Love it or hate it, T20 cricket is here to stay. While I don’t have any specific problem with this format of the game, I do have an issue with the way teams approach it.
When I was a kid, the 50-over format was introduced and in those early days, any team scoring over 200 runs was an achievement.
Teams approached the 50-over game in a similar mindset to Test matches at first, with batsmen seeing out the early overs and then looking to accelerate their run scoring as the innings progressed.
As the game has progressed, batsmen have become increasingly aggressive to the point where we’ve just seen Rohit Sharma smash 264 on his own. The point is, the One Day game has evolved as teams learnt how to approach it in the most effective manner.
What surprises me about T20 cricket is that lack of innovation, in light of what we have learnt from the evolution of the 50-over format.
It’s clear that T20 format dominated by the bat. For example, if the team batting first can reach 175 or more, the chances of the team batting second reaching that score are slim. In the short history of international T20, only 10 times has a team successfully chased a score of over 175.
A comparison of the top-ranked bowlers in the one day format and the T20 format, again reveal the importance of batting in the T20 game. The top 50-over bowlers, according to ICC rankings, include more traditional pace bowlers like Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, Mitch Johnson and Jimmy Anderson.
The top T20 bowlers according to the ICC are spinners and all rounders – namely, guys who take pace off the ball.
So, what innovation do I see as worth a gamble on? Simply put – play 11 batsmen. Or more specifically, play 11 batsmen of whom at least five of them are batting all-rounders.
The approach is simple. Each batsman needs to score at least eight runs an over, and attack from the first delivery of the match. There will be no need to worry about losing wickets, as each batsman will only need to survive for two overs.
The approach to bowling is equally simple. With at least five guys in the team being serviceable bowlers, the emphasis is on containing run scoring, not taking wickets. Guys like Shane Watson, Mitch Marsh, Glenn Maxwell and James Faulkner would be perfect.
You could even argue the value of including one specialist bowler, like a Mitch Starc, in place of the final batsmen.
Hence, an ideal Australian eleven could look something like this: Dave Warner, Aaron Finch, Ben Dunk, Shane Watson, Cameron White, Matt Wade, Mitch Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Steve Smith, James Faulkner and Mitch Starc.
What do you think Roarers? Is this the way of the future for the shortest form of the game?
astro
Guest
Yep, this seems right to me. Take the last T20 team Australia put on the field, for example. Although its worth noting they won, the value from the pace trio of Bollinger, Abbott and Cummins doesn't seem to be as significant as it would be in other forms of the game. There has to be more value in the all-rounders.
astro
Guest
Thanks Brett! Interesting stuff...In my mind, T20 always seems to come down to a teams success with the bat, rather than with the ball, so its interesting if that is turning around. I guess with slower bowlers being dominant, the question is what to do with the traditional pace bowler and whether playing more than 1 is worth it? Notice I'm using the words 'seem' and 'maybe' as I honestly have no proof of any of this, or any stats to back anything up. To me, it just seems like this format is so different from ODIs, that approaching it in the same way makes little sense.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think there is room for specialist bowlers - only spinners though. Pick 2 specialist spinners and have the "pace" options filled by your all-rounders. Most of the time the quick bowlers are taking pace off the ball anyway, so you want guys who bowl the best slower balls, change-ups, yorkers etc. A quick look at the T20 rankings indicates most of the top bowlers are spinners, so that to me indicates that there is still plenty of room for quality spin options.
jammel
Guest
I like the original thinking nature of this article. However, I disagree that 11 batsmen would be a good approach. T20s are best won in my view with 5 quality bowlers - whether you are defending a total or bowling first. Captains should have 5 proper bowlers to call on and should use these - rather than feeling obliged to bowl 4 or 5 "useful" part-time bowlers…. This is often underscored by the fact that batting teams leave some batting talent "un-used" in the pavilion. If two batsmen got set, for example, 9 could wait un-used in the dressing room.
Craig Watson
Guest
Old school bowlers are no more than cannon fodder in T20. So how do we help him avoid a pasting from a flat track bully? I suppose the easy answer is leave him out of the team and bring in a spinner or someone who can use clever pace variation. So the red ball bowler either becomes an extinct specimen or he learns to adapt to the game. Are there any changes to T20 that can help the bowler? I would suggest making the boundaries longer so less sixes could be hit. Have more fielders out so it is harder to hit boundaries and only a quality shot can get maximum benefit rather than an agricultural slog. I think people want to see an interesting T20 match full of tension and excitement and a fair contest between bat and ball....not a slogfest!!!!
