Twenty20 cricket has become the whipping boy for everything that’s wrong with Australian cricket.
Just yesterday on The Roar, two colleagues, experts Cam Rose and Kersi Meher-Homji, wrote pieces in which they suggested the performances of the Test team, particularly the fragility of Australia’s top six batsmen, can be attributed to the rise of the Big Bash League.
As with most problems, I believe it is more complex and layered than just one variable.
Though I don’t deny Twenty20 – and in particular, Cricket Australia’s scheduling of the Big Bash League – has had, and will have, an impact on the Test team, it is merely just one of a number of issues negatively affecting the Australian cricket team’s performance at present.
I don’t believe that Twenty20 cricket contributed to:
– Chris Rogers leaving a straight one off Graeme Swann.
– Shane Watson’s selfish use of the DRS, and the rest of the team’s outright poor use of it.
– Australia changing its batting line-up every Test.
– The team not respecting Mickey Arthur.
– The selectors using Twenty20 performances as a guide for Test match performances.
– Shane Watson and Michael Clarke’s personality clash.
– Ryan Harris’ inability to stay on the field.
– The mistake of naming the captain as a selector.
– Brad Haddin’s poor keeping.
– Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting retiring.
– The Argus Review, and how a lot of changes from it have been overturned.
– Craig McDermott leaving as bowling coach.
– A overly-optimistic celebration of Ashton Agar as the new Sir Garfield Sobers.
– Usman Khawaja’s treatment by selectors.
– Expecting a solid first class cricketer like Ed Cowan to be a good Test batsman.
– Michael Clarke’s back issues.
– The premature dumping of Simon Katich.
– James Anderson becoming a world class swing bowler.
– The selection of Glenn Maxwell (actually, that one might be Twenty20’s fault!).
I could go on…
There are many issues that have led to the situation the Test side finds itself in. Perhaps Twenty20 is one of them – especially when it comes to the top six’s batting – but I’m not sure I’d even rank it near the top ten explanations for the Test team’s current predicament; though it is hard to quantify such things.
It’s also worth noting Twenty20 exists because there is a market for it. Plain and simple.
Cam stated yesterday if you watch the BBL, you’re contributing to the demise of Australia’s Test cricket side. Though I find that to be slight hyperbole (sorry Cam!), I get the point he was trying to make.
My counter would be that humans are meant to evolve. Out physiological and psychological advantage is that we can adapt to our environment and any changes to it.
Twenty20 is not going anywhere, for the time being anyway. As such, we need to adapt to this reality. That goes for the fans and the players, particularly the batsmen.
During the course of a Test match innings, a batsman is required to have gears; to be able to adapt to the match conditions and situations, and play accordingly.
If quick runs are required, batsmen need to have the stroke-play and ability to up the tempo of their innings.
Likewise, on occasions batsmen need to dig in. To see off a threatening opening bowler, to not lose another wicket before lunch, to sacrifice runs for mere survival, to graft out an innings.
Great Test batsmen are capable of adapting to the circumstances.
I see no difference between the adaptability required within a Test match innings, and the need to adapt between formats.
I stress once again the reality that Twenty20 exists. It’s a format in the cricketing world, and it’s not going anywhere.
Furthermore, if you’re successful at Twenty20, you can earn enough money to set you and your family up for life. In that regard, it is an opportunity that shouldn’t be squandered by a professional cricketer.
The overwhelming majority of cricketers in Australia aspire to wear the baggy green. They probably also enjoy the game of Twenty20, and the opportunities it can provide.
Runs remain a batsman’s currency in either format, but if they have even a shred of common sense, they would be aware the two formats require the same fundamental skills, but different applications of them.
Should they desire to play both, they need to be fully aware that a different approach and mindset is required for each.
If batsmen want to approach Test batting like they do Twenty20 batting, that’s their choice. But with that choice comes the reality that if they consistently get out playing a loose shot after facing 30 balls, their Test career will be over in a hurry.
If they want to approach Twenty20 batting like they do Test batting, that’s also their choice. But with that choice comes the reality that if they struggle to consistently score runs quickly, their Twenty20 career will be over in a hurry.
The harsh reality is that a cricketer’s destiny, especially a batsman’s, is in their own hands. Or gloves.
Ian Chappell often says – and he’s backed up by other experts – that the most rewarding shots in Twenty20 remain good cricket shots that you would play in Test cricket.
