Twenty20 novelty factor will wear off quickly
Roar Guru
By David Wiseman, 19 Jun 2009 David Wiseman is a Roar Guru
Related coverage
The Netherlands cricket team celebrate after defeating England in their Twenty20 World Cup cricket match at Lord's cricket ground in London, Friday, June, 5, 2009. AP Photo/Alastair Grant
Two months of non-stop Twenty20 cricket is going to come to an end this weekend and I am thrilled about that. Let’s be honest, Twenty20 is nothing more than fluff, and as the over-saturation of it continues, the novelty factor of it is going to dissipate more and more.
It is clear that the men on top of the cricketing food chain are motivated by greed and this is going to shape the future of cricket.
They are going to want to have more and more Twenty20 tournaments.
The first Twenty20 Champions League is happening at the end of the year and there are plans to expand the IPL from eight teams to ten.
While the games are happening, they are nothing more than wallpaper, something to keep us entertained in the here and now. They are nothing to stand the test of time, though.
Who is going to remember what happened in this year’s IPL tournament two months from now?
What the powers that be need to appreciate is that the two other forms of the game give Twenty20 its impetus. The icing on the cake is nice, but who wants to eat a bowlful of icing?
If certain administrators believe that Twenty20 cricket has the ability to stand on its own two feet, they are badly mistaken. It would survive for a while, only to implode.
The Ashes is the cornerstone of cricket.
The first 30 Test matches played were between Australia and England. Some of the greatest feats in world cricket has been produced in the cauldron which is Ashes cricket.
I’m talking about Jim Laker’s 19 wickets, Charles Bannerman’s 165 on debut, and Australia chasing down 404 at Headingley.
Could Australia’s lack of success at Twenty20 be connected in some way to the fact that they aren’t fully behind the concept? That to do well at it would only grant it further currency? That in some way, they are trying to protect Test cricket?
Who knows what is going to happen.
Whichever way you look at it, there are no obvious solutions. Just don’t look to the ICC for answers, because that is the last place you will find them.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (68)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (27)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (68)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Cricket, International Cricket, IPL, The Ashes, Twenty20, Twenty20 Champions League
Chris said | June 19th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
The idea that Australia may be trying to ‘protect’ test cricket is an interesting one and may have some truth to it. I agree entirely that Twenty20 at the international level at least, would not survive without the longer forms. I don’t see how a batsmen’s match winning 30-odd in a twenty20 final will stand the test of time against the 50-over achievements of Gilchrist and Symonds at past world cups. Also, would anyone care if Gilchrist walked in a Twenty20 final? I doubt it.
Brett McKay said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
David, I’ve been saying for some time now (even in an artcile) that there is little or no room for the international version of T20. This T20WC has been nothing more than filler in an already crowded calendar. Only three things have stood out for me in 5+years of T20Is:
1. The Aus and NZ teams donning the 1980′s retro uniforms for the first ever T20I in Auckland,
2. India beating Pakistan in the T20WC final in a thriller (though I didn’t actually watch the game), and
3. Australia’s ridiculous uniform based on grey-coloured lycra
Get rid of the International form, and let T20 be a mainly-domestic game with the Champs League and the IPL the pinnacle. After the way the IPL went in South Africa, I’d even suggest it should encourage more international players, and be played in different countries around the world every other year…
vinay verma said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Chris,I dont think Test Cricket can do without the income stream from the shorter format. Test Crowds are healthy only in England and Australia. Bradshaw,of the MCC, opined yesterday that Test Cricket is not in danger of dying but it needs the money from the Twenty/20′s. Test crowds,unfortunately,in the sub continent,NZ and South Africa are paltry.
Brett,the shorter form gives less skilled and emerging outposts like Afghanistan and Nepal a stage to play and improve. I subscribe to the view that cricket should be played in more countries.
Australia,England and SouthAfrica all want their own version of the IPL for the funds it can generate. It is a fine line between cannabalising and optimising. The momentum I feel is irreversible. What is needed is a balance between preseving the primacy of Test Cricket and the proliferationof the shorter form. Brett, in a previous comment you said “this is the reality” and I know the context may have been different but such is the way th world turns.
Brian said | June 19th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
With the exception of the 1999 WC semi between Australia and South Africa everything said about T20 being forgetable could also be applied to ODI. Thinking that the Ashes are the cornerstone of cricket even though they are played by just 2 nations, is exactly the kind of thinking that makes Aussie cricketers so hated. Only more absurd the notion that Lee was bowling half trackers in the T20 tournament because he wanted to preserve Test Cricket. Well done to Symonds too, his drinking has further preserved the purest form of the game.
