The very mention of the words ‘Twenty20 cricket’ will elicit a variety of responses. Traditionalists tend to ignore it, while the younger generations and those who have little interest in longer form cricket flock to it like moths to a flame.
It is in many ways seen as more entertainment and razzamatazz than it is cricket, with dancing girls, pyrotechnics and blaring music setting the scene.
Some traditionalists even see it as an abomination – a blight on the face of an otherwise majestic and beautiful sport.
Many argued that the introduction of the T20 format would see a major dilution in the technique and specific abilities required of players to succeed at the ultimate form of the sport – Test cricket.
T20s at an international level are still very much in their infancy, with the first match being played on 17 February 2005 in Auckland between New Zealand and Australia.
In 2008, we saw the launch of the Indian Premier League which in no time was providing players from all over the world with riches they could have hardly contemplated a few years earlier.
The success of the IPL has spawned other franchise-based T20 competitions, among them the Big Bash League which will enter its second season tomorrow evening.
Very few top flight players nowadays are not exposed to the T20 game.
But has that made a major difference in the technique of players and has it seen a flow on effect as a result in Test cricket?
Well, as far as the batsmen are concerned, you could argue that it has had little impact.
In the history of Test cricket – now stemming 135 years – a total of 288 double centuries have been scored.
Of those, 58 of them have been amassed in the period since the birth of the T20 international just under eight years ago.
That equates to 20.1 percent of all double centuries scored and they have been notched up over a total of 321 Test matches or 16 per cent of all those played.
Over the same period, seven of the all-time 27 triple-centuries have been scored or 25.9 per cent.
Many would argue that better bats and shortened boundaries have had a large impact but both those changes were happening long before T20 cricket became part of the landscape.
Since the evolution of T20, team scoring rates have also increased.
The average total for a day has been increased with some of the scoring rates bordering on the sensational – day one of the recent Adelaide Test is a case in point with Australia posting 5/482 off 87 overs against the world’s number one ranked team.
The Proteas responded in similar fashion in Perth with a second innings of 569 at a run rate of 5.1 per over.
During that innings A B de Villiers brought up his century with three successive reverse swept boundaries – shades of T20?
Batsmen are more audacious in their shot selection nowadays and often do little to assuage the traditionalist but certainly excite the average fan.
It could be argued that Test arena from a batting angle has become a more explosive in the wake of the emergence of T20.
And, as a result, the fans are receiving better entertainment.
It is more difficult to quantify the impact on the bowlers in the past eight years.
However, the increase in scoring rates naturally means that bowlers’ averages across the board have increased but, interestingly, with regard to strike rates little has changed.
And then of course there are the financial implications of T20 cricket.
Just as the one-day game served to prop up the coffers of various boards around the world, so too does the T20 game.
The declining crowds and somewhat formulaic approach to the 50-over game was one of the major geneses for the development of T20.
And with it has come a whole new revenue stream which by extension has had an impact on the viability of Test cricket.
The likes of the franchise-based Big Bash League may not be everyone’s idea of cricket but so was the arrival of Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket. It is hard to argue that WSC and its legacy has not benefited the sport as a whole.
The big test ahead for the game’s administrators is to provide the appropriate balance across all three genres.
Don Corleone
Guest
Thanks mate.
Australian Rules
Guest
To the purist. But there aren't multi-million dollar sevens tournaments all around the world - that's the difference.
AndyS
Guest
I take comfort in there having been many forms of cricket past and present and it is the Tests that survive it all. I personally find T20 meaningless schlock, but it is good for the kids until they have the attention span for a day of play. That is where I am with the nephew...we all go to the hit and giggle, but being left home for the tests is increasingly getting him riled. Being allowed to join in is becoming aspirational, and not by accident. It won't be long - when a nine year old starts sneering at the T20 boundaries and lifelessess of the track...
neily_b
Roar Rookie
As much as so many people hate the introduction of T20 cricket, I don't think it is that bad for the game of cricket at all. I agree it is having an effect on Test cricket but I don't think this is all bad either. The increase in scoring rates and totals is making test cricket more exciting for the fans who might not traditionally have been interesting in following a game of cricket for 5 days. It puts some challenge back on the bowler as the have to work harder now to get wickets and we get to see moments like Peter Siddle pouring all his energy into getting wickets like we saw in Adelaide on the last day. And as mentioned, there have been some success stories come from Test cricket, such as Faf du Plessis and David Warner who can boast records in both games that would challenge most worldwide with similar careers.
