It's true, BBL razzle-dazzle is here to stay

Here is a red-hot media release from Cricket Australia. "BBL stumps to light up in a world firstThe stumps will literally light up tonight at the KFC T20 Big Bash League with a world-first innovation of LED stumps and bails that ignite when dislodged. "The innovation has been designed to enhance the in-match experience for fans at the games and during broadcast on FOX SPORTS, adding to the fun and excitement that is BBL. "The Zing Wicket System, created by South Australian manufacturer Zing International, has a sensor in the bails that can determine within 1/1000 of a second when the wicket is broken. Once the wicket is broken the bails instantaneously flash bright red LED lights and then send a radio signal to the stumps which also ignite. They are powered by low voltage batteries in each of the bails and also in the stumps. "Big Bash League Senior Manager Anthony Everard said: 'These light-up stumps are all about enhancing the spectator experience during BBL matches and ensuring that the BBL remains highly entertaining for the fans. This is exciting to have a world-first product being used in the KFC T20 BBL.' "

Why did they need to reinvent the wheel with the state teams here? Does it draw in more fans? What it does do is cannibalises our existing cricket framework. They should just have the 20/20 as a part of the existing state cricket setup. It would allow the states to cross promote the other formats. Instead now, Shield and the 50 over stuff is just the ugly sister and potentially on the way to oblivion. They could have easily cross promoted the Shield and 50 over game through the web medium with improved picture quality and some commentary. Maybe fan choice camera angles. The BBL is losing money also. The Cricket Oz people have mortgaged the farm on this.

A new development in BBL-2. Dale Steyn is blocked by his home team Cobras to play for Brisbane Heats. But didn't he take permission first up? And once you sign on the dotted line, can you withdraw?

Dan, Great points. I'd have to disagree about Quiney. Like many players he got his initial opportunity in List A and T20 but progressed onto first-class and in recent years became the Victorian first-class player of the season 2 years running and Australian domestic player of the year (which of course covers all formats)...so he's pretty well credentialed as a first-class player. Quiney played 3 Sheffield Shield games and the tour match against South Africa prior to his first test. I dare say if he had played the WT20 and CLT20 and tacked a token Shield game on prior to the test series his failure would have been blamed on T20 by critics like Gideon Haigh who have have carried on about T20 demands and the lack of 'red ball' preparation. I'd also make the same point for Pattinson. He has obviously been set aside for long-form cricket and been prescribed the desired workload of long spells to build up the body for the rigors of test match cricket. He played 4 Shield matches, bowled 123.5 overs and taken 22 wickets @16.63. It's no doubt also that T20 would have been blamed for Pattinson's breakdown if he'd played WT20 and CLT20. As you've pointed out there are good players that are in-form, players who are out-of-form or just not up to it and players who are prone to injury. S#*t happens. In light of this, I think demonising one format of the game is pointless.

Don, I think there is far more at stake that meets the eye when it comes to preparation. To be perfectly honest (and somewhat blunt), I don't think that preparation has anything to do with the failures of Quiney, Ponting or Hastings - they just aren't good enough to play Test cricket. Hussey, Warner and Starc are just far better players at the moment. In terms of injury as well, Pattinson, Cummins and Watson have lengthy injury histories, and fans were counting down the hours until they broke down again anyway. That doesn't come down to 'red ball' or 'white ball' preparation, just that their bodies don't hold up to stress (which is a whole article in itself). You claim Rob Quiney as proof of the failings of red ball preparation, but Quiney first came to the fore as a T20 specialist. He got himself into trouble, and the 9 @ 3.00 comes down to his desire to get bat on ball early - a very T20 notion. It hurt David Warner this series as well, playing with an angled bat and minimal footwork to balls outside his off stump instead of leaving, and wondering why he's given Graeme Smith catching practice. Since 01 Jan 2008, there have been 44 scores of 200+ made in Test match cricket, of which only 3 were made at a strike rate below 50, and 12 at more than 70. In the period between 01 Jan 1997 and 31 Dec 2007, there were 100 such scores. 29 of them were made at 70 per 100 balls or more, and 13 were made at a strike rate below 50. Essentially the quicker big scores have stayed the same proportionately, there's significantly less 'slow' innings. And there is definitely no correlation between the expansion of T20 and a spate of bigger scores. I have absolutely no issue with the Big Bash League, in fact I am glad it has happened. Getting our domestic players experience with big-name internationals can only be a good thing (provided it is balanced with the FC game). I will be watching and supporting, but far more of my attention will be squared on the Test series running parallel.

I agree Sheek, that's why I also think it's too early to condemn T20. I think far too much is being made of it.

Love my test cricket but also absolutely enjoy T20. Yes, it's a bit like a Happy Meal for many but it provides a gateway for those otherwise uninterested to get involved in the game. It's the way of the world unfortunately. Finally re-subscribed to Foxtel and am looking forward to the BBL. Hopefully in the next few years we will see it grow into new areas in terms of teams. The only thing I would say is that I see T20 as more a domestic league type set up in Cricket and in terms of regular international removed from the scheduling. By all means have World Cups but only every four years.