Lazza said | June 19th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
I’m all for the underdog winning at sport, heck that’s one of the reasons I love Football so much but there is a crucial difference between Football and Cricket?
There’s only one form of Football that anyone cares about. If an underdog or lowly ranked team wins then all glory to them. If a lowly ranked Cricket team is completely hopeless at the Test level and ODI but somehow manages to win at T20, then what does that tell you? It tells me that the whole concept is just a lottery.
It’s not a very exciting lottery either, most games are one-sided and very rarely are they tight absorbing contests. One English journalist hit the nail on the head. If your team starts falling behind in T20 you have to start taking risks and become reckless with your batting. With only 20 overs you don’t have any choice and the more you fall behind or wickets tumble the more risks you have to take until the team just crumbles in a heap. I don’t think T20 is going to convert anyone to the game – it’s just for Cricket fans who have become bored with the purer forms of the game.
vinay verma said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Lazza,agreed the T/20 cricket fan is like a transient migratory bird. Flitting from instant gratification to chundering. But if they want to give money to cricket that may just go to preserving the longer form I will take their money.
Brett McKay said | June 19th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Vinay, 50-over ODI’s provide exactly the same opportunities for the “outpost” nations. The World Cup has been expanded to 16 teams for this very purpose, and the 2007 edition featured Ireland and Bermuda qualifying for the Super 8 stage. The T20WC only has three “outpost” countries because Zimbabwe turned down their invitation, allowing Scotland’s entry. I couldn’t agree more that cricket should be played in more countries, but the 50 over game has the advantage of being long enough for these new countries to be able to learn strategies and tactics. And also, facilities in these countries aren’t just built for 20 over cricket, they’re there for all forms.
I’m not against T20 cricket, for the record. Initially, I was sceptical, but having seen it and played it as well, it’s a valid form of the game with certain skills required. My point has always and will always be that with the domestic comps getting bigger and richer, they’ve become the qasi-international game anyway. So let’s cash in on these domestic leagues and do away with the international form, which in reality, serves little purpose. This is the reality too Vinay..
Robbo said | August 8th 2009 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
Bermuda did not qualify for the Super 8′s at the World Cup. They didn’t even win a game.
The Super 8 was made up of: Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Ireland and Bangladesh.
Notably India and Pakistan missed out.
Rich_daddy said | June 19th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Brian,
I think there has been more exciting games of ODIs than just the one you pointed out. What about 1995 semi final where Australia were gone for all money against the West Indies only to win by 4 runs?. There is also Wasim Akram’s performance against England in the 1992 world cup final. Andy Bichel’s performance in the 2003 pool game against England as well as Symonds innings against Pakistan at the same tournament. There has been plenty of memorable moments over the years. I will admit the last two world cups have been pretty dull as Australia has been so dominant. Let us hope the next is a little more competitive.
vinay verma said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
The ACC Under 19 Cup has a Twenty/20 Format. Europe has teams from Italy and Denmark all playing both 50 overs and Twenty/20. Even Japan has a competition up and running.
Country vs country is the preferred format for me. Twenty/20 also gives more exposure to the w omen’s game. I was involved in a cricket club for 25 years and had a junior programme with six teams. The parents were loath to watch their kids for five hours. They ,on the other hand,were happy when we introduced a shorter format. The reality of modern living (that word reality again) dictates that time poor parents will opt for shorter formats of cricket and also soccer and baseball.
There is a good article by Peter Roebuck in Cricinfo. Worth reading.
Brian said | June 19th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
I concede there have been memroble ODI but lets face it, not many. Another game that could go in there is the 2007 T20 WC Final between India and Pakistan. My point was that the T20 is just as good as ODI. Cricket is a 5 day game played over two innings. If your going to modify it to suit tv, bring in more countries, have a World Cup etc etc etc. Well you might as well do it properly and embrace T20. I think its proven itself as a superiour product to ODI. The last 2 World Cups were boring not just because Australia dominated but because the game had become so boring and predictable. Teams just choke the opponent in the boring 15-40 over mark. T20 is of course shorter and more exciting whilst Test matches are played less frequently so the upset means more and you can always try and get away with a draw.
Just to hypothise my point. I think Australia will win the Ashes. There are 5 tests and so as the better side I give them a 70% chance. If instead of 5 tests, say 15 ODI were being played in the next two months I would actually give Australia 90% because the game is so predictable that they will work out a methodical boring way to win.
So given the last two WC, the ratings and crowds for T20 and the fact that there is only one pure form of cricket anyway why not turf ODI and embrace T20? Michael Bevan aside who would care?