sheek
Roar Guru
Honestly Ian, Why, why, why, why would you go down that path? Why create unnecessary heartache & division? There are people who want to do the same with rugby. We're talking a national comp here, not the EPL with promotion & relegation & distances no further than Newcastle to Wollongong. As soon as you start creating 'haves' & 'have nots', you're asking for war. And you can be sure of getting one.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Brett, Not only do they, I've also heard a rumour that the Canterbury club is signing players from outside the district, and the St Kilda club want to borrow the MCG when they play Collingwood ! The way you pick could be quite simple - you establish transparent criteria, including grounds and budgets and letters of intent from travelling professions, and then 6 months or so in advance you announce who scored what against the points system.
langou
Roar Guru
All really good points Don. Well written as well.
Brett McKay
Expert
Ian, do you really think the KFCs, Toyotas, Commonwealth Banks of the land would get on board and associate their brands with a game involving Bankstown playing Prahran, or Valleys v Prospect? And likewise, how do you cherry pick the clubs? Pick the wrong club in a city and you'll lose a massive chunk of cricket supporters there. Much easier promoting Melbourne v Melbourne, Brisbane v Sydney and so on, and so much more commercial appeal, too...
Don Corleone
Guest
Looks like you'll be manning the cake stall, Connoisseur. If you ran cricket... it would be a cottage industry. Better get baking. 1. So, most test series run at a loss? 'Who gives'... top business strategy there. Perhaps a better answer would be supplimenting the shortfall from having a variety of more profitable international and domestic limited-overs series. 2. I'm glad you're not marketing cricket, it would be as popular as representative lawn bowls in years to come. Perhaps you'd get cricket a gig on ABC2. A good proportion of the Australian test and limited overs teams were playing regularly in the Shield this year, plus free entry to the ground ***crickets***. And as for Sheffield Shield being played on picnic grounds...120 years of proud tradition reduced literally to park cricket. That would be the last nail in the coffin. 3. What cricket fan, would not want to see cricket expand? Sure cricket's played by a lot of countries, but it's dominated by a cartel of 10 member nations. Who would not like to see Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland, Canada, Afghanistan, USA play the larger nations more often? Cricket in Canada gets $78,000 government funding a year. If T20 became an Olympic sport, Olympic presitge would motivate Canada, China, Russia and USA to invest in cricket. As for financial losses from the Big Bash...where's your evidence?... How much money is the Sheffield Shield and Ryobi Cup generating exactly? With the current season shaping up to be a success (like last season), the predicted revenue from the new TV rights deal and six out of eight teams gaining major sponsors, the Big Bash League will be more than worth the investment. I guess Cricket Australia can afford it after the windfall from last year's India series. As for IPL...what's that got to do with it? As for the Champions League T20 each game was seen on TV by millions worldwide. You're still thinking that crowds (local games were packed) mean something...they only account for about 10% of revenue. As for domestic 50-over, I've been around for a long time and have been watching domestic cricket since the McDonalds Cup days. I believe the decline in domestic one-day cricket correlates directly with the lack of free-to-air component. The new TV rights deal should see the Big Bash on free-to-air (I'd also like to see Ryobi Cup) which will increase advertising reveue and profile exponentially.
Don Corleone
Guest
Sorry to offend you by backing-up my assertions with hard evidence. Perhaps if you had of gone to the Greek School of Economic Business Management, you could have learnt how to do it too.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Vinod had an excellent suggestion, which is that the Big Bash League should have involved the actual existing cricket clubs - Bankstown, Chatswood and so on - with the addition of contracted overseas players.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
1: The tv money is all about "The Ashes". This is what tv companies want. India pays well also. The others pay peanuts, but who gives? You don't whore your wife out simply because you want to pay for your renovations. 2. How about getting the best players playing it more regularly? Instead of going off on tour when the Shield is going. Also getting it on quality streams on the web, where you can alter the views yourself. I would rather see a full strength Vic v NSW match than Oz v Sri Lanka. What about playing Shield at park/picnic ground settings rather than at football stadiums. It would be great to go along with the esky of drinks, some food and sit on a grassy hill under an umbrella taking in the best first class comp in the world. 3. Why the hell do you need to expand cricket? It is played in many countries already. We already have a massively over crowded schedule with what we have. If BBL is so great then how come it is losing money? And I meaning losing PLENTY! In the Indian version you are constantly hearing of players not being paid. You can only see that over the web now it has lost a lot of its lustre. That tournament over in South Africa was watched by about the same crowd you get to SA domestic cricket. Bupkuss. You are being sold a lemon man, wake up and smell the coffee! Anyone who has been around for a while saw exactly the same thing with 50 over cricket in the early to mid 80s. They used to get big crowds to state cricket for that also!
