I love cricket. However every year around the time of the Indian Premier League, I do my best to avoid every cricket website, news story, TV station, and anything else to do with the game. The reason is simple. I hate Twenty20 cricket.
Call me a snob if you will, but I find it difficult to truly appreciate a game that is mostly about hitting a cricket ball farther and more often than your opponent.
The Twenty20 game involves precious little nuance or ebb and flow that can make the Test game so intriguing.
There is hardly any place for defence when batting, or any of the subtleties that are the hallmark of good bowling. It is a poorer game.
And while I accept that its excitement and brevity serve to lure new fans to cricket, I believe the cricket schedule is getting much too crowded for it’s own good.
The IPL seems endless, there is an Australian Big Bash League competition, an English Twenty20 league, and now a Bangladesh Premier League as well. Where will it end?
It is only a matter of time before even more cricketing nations jump on the Twenty20 bandwagon, sparking a bidding war for the best talent available.
Pretty soon, it appears, a substantial number of the major players will be playing 20-over cricket somewhere in the world while their national teams will be forced to field third-string teams.
It has already begun to happen. I have seen the West Indies struggle to take Test wickets in the Caribbean while a supposedly unfit Jerome Taylor was charging in for his IPL team half-way round the world.
Chris Gayle’s destructive bat has not been available to the West Indies since the 2011 World Cup because of a dispute with his board, no doubt fuelled by the fact that he is regularly and lucratively employed elsewhere.
If other cricketing nations are not already experiencing similar problems, they soon will.
I know that the no-objection certificate is supposed to prevent this problem, but we have already seen the strained relations between players and boards that this can produce.
And is it really right to try and force professionals to play for their national teams when they want to be engaged elsewhere?
You can’t blame the players either. An athlete’s career lasts only a few years, and injury or loss of form can make it even more fleeting. A player cannot reasonably be faulted for trying to maximize his earnings while he can. It could all end tomorrow.
And considering he would have dedicated many years to honing his talent for the game, he probably would not have acquired other marketable skills. What happens to him then? Should he not try to secure his future?
I do not know how the danger posed to the traditional game is going to be resolved. The ICC must find a way to seriously streamline the cricket calendar if it is to preserve the viability of the longer forms of the game.
Twenty20 cricket is here to stay, and there needs to be a way for all forms of the game to co-exist.
They better act with haste too, or the great Test game may not be long for this world.
Garfield Robinson
Roar Pro
Steve we hope it won't come to that.
Rugby Reg
Guest
i too hate T20 cricket, all the classic hallmarks of great cricket are missing line, length, swing, seam are replaced by yorkers outside off playing straight, and playing each ball on its merits is replaced by stepping away and lifting the ball over your head. one the whole it is just 'forced' circus and i for one will not watch another match
Steve McLennan.
Guest
20/20 cricket will kill the game eventually, then all the fools running the game now will be pointing fingers elsewhere. It cannot last.
Juro
Guest
Test cricket, ODI cricket, T20 cricket, beach cricket, indoor cricket, backyard cricket, french cricket, continuous cricket... IT'S ALL CRICKET! Any game between bat and ball, following the most basic rules of cricket, is cricket, as far as I'm concerned. Each has its own rules, with pros and cons either way. But it is still at the most basic level the same sport! I love test cricket, because there is time for the ebb and flow. One bad session is not necessarily the end of the game. I just wish I had more time to watch it. I love ODIs because there are tactics in how you pace your innings. I just wish the games have more context. Give me a World Cup or Champions Trophy and I'm one happy camper. I love the BBL because each game is important in the scheme of the season. Get to the play-offs. Get to the Champions League. Win the season. Sure, individual games can be duds, but that is true of any form of cricket, any sport. I love the World T20, just like the World Cup. If they gave more teams a chance, it would be even better. Individual T20 games like we saw this summer are basically just exhibition matches, which can leave me pretty cold. To tie it all up, as far as I'm concerned, there is room for all 3 major cricket formats, maybe even more. Give it a story and it can be spectacular!
adam214
Guest
I must be one of the young'uns because i love T20 and will happily sit down and watch a game of T20 and so will thousands of others that wouldn't watch test cricket......thats the reason why nations are jumping on the bandwagon $$$$$$. ODI and T20 bankroll test cricket which apart from the ashes is a black hole that swallows money. I do agree that the calendar needs streamlining so all three forms of the game can co-exist.