So I don’t buy the notion that batting between the two formats is vastly different.
What changes is the application of skills; the judgment of what shots to play and when to play them. Quite simply, batsmen need to learn and adapt.
Cricketers are paid handsomely in the modern era. If they wish to continue to be well paid, they need to be successful at both formats, which means they need to learn and adapt.
Blaming failure in one format on the other format is lazy, and just a poor excuse for an inability to – you guessed it – learn and adapt.
Don Corleone
Guest
+1,000,000,000
Don Corleone
Guest
Yet another interesting article...http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/australias-t20-focus-is-put-to-the-test-20130725-2qngt.html
Don Corleone
Guest
Perfect article on the subject from Jesse Hogan... http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/australias-t20-focus-is-put-to-the-test-20130725-2qngt.html
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Interesting perspective from Matt Wade: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/pitches-not-big-bash-to-blame-for-woes-wade-20130725-2qne6.html
Chrisb
Guest
I don't think they pick on T20 form more on that other (sometimes inspired selection shibboleth) "getting a feeling about someone" Many selections in our history have not been made on shield form, but rather on ex-players having a hunch that someone looks good
Christ
Guest
The shield had not attracted a crowd since Bradman. Cricket fans pay lip service to it, and take note to see who is doing well - so basically looking at it as a feeder for the important stuff. No one else gives a toss. I fear you could spend billions and it wouldn't work. People are just not invested in a four day domestic match. This is the point I've been trying to make for a while (not well obviously) is that cricket fans mindset is all devoted to international, and its probably the only major team sport with this. I think this is a huge, huge disadvantage in the modern era because the 24 hour news cycle likes the regularity of the footy codes, baseball, Ice hockey etc. it also robs young players of well paid employment (or did pre T20 anyway) so driving talent to other sports, and creating less marketing opps, driving sponsors away. Ps. I had to re-enter my name and hit t instead of b without noticing. Not trying to claim divinity status
Christ
Guest
Good god, someone being considered, thoughtful and even before penning an article. You're dead right, no one factor is to blame. As much as anything our current predicament is due to time and the turn of fates wheel. S**t just happens. But it's much easier to follow Cam Rose and blame one factor you don't like as the root of all evil. His article was sanctimonious, insulting drivel of the highest order and should be given no quarter by anyone.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
That's not exactly the greatest example to use. Firstly, Sampras won 14 Grand Slam titles. That's pretty solid evidence that he did, in fact, play tennis. Secondly, in the quote you reference, Nadal was actually referring to Sampras' style of play. You've taken his comment a bit literal. He's not actually saying Sampras didn't play tennis, he's alluding to the fact he didn't like the way he played. It's a figure of speech, like someone saying Stuart Broad not walking is "just not cricket" - they're not actually suggesting he's not physically playing the sport. Here's the quote in context: "Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet. It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."
ak
Roar Guru
Pete Sampras was a great tennis player. But Rafael Nadal thought his tennis was not tennis at all but just a few swing of racquets especially when he played another serve and volleyer like Ivanisevic. And mind you Rafa is not your rude, arrogant guy who keeps on bad mouthing others. He is one of those great sportsmen who have maintained their composure on and off the field. If a great champ like him can have such an honest view then surely it would not be silly or BS or arrogant or pathetic of me to not consider T20 as cricket.
Peter
Roar Rookie
India itself shows that T20 is not to blame. They are clearly rising again as a test force. I guess the Ranji trophy must be doing something right. It's also interesting that the BCCI does not allow it's players to play in overseas competitions.like the BBL.
Compo
Roar Rookie
well it is hard to create interest in Shield cricket from a money making point of view and maybe thats where T20 comes in...making money. BUT we still need the Shield Cricket else Test cricket will eventually die. the skills would not be borne out from anywhere else at a high enough level. Personally when ODI came in i thought it was the best... it introduced faster gameplay that was sadly lacking in many Tests over the years. But as attention spans dwindled we now have T20...which truly is a hit n giggle format...but hey , it briings in the big bucks.. so who am i to complain. Cricket will always change. how many times have they tweaked the 50 over format?...the fielding restrictions, the powerplays etc etc. i just wished they changed it back to 40 overs....then you dont get the more than usual boring consolidation play between overs 30 and 40. anyway we must keep at the youngsters playing the 4 innings format...sadly even in Park cricket the numbers of participants have been dropping for years and the crop is getting more and more bare. Competitions are seriously looking at one day cricket ONLY due to lack of commitment over the two weekends. i love the game and accept that changes are always being made but we MUST have a bigger picture look when deciding the fate of cricket in its many forms.... we must keep it relevant in this day and age but i still think keep T20 players away from Test cricket UNLESS they can truly perform in BOTH.