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
The only reason I went last year because I got freebie tickets. Went once, probably won't again.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
Hit the nail on the head. It needs the music, the smoke machines, the fireworks etc.. because blokes just whacking ball after ball out of the ground becomes boring. Not to forget we have no ties to these made up teams. Also, I can think of only a couple 20/20 games where it was actually close. They are all one sided!
ChrisW
Guest
I like the big bash league, i just dont like the teams colours or names. I think cricket needs to focus more on the local game then the national team, like every other big team sport does.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
Fine, that's the response I would expect from a BBL convert. The same old trotted out propaganda, blah, blah blah. But why did they need to scrap the state teams? Is it just to create extra games? If they still had the state team version of the BBL would that now also be worth $30 million annually? In Melbourne previously they were getting crowds in excess of 40k on the odd occasion to Victoria matches. Then when they introduced Renegades and Stars they got around 10k average. You need to pay the rent and upkeep on TWO stadiums in Melbourne instead of ONE. You need to get a crowd of around 25k a match to BREAK EVEN in either Melbourne stadium. Also, you have to pay for double the cricketers in Melbourne and they are not that cheap. It is losing a load of money currently, the losses would have been more manageable if they kept costs down until the next tv deal by using the existing players in the existing structures. Maybe I did not go to the Greek School of Economic Business Management so I do not get the logic behind losing money for the sake of it to reinvent the perfectly workable wheel.
Jason
Guest
I would say it is monotonous rather than boring. I like the speccie catches and the occasional 6 but what I find hollow is that no game really has any meaning. Faf du Plessis has played 100s of T20 matches yet history will remember him of his fantastic series saving debut ton. For what it's worth, I also think the trend to taking the pace off the ball (with spinners or just slower ball after slower ball), while effective, makes T20 a dreadful spectacle once the balls get soft. Already a good score has gone from being close to 200 to 150. If it is only 7.5 an over I'd rather watch a 50 over match at 6 an over.
Don Corleone
Guest
I've got an exercise for most of you who think T20 is the Great Satan...and test match/first-class are the be-all-and-end-all:- 1. India series run at a reasonable profit and Ashes series runs at a marginal profit, the rest run at a loss. Outline your business strategy for making test cricket and Sheffield Shield financially sustainable. 2. Outline how you're going to make women, children, casual or non-cricket fans engage with the sport of cricket through test matches and Sheffield Shield. Or the people with employment who potentially get to watch around 20% of a match, or absolutely nothing in the case of Sheffield Shield. 3. Outline how you are going to expand the game of cricket through the test/first-class format outside the remnants of the former British Empire where it has been part of the culture for over a century. I'd be interested to see the result, however, I suspect that if most of you were running the game, in years to come it would be watched by aging white men, it's elite level would be played at the Junction or North Sydney Ovals and it would be surviving on government hand-outs, chook raffles and cake stalls.
Brett McKay
Expert
It can be, definitely. I've always maintained, even from the limited amout of T20 I played, that you often get an idea of how the game will pan out in the 6-10 over mark of the first innings. Ad if it becomes really obvious that only one team can win, then yeah, it certainly can get a bit boring to watch. That's largely why I ignore the score and the result, then I'm just watching a batsman facing a bowler...
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The problem is long-form cricket isnt very popular, and that means if the game is going to support one well-paid side and seven sides of not-amateurs - a hundred or so professionals - it needs to get people through the gate. We're talking a sport where First Class cricket in Australia gets about the same crowds as the SANFL or WAFL We're talking a sport where an entire season of the national side gets about as many people through the gate as two middling-to-poor AFL sides, or two of the better-supported rugby league sides. Thus, cricket is doing what it did with one-day cricket, only it's even shorter, even more compressed and even more rigged in favour of the batsmen. Its either that or get fairweather alleged supporters like Johnno to actually show up to cricket games, and that simply aint going to happen.