Why cricket needs its 50 over format
Roar Rookie
By jimmy_01, 23 Jan 2010 jimmy_01 is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Cricket, One day cricket, Twenty20, World Series Cricket
Ben Hilfenhaus in action during a one day international cricket match - AAP Image/Andrew Cornaga
From the launch of World Series Cricket to the introduction of the IPL, 50 over cricket was the fastest, biggest and most competitive match you could experience.
Nowadays, 50 over cricket is being laughed at by its former players and shunned by cricket’s previously loyal supporters.
In the last month, many critics and admirers of the game have called to rid the game of its 50 version in favour of more Twenty20 in the future. What they don’t realize is the sudden change in the development of the game this will cause.
Generally over time, young cricketers have always tried to follow the sports’ leaders in playing with the same technique and the same shots.
In the 80s and 90s it was Boony’s cut shot or Hayden’s sweep – classic, recognized shots that can be used in all forms of cricket.
Nowadays Twenty20 has led juniors into playing shots like the reverse sweep or slog to cow corner, being played by recognized batsmen.
This will inevitably lead to the fall of the longer versions of the game as technique becomes unimportant and as hitting ability makes you a great batsmen.
50 over cricket over the years has taught players to bat more aggressively in playing textbook shots more often that in Tests. In the time of World Series Cricket, players like Dave Warner weren’t discovered because the fifty over version required technique, class, tactics and concentration, not improvisation and power.
As people continue to criticize 50 over cricket, what people don’t realize is the affect it will have on future cricketers.
Twenty20 expansion is good for the game and the Big Bash is important for domestic cricketers to become accustomed to the big crowds and high pressure situations, but without 50 over cricket, the slower scoring batsmen will be left behind.
Sadly the Justin Langer’s and the Allan Borders of tomorrow may be left behind.
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 (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- 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 (6)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- 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, One day cricket, Twenty20, World Series Cricket
MV Dave said | January 23rd 2010 @ 7:08am | Report comment
ODIs are on their way out to be repalced byT20…the writing is on the wall…less than half full Gabba for last nights game Oz v Paks. These games would sell out previously. T20 has spoilt the casual fan who no longer can be bothered watching bored, as batsmen steady the run rate in the middle overs of a game. Its the all or nothing principle. Tests will survive but only because they will be funded through T20 revenue…no such saviour for the ODIs. Over coming seasons they will continue to be downgraded in value and importance whilst hit and giggle takes over…geez l’m sure this argument was going on 30 years ago in Cricket when ODI revenue began to subsidise Tests. What next 10/10 games?
davido said | January 23rd 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
What next… indeed. How short can the form of the game go?
The reality is it will be determined by revenues and costs from the TV broadcast. The actual numbers at the game is almost irrelevant. There is a minimum start up cost for each game on TV. That cost is defrayed by revenue from ads. The longer the game the more ads you can put in. Of course the multiplier is how many people watching.
Probably the only thing saving test cricket is the sheer ratio of advertising to costs. Per minute of broadcast, test cricket is probably very cheap.
The Bush said | January 23rd 2010 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
You shouldn’t slack off Justin Langer, he really wasn’t that slow at scoring, neither is Katich despite what people’s perceptions are. Fears that T20 will destroy young batmens techniques and thus make batting for hours in Test cricket impossible are a little much.
Sri Lanka launched the revolution in ODI’s in 1995/96 by introducing the huge hitting at the start and finish. That is fifteen years ago, cricketers have grown up under this environment of big hitting and improvising but yet still have the technique. It has only improved test cricket by encouraging faster scoring.
You’re right that T20 is an even more serious pressure to encourage young batsmen to bat in this manner but there will still be plenty of talented batsmen that will display the grit and patience required to suceed in test cricket. Hopefuly it simply means more runs scored at an even faster pace for a longer period of time in Test Cricket.
Besides at the end of the day T20 is here to stay and any fears we have for the other forms does nothing to alter its presence and probable eventual domination…
MrKistic said | January 23rd 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
I think in Australia there is still a bit more importance put on crowd numbers than some other markets. The TV numbers will probably also reflect the crowd numbers, that is they’ll be down.
One day cricket needs attention – it doesn’t need to disappear completely though. It’s become stale whereas test cricket has advanced in the last 15 years and now we have T20 at the other end. There’s room for one day cricket, but it needs an overhaul.
Ian said | January 23rd 2010 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
There is no doubt in my mind technique will suffer because of Twenty/20 cricket. Quite sad actually. One only needs to watch the game to see how batsman are playing rather bizarre shots, that would not survive in Test cricket. In fact, watching the tests with Pakistan showed how someone like Umar Akmal was shown up for trying to play twenty/20 cricket in a test.
Personally, I find twenty/20 cricket rather boring and it requires less skill than the longer form of the game, less tactics and chance place a much greater role. Having said that, the crowds are obviously of a different opinion. However, I think it will only be a matter of time till twenty/20 loses its novelty and crowds start dwindling-such is the reality of human nature. Soon big hitting will be the accepted norm (much like what happens in the middle overs of 50 over ODI’s) and people will get bored.
Mind you, if twenty/20 does replace 50 over ODI’S as some are predicting, then my wife will not complain as it will mean I will be watching less cricket!
sheek said | January 23rd 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
How ancient am I….. the first 3 world cups in England (1975-79-83) were all played under 60 overs aside rule, which I still believe to be the best Limited Overs (LO) format.
