Cricket continues to shoot itself in the foot

Upon completion of watching the second Twenty20 between Australia and Sri Lanka, I felt that there were a few things I should talk about.

Twenty20 internationals have been played across the world for almost a decade now, which is a good achievement in its own right.

However, I am still continually frustrated by a few fundamentals of the shorter format which are less taxing on both ODIs and Test matches.

People pay good money to come to the ground, enjoy themselves for three and a bit hours, and hopefully see a fantastic contest which involves big hits and breathtaking fielding, and hopefully a close but fair result.

Unfortunately what most spectators see nowadays in a Twenty20 international (or even the BBL, IPL etc) is an over-hyped form of the game that I honestly feel fails to deliver the real deal.

For one, in the first match between Australia and Sri Lanka, which Australia ultimately lost, there was a total of five sixes hit in the game, even with the boundaries roped in and Power Plays implemented.

Generally in the two games I watched the batting side was more strategic and preferred to work the ball around for twos and threes. Only when the innings reached near its end did the big shots come out.

When the format was first played, everything was entirely lighthearted; batsmen threw caution to the wind and sides generally played the format to have fun, and it showed. However, in the past few years Twenty20s have become more professional, teams have implemented strategies and set plays (such as bowling full and wide), while batsmen have developed stranger and stranger shots.

More pressure is exulted onto the members of the sides, and the very best is expected, no longer is such a carefree attitude demonstrated, and I feel because of this the quality of Twenty20 games has diminished substantially.

Batsmen are always feeling the pressure to hit out and score big, which results in more ‘tactical’ batting and less ‘slogging’. I believe this is a serious problem.

In a one-day international it is possible to be conservative and then hit out as 50 overs is a fair innings, but 20 overs is so short that playing the game strategically sees the quality of what is on offer take a nose dive.

I do not know what the answer is to this conundrum, as the crowds are still as large as ever and players claim they enjoy playing the format, but I am not sure how much longer Twenty20s can be entertaining if it is continued to be viewed with the utmost profession.

Then, if things couldn’t get any worse, there are the umpires. I can’t for the life of me understand how ‘overs’ can be lost in a Twenty20 when it sprinkles/drizzles for 45 minutes.

I am constantly infuriated by the lack of thought shown by umpires and the ICC in regards to revised play set for Twenty20 games.

First of all, the innings is comprised of 20 overs… 20 overs is a short amount of time, so surely if the rain passes and conditions are deemed suitable, play out the rest of the game and do the crowd a favour?

The perfect example of this idiocy was seen in the second Twenty20 at the MCG on Monday night, when a moderate drizzle descended upon the ground for approximately three quarters of an hour.

Australia had batted for 10 overs, half of their innings had been completed, however the rain break insured that ‘five overs’ had been lost due to the rain delay.

I could not comprehend the obscenity required to even contemplate this ridiculous rule; 10 overs had already been bowled, one would have thought when the innings was only 20 overs that the remaining 10 would be bowled after the delay, regardless of the remaining crowd or TV schedule or completion time.

By the time Angelo Matthews and his compatriots had spent five minutes talking about the final delivery that was to be bowled to Glenn Maxwell, 40 minutes had passed since the delay. If the umpires were willing to allow Sri Lanka to bowl five overs, why not another five overs?

This is the detrimental thinking or codes they must abide to that continues to allow cricket to shoot itself in the foot with mindless rules.

It has also become apparent that the infamous Duckworth/Lewis method serves no purpose in deciding revised Twenty20 scores because the format is simply too short for it to work to its full ability.

That is the close to my concerns and grouch about Twenty20’s, both international and domestic. What do you think fellow Roarers?