Don Corleone
Guest
@Matt F...I agree, I really don't see T20 saturation either. T20 might actually be the way small, stuggling cricket nations will receive support. Canada and The Netherlands teams played in the recent Caribbean T20 tournament and the Bangladesh Premier League has a condition that their franchises have at least one associate player. T20 World Cups and events like the ODI World Cup and the Champions Trophy generate dividends which are dispursed to the member nations by the ICC. The recent Wolfe Report advocates for the broadening of membership to the ICC so that small nations can have their share. The problem is, the people who run world cricket are more in it for the power than for the game itself...so it's hard to imagine them giving it up. I personally would live to see Ireland, The Netherlands or Canada tour here for a first-class match, ODI and T20. I think the public would love to see an injection of new blood compared to the tired old faces.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Cricket needs to find ways to increase the cash for some of the poorer/smaller test playing nations so that they can pay their players more. How they can do this however is another issue. Domestic T20 leagues won't really effect the bigger nations like Australia, England, India and SA because they are able to pay their elite players very well so the lure of T20 cash isn't as great. besides there's enough of a gap in the international calendar to allow these players to play in the bigger T20 tournaments (IPL) without detracting from their international commitments, if scheduled correctly. The other nations really can't afford to pay their players anywhere near what they could be earning from playing T20 (Sri Lanka aren't paying their players at all right now) and you can't blame the players for maximising their income. If I was offered 50-150k to play test cricket for my country or 500k+ to play the T20 circuit all year it's not really a difficult decision to make. In terms of TV viewing options though, is there really too much T20 cricket being shown in Australia? You've got the BBL on Foxtel, which isn't that hard to avoid if you're not interested, and is played during the test season which still gets most of the coverage, and two or three T20 internationals in the summer. Then you've got T20's on overseas tours which could be played at god knows what hour. All of the other domestic T20 leagues aren't on Australian TV anymore (maybe English games occasionally) and almost all of them are out of our timezone anyway so I don't think that there's really that much of it being shown.
Garfield Robinson
Roar Pro
Don Carleone, I enjoyed reading your comment. I am suggesting the streamlining of the scheduling so we don't have clashes causing players having to choose between playing for country or playing T20 for a club and earning much more. There has to be some way to do this or tests are going to suffer. T20 is fine. I just find too much of it boring. But as you said much money is being made from it and so I understand that it might be necessary for cricket as a whole.
Blazza
Guest
To me channel 9s commentry team is fine. The younger guys i enjoy listening to but its the rambling on the old guys do annoys me. Tony Grieg and Ian Chappell are terrible commentators .
Matt F
Roar Guru
Yeah it's strange but I'm much more interested in domestic T20 then international T20 for some reason. I found the 2 Aus/India T20's quite boring yet loved watching the BBL. Maybe it was the appalling Ch 9 commentary or maybe the fact that a 2-match series always has an "exhibition" feel to it. The problem with the tri-series for me is not the ODI format, but the length. Every time we have a tri-series I'm very interested at the start but they always seem to be 3-5 matches too long and my interest drops towards the end of the tournament. Individual 3-5 match series would be perfect (the 7 match series against England last summer was also a few games too long,) though CA needs to get as much $$$ our of India as possible I suppose.
Don Corleone
Guest
Yes Hawkeye, test cricket has the monopoly on history, intrigue, aesthetics, beauty, poetry, brevity, nuance, strategy and many other things that the shorter forms do not have. The hard fact is test cricket series make a financial loss for most, if not all, test playing nations. This is unsustainable in anyone's language. ODI and T20 are bankrolling the test cricket we love. Despite it's many critics, Cricket Australia's risk with the Big Bash has paid-off and a new TV rights deal has been predicted to be in excess of $100 million. This is revenue for Cricket Australia which is independent of international team tours and ICC dividends. This would be an incredible outcome as 6 years ago, the Big Bash didn't even exist. I very much doubt test cricket will die out...due to the historical and cultural significance The Ashes will always be contested and I believe the elite test nations will always play it. I love watching all cricket:- test, ODI and T20...because I love cricket. These are 'different' forms, not competing forms, but I do agree that scheduling needs to be improved. T20 cricket may indeed save the neck of test cricket and Sheffield Shield. So it may pretty much be a case of either tolerate T20 or watch test cricket die a slow death. @Red Kev...I reckon internation T20 has a place...it's probably the one way we'll ever see cricket played as a global sport with genuine 'world cups'. I'd love to see Canada, Netherlands, USA, China/HK, Denmark, Afghanistan, Ireland and Scotland go head-to-head with the test nations.