As a batsman, you had 10 extra overs to build an innings, while still being required to tick the run rate over. As a bowler, you had an extra two overs max (12 overs max per bowler) to wrinkle a batsman out.
But it lost out to 50 overs per side for several reasons. There was the time factor. While it was okay to play LO cricket in the twilight of an English summer, night fell too quickly in the southern hemisphere.
But more importantly, the less overs involved, the better opportunity for close results, which is partly why T20 is popular.
On the surface it might appear T20 batsmen require no innings development technique, just good eye-hand co-ordination. They don’t call T20 the “big bash” for nothing.
Bowlers are bit players in the action, their only hope being to keep their bowling figures barely decent. However, the words of Ian Chappell still ring true regarding any LO cricket – the best way for a bowler to keep the run rate down, is to dismiss the batsman.
T20 cricket is fine for those with a short attention span, & requiring a fix that will need addressing again 20 minutes after the last ball has been bowled. But I guess that is most of today’s society……….
MrKistic said | January 23rd 2010 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Not necessarily sheek, I was at the MCG for all 5 days of the test against Pakistan and was also there for the BigBash T20 last Friday night b/w Vic & Tas, but I’m not so interested in the upcoming 50 over matches. I suspect 4+ days of cricket watching at the test might require some sort of attention span.
Also have a look at Brad Hodge. He’s one of the best T20 batsmen in the world and you wouldn’t suggest that he doesn’t have a decent range of strokes. He’ll flat bat one down the ground if required, and I do agree with the general argument that kids growing up are going to see more of that than we did, but if it gets them interested in cricket in general there’s a fair chance they’ll see more test match cricket and decent batting than if they’d taken up soccer instead.
As for the bowlers being bit players in T20, Victoria just won the final in the Big Bash competition once again. (And no, I won’t get sick of that happening any time soon!) But it wasn’t the batting that won it for them, despite Blizzard’s success and being man of the match. It was the bowling, which destroyed SA’s top order and really put them under so much pressure they couldn’t win. Nannes had figures of 1/8 off 4 overs, which is brilliant, and McDonald took 3/21 off 4, which is… barely decent?
Michael C said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Carna Vics,
won on the basis of…….some good batting,….some good bowling…..some good fielding…..sounds a bit like cricket to me.
What we have seen is that some players such as Nannes and McDonald are consistantly able to perform well in this form of cricket,
same thing happened in 50/50.
btw – carna Bear!!! (Cam White).
sheek said | January 23rd 2010 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
MrKistic,
Thanks for enlightening me. Us dinosaurs will take some adjusting…..
MrKistic said | January 23rd 2010 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
Don’t worry, I’m not exactly Gen Y myself! And I don’t care for all of the BS that goes on around the T20 matches either, especially not in the IPL. Unfortunately it sounded like there was a bit of it happening tonight too.
A question for you too – were we ever playing 50-over 8-ball matches here in Aus? That would have lengthened things a bit too.
sheek said | January 24th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
No, I’m pretty sure that never happened.
When we had 8 ball overs, it was only 40 overs a side. The first ever ODI, played in Melbourne in January in 1971, in lieu of the cancelled test match, was a 40 overs per side affair. As was the OD comp at the time, which was commonly referred to as a KO.
When Australia changed from 8 ball overs to 6 ball overs, there was actually a net loss of 20 deliveries (40 x 8 = 320; 50 x 6 = 300).
vinay verma said | January 24th 2010 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Sheek,change for the sake of change can be counterproductive. However change that enhances the product should be embraced. I see a lot of happy faces at the Twenty20 and this cannot be bad. Will these spectators embrace Test Cricket down the track? Probably not. That is their choice. Not everyone is cut out for the Opera! Will this revenue be channelled into grassroots cricket? Probably.
And what of the 50 Over game? MrKistic makes a good point about Hodge. He,along with David Hussey and Cameron White,would be three of the best shortform batsmen going around. And all have had a grounding in the Sheffield Shield. Its not as if these batsmen came from baseball or hurling. Looking around the world scene it is batsmen like Gilchrist,Pietersen,Symonds,Gibbs,Morgan,Sehwag and Duminy that prosper. Again products of the longer game. Bowlers with the best economy rates have all come thru the longer forms. A good technique is therefore imperative.
In the end it is the Broadcasters that pay the big bucks . For them it is about content to fill the 24 hours viewing time. Sport is readymade drama and does not need a script. Just an astute producer.Broadcasters in turn sell ad space and the better the product the higher the price they can charge. The sooner administrators and players realise that they are in the entertainment business the better it will be.Richie Benaud was advocating this 50 years ago. The rest of us are only catching up now.
It is inevitable that the longer forms will be played less frequently and the 5 match Ashes series will come down to 3 in time. It may take 10 or 20 years but it will happen. Cricket in 2010 is altogether more vibrant and attacking than 50 years ago. So progress has been made. Some administrators are genuine in their quest for the right balance. Cricketers like Ponting and Tendulkar are fierce advocates for Test Cricket and the 50 over game. Ponting realises that positive cricket brings crowds and the World Cup every 4 years remains the pinnacle. Next year Australia will try to win a fourth successive world cup in India. And if successful will defend it at home in 2015. After that ,Sheek,you and I may have different priorities.
Twenty20 seems about right. Twice as long as a soccer game and 21/2 times longer than Rugby.Cricket is evolving and Twenty20 is but a step in this evolution.As long as the players and administrators are not blinded and dont get too greedy Cricket will prosper.
sheek said | January 24th 2010 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Vinay,
I can but only agree with your wisdom!