Hi Kersi, I'm okay thank you sir. This is the usual crazy, frenetic time of the year. I will certainly speak with you before Xmas.

Thank you, Don. And how are you, Sheek? You have also raised interesting issues.

Hi Kersi, I'm a big fan of yours.

Don, Interesting facts but not conclusive. There are so many variables to these things. We mightn't see a significant trend until after five years or so. I would suggest the number of 200s being scored is due to a world weakness in bowling quality rather than superior batting. Besides, all the advantages are to the batsmen these days - helmets, padding, evenly rolled & covered pitches, beautifully manicured outfields, 90% sweet spot on bat surfaces, thicker edges to bats, etc. Which makes someone like Dale Steyn all the more special. Also, perhaps T20 affects bowlers more than batsman. Bowlers are losing the skill of patience & working a batsman out with clever variations in pace, length, placement, etc. Sure, they try it in T20, but not for prolonged periods. Another thing is that the Sheffield Shield is being treated more as an after-thought. It's effectiveness as a pathway for future test cricketers is being eroded, so is it a surprise if it's not fulfilling its role adequately anymore? For every argument, there is a counter-argument. It's to early to see where or how things will end up.

Don, Thank you. You have provided compelling statistics to make me rethink.

It's BBL time and the old myths about T20 are being trotted-out again. Rob Quiney (9 @ 3.00) and Ricky Ponting (32 @ 6.40) had the ideal 'red ball' test preparation of Shield and tour matches while Michael Hussey (295 @ 59.00) and David Warner (206 @ 41.20) played the WT20 and Champions League T20 in the lead-up to the tests. Unfortunately it's not published, but I heard a statistic on the ABC Grandstand coverage which indicated that there has been as many batsmen's test scores exceeding 200 in the last 5 years than the preceeding 10-15 years. If the opposite was happening I'd believe T20 was affecting technique and concentration. In regards to injuries, a bowler like James Pattinson also had the ideal 'red ball' preparation and has been quarantined from T20 since his last T20I appearance on March 30, 2012...still breaks down in the second test. As we know Shane Watson was actually pulled out of the Champions League where he was in top form and fitness, was rested then injured himself in a Shield game. Peter Siddle is the best example of an exclusively red ball specialist yet it's deemed too much of a risk him backing-up for the the third test after a short break. Surely John Hastings (1 wkt @ 153.00) with his superior 'red ball' preparation of Shield and tour matches should have out-bowled Mitchell Starc (8 wkts @ 26.12) who had come off a limited overs tour of UAE, WT20 and Champions League T20. I'm looking forward to the BBL to break-up the intensity of the last few weeks of tests. I will be going to the Sixers v Thunders game with my son and daughter who are as keenly interested in test cricket as they are in BBL and taking my wife and other daughter who have no interest at all in cricket...but are looking forward to watching a short, colourful spectacle. I'm glad there is a vibrant BBL growing in popularity as I know the A-League, NBL and ABL would love to snap up potential cricket fans which could be alienated by elitism and snobbery in the sport.

Kersi, Why not watch both? After a tough day on the couch watching the test, I like to warm down with the less cerebral T20, although Mrs Hooker isn't too keen on me commandeering the TV until 10pm at night. Almost as a throwaway line, you mention the fast bowlers' injuries. Isn't the jury still out on this? Sure there is a lot more cricket, although the increase in T20s have been offset at the international level at least, by fewer one day games. But the guys who seem to be getting injured are the guys who hardly play e.g. the Pat Cummins of this world. Peter Siddle is a workhouse, yet rarely seems to get injured. There is a school of thought (admittedly without any evidence to back it up) that the bowling restrictions at junior levels are turning out fast bowlers that haven't built up strength bythe time they hit first-class level, which may be why they are more susceptible to injury. I'm not convinced that it is as simple as too much cricket.

I only enjoyed the BBL for the same reason I enjoy watching the Ryobi Cup from time to time on Foxtel - the chance to see domestic players I don't normally.

"I will certainly watch BBL-2 live or on TV. But only on days there is no Test match." I actually really enjoy days where there are both a test match and BBL game on. Given that the BBL is played almost exclusively at night you can watch the test, have an hour or so break to let everybody know that you're still alive and then watch the BBL at night! hmm....perhaps I need a new hobby......

"Here to stay" might be overstating it. It's a sport designed for the i-generation. They will eventually get bored with its monotony and move on to something else.

Good morning Kersi, Yes, like you, I find I can enjoy T20 in small doses. Perhaps we will have get used to T20 in larger doses in the future! The burning question is how the cricket authorities will manage these two forms going into the future & their will to preserve test cricket. Preserving test cricket also means preserving first class cricket like Sheffield Shield & County Championship, which provide players with the platform to perform well at test level.

Love my Test cricket, but struggle with T20s. I understand it's popular amongst non traditional cricket fans as well. Look how well Michael Clarke is playing Test cricket when not playing T20s. I also fully understand that most players are not on the money Michael Clarke is whether that be the ACB money or sponsorship, but I hope one day that we have 2 different sets of players for T20 & Test cricket.