Twenty20 is the way to expand the game

Some details of next years Big Bash League in the SMH http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/big-bash-heads-for-the-cities-in-t20-shakeup-20101221-194hd.html

How can you say "cricket ain't expanding anywhere anytime soon"? Have a look at what Afghanistan has achieved in the last 5 years. Have a look at the crowds Nepal got to the World Cricket League when they hosted Division 5. Then you have Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands competing in the English county cricket. There are probably more people playing cricket in the USA than some test-playing nations, they are just spread over a much larger area and among a much larger total population. Who cares if 99% of them are expats, they are now living full-time in the USA and they are still playing cricket.

Well two countries for the future - Afghanistan and China.

Cricket ain't expanding anywhere anytime soon. Sure a couple of expats here and there but no major in roads to trouble the existing test playing cricketing nations. Cricket is too hard to fathom for the uninitiated who already have plenty of other sports to chose from.

Better off watching Baseball,20/20 is rubbish

How can you say the game is too heavily weighted in favour of the batsmen? The batsmen are forced to risk their wickets pretty much from ball 1. Look at the overall batting averages for the different formats of the game (thanks to cricinfo statsguru): T20: 21.15 ODI: 29.46 Tests: 32.04 In any form of cricket, it is a contest between bat and ball. Batsmen might have a higher strike rate but a lower average. Bowlers might go for more runs per over, but have better averages and strike rates. I prefer Tests to ODIs to T20s but can appreciate all forms of the game. I can definitely see the appeal in T20 now that I am getting older and have less time to watch hours of cricket. Like in any form, T20 can have dud games, but it can also have its rippers. It is definitely a tool that can be used to spread cricket further around the globe.

That's some real pie in the sky stuff that you've written there. No doubt there is a huge Indian population in South East Asia and the Middle East but expecting that the popularity of T20 will somehow drive the expansion of the game is fanciful at best. Lets not forget of course that Cricket is in a crisis of sorts at the moment, T20 still doesn't sit well with many traditionalists yet it has become increasingly popular in a civilisation that is short on time and patience. T20 is a different beast to Test and even One Day Cricket, it's been said already that it is comparable to the differences between League and Union. If the goal is to expand cricket into new regions then using T20 would be folly. It would create cricket cultures that specialised in T20 and significantly lacking in the technique and skill required to play the long form of the game. It could also lead to an accelerated end to Test cricket. I certainly hope that never happens but money talks and if T20 becomes the dominant and most popular force around the world then it's inevitable that more and more money will find it's way there from other forms of the game. Back to your plan to expand the game via T20, you're lackin in details and grasping at fanciful notions. For one expanding the IPL into Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan will certainly increase the TV money but that's simply because the number of people watching it will be increased by the cricket fans in those already cricket mad countries. That's not expansion, it's maximisation of profits from an already existing market. I fail also to see how the success of this would magically transpose itself onto Asia. The South East Asian nations are hardly going to be looking over their shoulders and embracing cricket simply because the IPL is popular on the sub-continent (as it has been for years). As for the Middle East, as you say, this is a huge Indian population that is already into their cricket. Simply engaging existing Indian populations in other countries is not expansion, you need to engage new cultures with the game and so far you've not really put a convincing case as to why or how this will happen.

Agree Twenty20 is a better ice breaker than one day cricket (middle overs) and test matches. But give me a test match anyday.

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss Americans? American sports are extremely tactical and their football far slower and more drawn out. American cricket would be distinct from other countries, as you'd expect. It would probably instigate a more active tactical role for the coach, for example. But I don't see why there wouldn't be a decent sized market with an interest in the sport. It is a big, diverse, country. The NZ deal is really clever too. NZ first-class players (like every other test team but England) don't play for the 6 months a year American cricket is most viable. A couple more of those deals and the US could have a professional standard league up and running for very little money. Other benefits: if they can get a decent Indian tv deal they can probably afford to loss-lead in the US market as a way of attracting local fans; there is a lot of potential to couple with different sporting franchises interested in the Indian market (ie. fans of LA Lakers cricket = fans of LA Lakers basketball (and vice versa), the franchise is just a brand after all). Interesting times.

