Thanks to Twenty20, cricket is now more popular than ever

i think the time has came where t20 need to take over 50-50. test will forever be the best.

I think t20 cricket is the way to go ... I Dnt understand a form of game where u leave the best of bowler and play the bad stuff ... I think real test is when you rise against the difficulties and hit boundaries on both good and bad deliveries . Not when a bad delivery is bowled .. Also test cricket is the reason cricket didn't get its due audience.

I think, BBL my be getting good ratings and crowds for now, but in long run it will be outclassed by A-League. I clearly see more passion for Soccer Clubs in Australia than for T20 franchises (which seem to be a bit gimmicky). Although, I live across the Indian Ocean and can't really tell about ground situation, what I have read about Cricket's situaton in Australia (courtesy of this fabulous website and Cricinfo), is that Cricket a steadily lost ground in popularity stakes. If you compare the amount of interest that a CWC/Ashes and Soccer World cup generates in Australia, then I think the latter just about pips the former. Also I don't see any dedicated Supporters group like Red and Black Block or the Wall forming for BBL franchises, I might attract good crowds but it also gives a feeling of Circus. If you all raise the point that in India IPL is even more gimmicky, then please understand that Cricket is the King, the emperor and the Badshah, all rolled in one of Indian sporting landscape and will remain so for next 50 years. So no matter what the IPL does, it will remain the ultimate "sports" league for us.

G'day ChrisB. It's been a lonely place being a BBL advocate on here the last couple of years. "While LO cricket appeared to enhance the skills of traditional cricket, T20 cricket appears to be developing a skill set completely counter to traditional cricket." Sorry Sheek, I thought this idea had been done and dusted by now. Many on here were blaming first-class batting averages and the lack of centuries on BBL and T20 cricket in general which was allegedly corrupting player's temperaments and techniques. However, a significant change was made (which I argued at the time) that result pitches were being prepared for the Shield over a number of seasons. This season, pitches fairer to bat and ball have been prepared and the proof is in the pudding. First-class batting averages are up 30% and centuries are up 25% on last year. The other thing about the BBL window...is that traditionally it is a domestic cricket break. Going through the Wisdens back to the 70s there has been a break in domestic cricket from around the week before Christmas to about the second week of January. The bulk of BBL is scheduled in this previously under-utilised time and it would seem now, appropriately scheduled during that time. I'm sure administrators will start looking at how to make the Shield more fan friendly. Now some of the days are on Saturday rather than all mid-week and there will be a round this season experimenting with twilight games. So I think progress in that respect has begun.

Chris/Don, I understand that a) Sheffield Shield is not a powerful revenue raiser & b) that BBL is paying the bills. I do get that. I'm just saying that Sheffield Shield can be jazzed up itself. Is this so difficult a concept to grasp? And if BBL is required to hog the December- January window, then fine, make sure the tests & SS are done by mid-December. But they need to kept in blocks. If that means totally rearranging the traditional structures, then so be it. And look, I just don't like T20 personally. Sure it's entertaining, but I find it shallow entertainment. But that's just me. I don't mind change, but not for its own sake. Change must add value. And I don't mean just money. In 1977, I was 21 & supported WSC from day one. I agreed our leading players were now traveling & playing more, but not being adequately compensated. With all the extra series, it was becoming even more impossible to hold down a job (this was the semi-pro era). Of course, I had a vested interest myself. I wanted to see the Aussie champions play until their mid to late 30s (as they do now) & not retire in their late 20s/early 30s to concentrate on a career. We have a lot to thank Kerry Packer for. If it hadn't been for him, G.Chappell, Marsh, Lillee, Thomson & Walker would all have been done by 1979/80, with all of them just on 30 or just under. Bar Walker, we saw the others for 4-5 more seasons. I also loved one day cricket from day one. It helped improve the skills of the longer formats. Batsmen learnt to score more quickly while keeping their wicket intact. Bowlers learnt different skills to dismiss batsmen other than worry about line & length. The biggest changes came in improved fielding & requisite fitness. T20 appears counter-productive to all this at the moment. While LO cricket appeared to enhance the skills of traditional cricket, T20 cricket appears to be developing a skill set completely counter to traditional cricket. Of course, I could be wrong.

The problem Don, is that you and I and others keep pointing these things out, but Sheek and the traditionalists never seem to answer quite how the Shield can be profitable or where the Money or crowds will come from. At the end of the day it seems to be an "I hate change" type of argument, which is by its very nature irrational and impossible to disprove.

Even baseball has a fine balance between bat and ball. 20/20 reduces bowling to trying to reduce runs, not take wickets, which should be the primary objective. Baseball fans, like fans of traditional ande even one day cricket, appreciate this fundamental aspect of the game. I doubt many would be attracted to 20/20.

God, I'm going in to bat for Johan, but he said he'd never attended, not never watched.

I was writing a long response, but the arguments present are so far removed from the evidence at hand that I realised it is a waste of time talking to these 'the young are morally corrupt' oldies. Thankfully, they are nowhere near the levers of power. This summer is demonstrating that cricket in Australia is going just fine. However, that won't stop the 'traditionalist' brigade moaning about the sky falling in. I imagine they still up in arms about front foot no-balls, 6 ball overs, covered pitches, WSC and (gasp!) women playing. We'll all be ruined!