Red Kev
Guest
International cricket calendars need a makeover, no doubt. T20s - domestic level only, the Champions League should be the pinnacle fo the format; ditch the international T20s and for the love of god do not play a T20 World Cup. ODIs - limited to 3 matches when played between 2 teams and 6+3 finals when played as a tri-series; keep the four-yearly World Cup; the number of internationals needs to be more limited and perhaps appended to test tours rather than dedicated ODI only tours. Tests - 3 or 5 test tours. 2 test tours to "minnow" nations are possibly acceptable but as we saw with Aus v NZ can be under-rated. I also think that scheduling needs to be looked at - how is it that we play England, SA, India and SL home and away within 2 years but don't even play Pakistan?
Renegade
Guest
Well we agree to disagree then Matt F. Both the ODI games on the weekend were far more entertaining than any of the T20 games this season....the regular season game between the Sixers and Scorchers at the SCG was the only game i genuinely couldn't stop watching so i'll make that one the exception. Both the international T20 games were dull though and i attended the one at ANZ and still found it pretty meaningless.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Personally I prefered the BBL to the current tri-series. In 3 weeks time when this thing is still going I suspect quite a few more people will feel the same. I do prefer ODI's to International T20's though and am also going on Friday. I've always thought that T20 works best at a domestic level rather then international level. I agree with people like Matt Hayden who advocate that T20 be a domestic level game only and leave it out of the international arena.
Blazza
Guest
I tend to agree with T20 i'm not the biggest fan of it. IPL has gone from must watch tv to oh that's on again. The only matches i saw were when Adam Gilchrist played. I get that fans enjoy T20 and the crowds are way better than both the other forms of the game but give me 8 hours of cricket a day any day of the week whether it be One day cricket or the good old 5 long days of test cricket. Younger fan need to realize cricket is more than just hitting 4's and 6's and scoring 10 runs an over. I enjoy cricket no matter what form it is and hope that T20 doesn't kill ODI cause i think it still has a right to be there as long as they schedule it correctly.
sheek
Guest
If cricket authorities perceive a problem with test cricket, then that is where they should be directing their energy & resources, not throwing more money at T20. Unless of course, it is their long-term desire to rid us of test cricket??? BBL should not expand beyond the current 8 teams. Also, there should be the same 8 teams for all 3 forms of the game - Sheffield Shield, limited overs & T20. They can be NSW or Sydney Blues; Victoria or Melbourne Bushrangers; SA or Adelaide Redbacks; WA or Perth Warriors; Queensland or Brisbane Bulls; Tasmania or Hobart Tigers; ACT or Canberra Comets; Eastern Australia or Newcastle Steelers. Fans should identify with the same team for all 3 forms of the game. For tests & Sheffield Shield, change from day-long matches to day-night matches. Reduce each by a day (although the loss of total overs would be minimal). Introduce coloured clothing. Consider other innovations. Minimal changes, maximum effect (hopefully). Each format must be played in whole. So if January is seen as the key period for maximising the T20 phenomenon, then the Shield final must be completed the week before Xmas, with the Boxing day test & New Year's day test played back-to-back before the BBL commences. Although my personal preference would be for the Shield final to conclude in the last weekend in January, with the BBL in February, followed by Limited overs in March. You can have some small overlapping. I'm a traditionalist, & I believe in preserving the history & traditions of the game, such as Sheffield Shield & states. You don't throw things like that away without causing a great disconnect with mainstream fans. But I'm willing to look at other options still.....
Brendon
Guest
Something I've heard a thousand times before.
Garfield Robinson
Roar Pro
Chris, thanks for taking the time to comment. And I know quite a few would disagree. I think it is an inferior game because it requires fewer of the skills that is normally required to be a good player in the traditional form of the game. I think the emphasis on big hitting diminishes the need to develop qualities required to bat for long periods. It is fine to like t20. I have watched and enjoyed a few games. Its just that too much of it bores me and because of the money involved I think it threatens what I consider to be the superior form of the game.
Renegade
Guest
How much better has the one-day series been then any of the T20 games this summer (International & BBL)? I'm going to try and somehow get out to the SCG this Friday, should be a beauty....Punter possibly leading the side out again?
Steve
Guest
I just think you don't really understand cricket. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.