Jara W
Guest
Like your thinking, and would love to see this idea in action. But if be concerned if each batsmen only focused on two overs. Wickets are dot balls remember, and ten equals one and a half overs. Add to that each batsman missing a few slogs or illustrious sweeps with the wrong mind set. Your probably looking at missing out on 30 plus easy singles. Cricket is still cricket, even in the shortest form of the game.
JGK
Roar Guru
Agree. Bowling has made a comeback in T20s while batting is now dominating ODIs.
Brett McKay
Expert
I don't think the bat has dominated T20 over the last 18 months or more anywhere near as much as it did at first. Bowlers, and particularly slow bowlers have started to become major trump cards in restricting scoring through their lines and changes of pace. I think your points year might've been relevant 2 years ago perhaps, but T20 has swung back towards good bowling plenty since then. Just in the BBL last year, for eg, the team batting first won 19 of the 35 games, but the average score batting first was less than 160. And then, the chasing team was restricted to 140 per game, on average..
Cadfael
Roar Guru
With so many T20 competitions going on: IPL, BBL, West Indies, England, SA, etc, why not set up a T20 competition like rugby sevens. The T20 competitions separate from test and ODI cricket. Many T20 players don't play test or ODIs and many don't want to, preferring the shortest game.
Shortfineleg
Guest
You make some good points. Equally I have seen long batting lineups fail in the past - it is almost as if each bat thinks, if I don't make them, the others will. There is some psychology there.
astro
Guest
The indoor cricket analogy is interesting...I guess the aim is not so much to have each batsmen play for 2 overs, more the concept that no batsmen has to worry about losing their wicket, and be encouraged to attack the bowling as much as possible. I agree completely that guys have to play themselves in though. Theoretically, by playing more batsmen, you give yourself more of a chance to 3 or 4 guys doing this and scoring big. Current line ups are too traditional in this sense...we ask the top 6 to go all out, but at the same time watch their wicket to a certain extent, so as to not expose the tail in the final overs.
astro
Guest
Yeah, some rule changes to help bowlers could be nice...but you're right in terms of what T20 is trying to do, and who it is trying to appeal to, I think
Brian
Guest
interesting except not that different. batting pitches are so good that guys like starc, johnson, cutting, cummins can make as many runs as the batsman anyway. often the all rounders can bash the ball just as well as the batsman, last world cup we lost to darren sammy from memory.
Shortfineleg
Guest
Agree about taking the pace off. Generally, pace gives the bat much more scoring options. Don't agree about stacked batsman and the indoor cricket idea of a nominal 2 overs each. Bats need time to build runs, even in 20 over cricket. It is still cricket, and bats do better when they play themselves in a bit and have productive partnerships. Even in a 20/20 context.
Johnno
Guest
Innovations in T20 should be to help the bowlers. I have one idea. -If in first -5 overs you lose 2 wickets, when you lose your 2nd wicket you go 3 down, so in reality then 1 person in your team will not bat, and be a golden duck in reality. Also allow maybe 4 bouncers per over. Also maybe have 10 fielders on the pitch plus the WK and bowler, so an extra 1 fielder on the pitch, anything to help the bowlers, in T20 cricket. Im not one of the young brigade born from 1990-onwards but i just can't fathom how endless 6ixes are exciting or boundaries, containment,wickets,small totals, lots of singles are more fun, grafting Geoff Marsh innings, or Geoff Boycott innings than Kieren Pollard innings. But im a traidtionilist in cricket and from the old school, I love test cricket and it's purity, so my age demographic and old school and old fashion culture doesn't identify with T20 style, so it's not marketed to me nor does it need pure test fans, as it's supporter base.It's not trying to appeal to the older demographics. So the younger demographics, just can't relate to gritty Mark Taylor type knocks or Kepler Wessels, or Geoff Marsh or Geoff Boycott type knocks, or Mike Atherton, they want sixes and bright lights, that's there definition of cricket the youth of today,and less bowler friendly conditions, unlike the glory days for fast bowlers of the 70's,80's,and 90's. If T20 wants to attract the older baby boomer generation, it needs to have more bowler friendly rules, or bowler friendly wickets.
ajay
Guest
chris lynn instead of wade ? warner finch dunk steve chris lynn maxwell marsh faulkner richardson cummins starc white and watson now in 30+ i guess 31 and 33 yo don't think they are now?