- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
International Twenty20 has come a long way since a beige-clad New Zealand stepped out onto Eden Park to take on Australia in what was little more than a festival match in February 2005.
On that day – international cricket’s first foray into the unknown quantity that was Twenty20 – comic relief was as much of an objective as winning a cricket match was.
The New Zealanders, paying tribute to the beige uniform worn by the national side in the 1980s, seemingly gave as much attention to their appearance pre-game as they did to their performance.
Hamish Marshall sported a headband engulfed by a head of hair Jimi Hendrix would have been jealous of, Chris Cairns a retro bucket cap and moustache.
The Aussies played their part too, sporting the famous bright yellow (or Australian gold) uniform also worn by their national side in the 1980s.
It spoke volumes for how the players viewed this recent addition to their cricketing calendar – a ‘hit and giggle’ sideshow.
At the time, I could not help thinking that if the game continued to be viewed in this way – as a relatively meaningless ‘smashfest’ – it had the potential to retain the excitement of that day. But, if players and administrators began to give it too much air time, it could be in danger of losing its edge.
Alas, I believe it has done just that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very much an advocate of Twenty20. I may not have been initially, but I certainly am now.
It has without question put bums back on seats, notably on the domestic scene here in New Zealand, and has drawn a new base of fans.
I am also not saying it has waned in popularity – if anything, it may have grown.
However, I have no doubt what we are seeing now is simply the formula commonly applied to a one-day innings – the very formula Twenty20 intended to eradicate – being applied to a 20-over innings. It is a condensed version of 50-over cricket.
When teams first tried to make sense of this apparently hopelessly short time frame in which to construct an innings, they knew only one way – all guns blazing.
With only 20 overs at their disposal, there was no time for mucking around. It was a one-paced innings from the first ball, and that pace was frenetic.
However, as the game has evolved, teams have worked out 170-180 is probably a par score on most grounds. On a difficult pitch, 140-150 could be a winning total.
They have also worked out batsmen have time to build an innings. An opener can “carry his bat” and score 70 at a run a ball with other players batting around him. Even a pinch hitter, once considered necessary to bat at four or five, can be injected with four or five overs to go.
This may please the purist, but it is not how Twenty20 was intended.
Kudos to the players for assessing the situation and realising sensible cricket can be applied but, let’s be honest, it’s not quite as fun.
Rather than sides striving for optimum output from their 20 overs, it is not uncommon to see them put the foot down for the first six overs of field restrictions, before entering the so-called ‘accumulative’ phase from overs seven until 14 or so, followed by a final flurry in the ‘death’ overs. Sound familiar?
This period of consolidation, whether wickets have been lost or not, is generally applied in twenty20 just as it is in one-day matches, only for a significantly shorter period.
Of course, there will be exceptions – such as Brendon McCullum’s century against Australia earlier this year – but this is no different to Adam Gilchrist maintaining the same tempo into the 25th over of a one-day innings.
So why is this the case? Because it is important to win these matches.
Whereas in the past Twenty20 was simply a way for players to let off some steam, maybe played as a one-off tour opener, it is now given equal weighting on a tour, both in terms of importance and time.
You certainly cannot blame the players for taking this thing seriously – Twenty20 is where the money is.
Ironically, though, it is still the explosive players that will demand a higher auction price than those who compile run-a-ball fifties – unless you’re Jacques Kallis or Rahul Dravid.
The problem is it is taken very seriously by national sides, and they will do whatever it takes to win a game, even if it means ‘winning ugly’.
Twenty20 cricket will only get bigger, and some have predicted it may even replace 50-over cricket.
When all is said and done, it will still entice crowds and will still offer more bang for your buck.
The only disappointment I have is that, in such a short space of time since that first match at Eden Park, the game has, to an extent, gone from having it’s own distinct identity to becoming a mini version of it’s 50-over brother.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.