I don't watch it. The entire concept of defending your wicket doesn't appear to exist. Looks more like glorified batting practice. Cricket for those on Ritalin.

Interesting to see how New Zealands deal with the US goes, no doubt americans wouldnt take to test cricket, 3 hour T20 in primetime USA could just be the tv market they are wishing for.

In Australia the T20 matches are poorly attended and are no match for Test cricket.

Rubbish. Victoria pulled in crowds of 27,000 and 43,000 in its two home games last year, with minimal advertising, no FTA coverage (or any particular media presence at all), and in direct competition with international cricket on TV in other urban centres. T20 has enormous potential in Australia, and a proper league of several months duration is inevitable, whether organised by CA or not. But it isn't killing test cricket, test cricket is fine, it is widely revered by players, and widely followed in many countries - even if that doesn't translate into tv viewers and patrons, the public is paying attention, and test cricket continues to sell papers. 50 over cricket is on its knees though; has been for years, even before T20 (the super-sub initiative? the power-play? all signs of a format with no confidence in itself). As for development, we'll see. The levelling of football competition (and cricket, in the 1970-1980s) followed the presence of players from smaller nations in strong domestic leagues, improving their skills, and learning from good players. An increase in the amount of domestic cricket, rather than international cricket will do the same, and interest in players from cricketing hinterlands will follow. It is happening already, as European players proliferate in county cricket. Nevertheless, the greatest impediment to growth remains the attitude of full members to playing teams with lesser resources. It won't make a jot of difference how good Ireland or Afghanistan get if the money-generating teams (India, England, Australia and South Africa) refuse to play them, and their players switch allegiances in order to play at the highest level. And needless to say, there is no way those developing nations will take an interest in test or fifty over cricket if they never get an opportunity to play it.

I don't despise T20, but I have trouble considering at as cricket. Some of the basic skills and rules are similar to cricket, but it is a vastly different game in its execution. Just as rugby league is different to rugby despite sharing some similarities and some players being able to swap between them, T20 and cricket are different beasts.

Stick to football. Twenty20 is killing the traditional and best form of our great game...Test cricket. As for your comment about drawing big crowds, the only place T20 draws a decent crowd is in India in the IPL, and Indians would flock to any form of cricket they could get to. In Australia the T20 matches are poorly attended and are no match for Test cricket. And your comment "use T20 to develop their skills to a point where they are competitive with the bigger nations" is laughable. Let me explain something...Twenty20 in no way develops cricket skills, it kills them! If the ICC had any brains it would snuff out this thorn in the side of proper cricket before it becomes infectious

Cricket has evolved to have three versions of its game, and T20 has received a running start. However, T20 is less than ten years old at an international level, and ODI cricket was originally met with some opposition too, i.e. breaking away from the traditional form of the game in terms of Test Cricket. For me T20 is very much a "wait and see" as it appears that cricket has lost some of its zap in Australia, particularly with patronage. The Middle East certainly could embrace cricket, as could more African countries, but perhaps it is just a coincidence that since T20 hit the scene I've noticed a reduction in fan interest in all international versions of the game in Australia. Nicholas R.W. Henning - Australian Author

Am I the only one on the planet that despises T20? It is predictably boring, too heavily weighted in favour of the batsmen, there are hardly any close games, it is a real snoozefest. It also lends itself to matchfixing as players don't care whether they win or lose.

The problem with using T20 to expand the game is that is likely that if it gains any traction, it will become the game and the traditional (and only real) format will never gain any ground. Worse than that, T20 could end up being seen as more important in the current cricketing nations because of its greater money and greater international takeup (were that to happen) - indeed, it may already be in some places. In short, my concern is that expanding T20 may very well diminish actual cricket.