"Well, they’re not managing things at all well. Like lovesick suitors, they are concentrating on one girl (T20) at the expense of the others." I think we've had this conversation before, but I'll continue... When everyone on here was complaining a couple of years ago about CA 'throwing money' into the BBL and 'making a loss' at the expense of other forms, I argued (correctly in hindsight) that CA was pumping set-up costs into expanding the BBL which would be recouped with interest after the recent TV rights deal (which happened). It makes sense that CA invested in the format that would be the most viable in the short term to start generating revenue. The Sheffield Shield costs $32 million to stage annually...it generates almost no revenue itself as it is not televised and is not a crowd-puller. As Jesse Hogan of The Age pointed out...now the revenue from the BBL can cross-subsidise at least half the Sheffield Shield. So the BBL, which all the so-called 'purists' revile...is probably paying the bills for our beloved Sheffield Shield. Test cricket, especially the Ashes, is an important and viable competition. Administrators would want to foster top quality test players in the first-class structure to have campaigns like we saw this year. Now, with the overwhelming success of the BBL established on the cricketing landscape...I predict CA will start to focus on the Ryobi Cup and Sheffield Shield now they have the resources to do so.

Sheek again the problem with your argument is that domestic first class cricket has always been uneconomic, and has just existed for the benefit of producing test players, rather than being a source of must-see club passion. This Is not a new problem, it was like this when I can first remember (early 70s), and there is simply nothing you can do about it, it will never be a big rater on TV, nor at the turnstiles. Your argument seems to be that ignoring this strata to focus on BBL will kill off the production line of test players. I get that, but.... 1- won't that be the same for other countries as well? Everyone I'd focusing on their T20 legumes, because 2- they make money and take the load off the international teams for bringing in cash, and help keep players in the game. Look, my wife, who hates cricket generally, comes to watch T20 with me and the kids, and she's not alone. There's just one bum on a seat that would never watch a Shield game. And you know what, through this and watching the kids play, she is slowly building an interest in the game. I've been to a test most years since the mid 80s, love test cricket but I've never been to a Shield game. They simply go to long for me to invest my busy time in watching in person. Sure I follow the scores, but to go live. Sorry So given I'm hardly Robinson Crusoe here, how would you make domestic first class cricket a valid, commercially viable entity so you wouldn't need to run the BBL over the peak season to drag in the families?

The point I was making above is this. If there's a perceived problem with traditional cricket, then fix it. If you have a tummy ache & go to the doctor, what the hell is he doing checking your ear? It's the tummy, not the ear! The problem is articulated in Arthur's last sentence of his post: "As long as the ICC manage it well, the only way is up for Twenty20 cricket." Well, they're not managing things at all well. Like lovesick suitors, they are concentrating on one girl (T20) at the expense of the others. Un-nurtured, traditional cricket will become unwanted, then extinct. Australian cricket is developing a similar problem for itself as Australian rugby did with it's topdown dependence on the Wallabies. Where did Australian rugby ever think its future stars would come from by ignoring the grassroots? Where does Australian cricket think its future traditional stars will come from if the players are only inclined to develop their skills for T20?

We'll said mate.there are people on this site who were born decades after me but are much older and set in there ways. Cricket and AFL lead the way in this country in keeping ahead of the game.

Renegade my first sporting love is rugby union, but I think the future of sport in this country is soccer and AFL. Within 20 years I suspect the a league will be dominating the NRL for a multitude of reasons. Afl will still be no. 1 though. I live in Western Sydney, and can tell you that the wanderers are the no. 1 team here these days, none of the four NRL sides can draw the crowds or stir the passion like the wanderers do. It's still early days for the a-league but the signs are promising. I can't see the BBL lasting really, does it really connect with the areas they claim to represent.

Yes! Thank you, a batsman is not created in a mixing bowl!

To answer Steve's questions, tests are uneconomic and lacking in attendance outside the 3 countries I listed, so the Aus TV deal was irrelevant and as I've said elsewhere, T20 is a saviour in 1/ keeping talented 1st class players in the game who may otherwise drop out through lack of opportunity and career paths, 2- it takes the pressure off depending on internationals alone for income (ie, for the first time cricket has a profitable domestic base) People like yourself who are constantly critical of T20 can never explain how these impacts could be otherwise compensated for if T20 disappeared as you seem to want it to

Afc champions league is growing, besides the sub continent football is big in asia. Certainly del piero, ono , Hesky and kewell would be more well known than any cricketer in Asia (besides in the sub continent). The standard a-league player maybe not

Wo calm down. Supporter backlash I meant, of course those running the cub would seek change.

you have absolutely no clue about the BBL do you ? Sydney thunder sacked their entire management staff before the start of the season. helps if you actually find info about the topic which you're speaking about before making comments

They play about 3 times more games per season. But the BBL rates at least 6 times higher than the A-League. So the value per viewer is still greater for the Sydney FC. And that is because of the emotional connection that viewer has to their team, which the Sydney Thunder do not possess (yet I may qualify).