sheek
Roar Guru
Don, In the past when I've criticized T20 cricket, I was actually taking aim at the administrators, but my frustration disallowed me from articulating the source of the problem. Administrators say test cricket remains the ultimate. But you wouldn't know it, the way they fawn over T20 & throw all their resources at comps like IPL & BBL. Meanwhile, they do little or nothing to rejuvenate Sheffield Shield, & that's critical, because test cricket is next to useless without first class cricket. The players will ultimately chase the money, & T20 is where the money is to be found. Talentless cricketers can earn a fortune from the short game, why bother developing the skills for the long game? So this is why T20 is a problem. Not so much because of itself, but how it is manipulated by administrators & players. Quarantined in its own window of the season, T20 has a role to play. But its shadow is swallowing everything else around it. And its because of greedy, blinkered administrators. The Sheffield Shield & for that matter test cricket, might only need a little tweaking to become relevant to today's audiences. But they are being denied the love. That's the problem!
MadMonk
Guest
I agree, but what is most annoying is to hear cricketers like punter and clarke use the expression. GRRR.
MadMonk
Guest
T20 is not to blame but money is. The reason test players dont play shield cricket is because there off on another ODI tour to India (or the IPL). I suspect the answer is to spread the considerable $$ for Australian players to the top 30 under 25 cricketers on the condition they cant play IPL and they must play shield cricket. Then get the selectors to keep the genuine test propsects out of the ODI and T20 sides until they are established test players. CA pays the wages they are entitled to impose conditions.
jamesb
Guest
"WHy should Sutherland be accountable for on field performances?" "had just negotiated the largest television deal in the history of Australian cricket," Sutherland's job is to look after Australian cricket on and off the field, not just off it.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
If someone takes the time to read my article and comment, I think it's only fair and polite to reply, John!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
There is only one person being naive here. And that's being generous. Maybe I need to simplify it for you. If players want to play both forms of cricket, they need to be GOOD at both forms of cricket, otherwise they won't get picked. Honestly, what part of that don't you understand? Moral obligation? What the hell are you talking about? There is no moral obligation, and there is no fanciful rhetoric. The only obligation is to themselves and the selectors. You need to PERFORM in order to get selected, and to keep getting picked. And in order to do that, you need to adapt to the different needs of the two formats. That's just fact, so don't try and argue it, or you'll look like a fool. After all, Cam's point is that our batsmen are failing to adapt due to the habits they pick up in Twenty20, and that's why the Test team is struggling, so don't quote his story for support. "Because I say so." This has nothing to do with me, and thankfully, nothing to with you. The entire point is that if players want to play both games, they have to perform at both games, and that means adapting. Do you honestly disagree with that?
David Gray
Guest
Yes, thats the sort of naive attitude I mentioned. You are assuming firstly: that there is a call from a majority of people that matter (spectators, pundits, coaches et al) around the world for the players to adapt to both situations, which there isn't because if there was, it would have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it and secondly: that even if this call did exist that all players feel some sort of moral obligation to realise the expectation, and would meet it because of some sort of altruism. Lets tell it how it is, these guys are doing a job. A job for money, they are paid a wage to win games, not live up to some sort of fanciful rhetoric posited by cricket "experts". You can keep saying the word "adapt" like it means something, like its on the agenda, and everyone both knows and cares what you mean, but you have departed reality. Spectators DO NOT CARE if their star players can meet the demands of both test and T20 cricket, and to be honest neither do coaches- why would they? Because you say they should? Hardly convincing. That is why your article is unhelpful. You detract from a good point well made concerning an area that spectators do care about- the demise of Test cricket, consumed by the seemingly omnipotent t20 phenomenon, destroying every tradition of the game in its wake.
Rellum
Roar Guru
So apart from the pathetic go at me, is it a sexism is it?
Red Kev
Guest
When some numpty instead of focussing on something important, decided to make a fuss about something cosmetic and utterly inconsequential like the term "batsmen" because women play cricket too.