that the franchise owners might feel under appreciated. The PSL was born in exile, nurtured amid political chaos, and sustained by franchise owners who have lost money. They invested for Pakistan. The PSL survived and gave creditability to Pakistan’s cricketing reputation.

Rana requests that “everybody remains positive and not create a culture of negativity, which can only damage Pakistan. The PSL has the future of players attached to it, plus a range of economic activity, so that should not be destroyed.”

In that context, it might be assumed that now is the time for the PCB to recognize the debt they owe to franchise owners, rather than run the risk of alienating them.

It is fair to say that the PCB/PSL stands at a crossroads. The return of international cricket provides an opportunity for the PCB to see the contribution which the franchises have made to that outcome. The love which they have displayed for the country through their PSL investment amounts to an act of faith. Whether that faith will be reciprocated in the negotiations to come or whether the PCB will seek, or be forced, to lever increased value for the rights to franchise is a matter now being played out. Once again, the PSL’s future is under pressure and Rana has pinpointed the central issue.