Twenty20 can be fun, but only if you’re winning

Australian batsman David Warner strikes the third of his 6's against South Africa during the KFC Twenty/20 match at the MCG in Melbourne, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009. (AAP Image/Joe Castro)

I settled in front of the box late on Sunday night to catch the most recent episode of the Australian cricket team’s trek through Britain. I wanted to check whether the loss of the Ashes (a TEST series) would have any impact on their performance in shorter forms of the game, especially with the captain in Australia on R&R.

Stand in skipper Michael Clark had eased some of the pain a few days earlier by thrashing Scotland in an ODI north of Hadrian’s Wall, which may have been akin to taking an aspro for an amputation.

But at least they were back on the winning horse.

England, like Australia, had performed poorly in the Twenty20 World Cup way back in June, but maybe they could use the momentum of an Ashes regained to carry through to the limited overs matches.

Sure, there are some changes in personnel and the methods can seem like distant relatives at times. But an international match of any description is serious business, it is played to win, not just “for fun” (I’ll get back to this point).

In 2005, England’s hindsight put high stock in their twenty over victory at Bristol before the Tests began. They used a miniature game to rediscover self-belief against the virtually unbeatable Australians, who landed in the Old Dart as red hot favourites to continue sixteen years of domination.

England has assumed the position of the proverbial “drowning man” and “clutched at a serpent”, the “serpent” of an afternoons cricket rather than five days of physical and mental examination.

For the first time since 50 over cricket took centre stage, the ODIs are to be played after the Ashes Tests. Usually there is a three or five game series leading into five or six Tests (in 2005 there were actually two “separate” ODI series, the first featuring a three way with Bangladesh, with Australia losing to them at Cardiff on the same day that Andrew Symonds was stood down for arriving at the game under the influence of drink).

Rain eventually spoiled the early morning TV time.

Manchester had produced its best drizzle and cold Pennine winds, just as the Brett Lee had began so well.

The English TV commentator – and former Test opener – David Lloyd repeatedly told us that it was only “a fun” game. The weather and ground conditions didn’t matter because the teams were “only having fun”, as if Twenty20 was the half-time entertainment rather than the main event.

The Australian players have often proclaimed that the shortest form of the game was all about “fun”, their losses and failures in successive Twenty20 World Cups and a losing record all up of 11/12, in an era where they have significant winning records in both Test and ODIs, revealing that they are not planning or competing thoroughly enough.

Maybe “fun” is about losing?

Perhaps the lack of a competitive nature in our schooling system has permeated the psyche of Gen X and Y who make up our cricket team?

Maybe.

I wonder how much fun the multi-million and billionaires of the IPL think their investments are?

Coaching and playing staff are under a lot of pressure to win, whether they have fun or not is moot.

Australian State teams are now contracting overseas specialists to help them qualify for the lucrative Champions League, where the prize money is in the millions of dollars.

Becoming a successful twenty over team is the new incentive for fiscal survival and progress, so while the international teams can have some “fun” in their scattered clashes, the next level down has become a serious business – a serious money making business where is you can have a barrel of fun.

When you win.