T20 is Cricket, but not as we know it

It's going to be an interesting debate that one - I take your point about the time difference, and it won't happen while we're still at the WACA. But when that shiny new stadium at Burswood opens, then it will be a different story.

They won't play night Tests in Perth because of the time difference!

Get used to the pink ball I reckon, all of CA's eggs are in its basket. Can easily see a future where the only places in Australia test cricket is played in the daytime is Sydney and Melbourne.

It has taken me a while to get around to reading this..... and since it was published there has been a T20 live crowd of 88,000 at the MCG, whilst 32,000 were bored to tears yesterday watching day 1 of the Test in Sydney (be interesting to see how many they get today since it's a working day). Perhaps your opening sentence should be edited to "Not everyone likes Test cricket...." I really enjoyed the start of the BBL5, however am now finding a waning interest - simply too much of it on and frankly, I am getting a bit sick of the banter, particularly from Freddie. Come to think of it, I am getting a bit sick of eating leftover ham too. One question for you Junior, how did you cope with the pink ball?

That is very true. Some of us "traditionalists" have grudgingly accepted that T20 is an entertaining game for many many people, and as Rhino said, may expand the number of cricketers who can make a living out of the game. The problem is if T20 "eats" the other forms of cricket you won't have the necessary "feeders" to supply talent for the T20 game. T20 is being pushed by marketers and entrepreneurs who couldn't care less if the concept dies in 5-10 years time because they will have made their money by then. As long as T20 co-exists with the other forms of the game, where Test cricket is at the apex, all will be good. I think having franchise cricket over a set period of time is probably the right format, and careful scheduling around the world, with better pay for Test cricketers and a Test cricket World Championship, may see all forms of cricket fill their respective niches. However this relies on international/national cricket administrators working together in the best interests of the game, a prospect that doesn't really seem feasible given the current crop of administrators.

It was not that long ago that Shield cricketers could not make a living unless they had a ACB contract, witness the rise of 20/20 and the IPL and many more kids have a career path, particularly in the southern/western states if you good at football and cricket and many kids were/are, a AFL career was the only real option. Being somewhat loosely involved in youth representative cricket ( as a parent and some coaching) the feeling has changed in the last 5 or so years that there are plenty more options available to cricketers these days as far as making a living. A example is Clint Hinchcliffe from WA, very good cricketer and very good footballer, he was not picked up in the 2015 AFL draft and possibly not be picked up now, unless as a mature age player, he was also in the Australian under 19 cricket team, 10 years ago a cricket career was probably way behind a AFL career however recently cricket because of 20/20 has become a much more viable option.

To play 20/20 you actually need to learn how to bowl, bat and field and understand the rules, hence i don't understand why people who just follow test cricket put it down, it is entertaining, pure entertainment. The same thing was said initially about 50/50 cricket that it will wreck the game.

Kids cricket only lasts for a few hours until they reach under 16 level, so this argument is incorrect. Furthermore, all school sport takes place during school hours - junior club sport takes place on the weekend. With 3 kids in school, all playing a variety of sport, I can say that at the moment cricket takes up not much more time than soccer, and less time than Little Athletics on a Friday night. Spectating is a different matter and watching a day's cricket is a longer commitment.

Yes, T20 is here to stay, definitely. However, it's a very long stretch to say based on a couple of good years that this will persist for it to be the dominant form of the game. Trends come and go, and T20 is a trend right now. The "achilles heel" of T20 is that it lacks the nuance and variety of the longer form of the game. Remember when people said that One Day cricket is boring because there are too many matches and there are a lot of boring middle overs (possibly still do)? All that is potentially even more true for T20. A better assessment of the longevity of T20 as a game will need at least another 5 years. Basketball had a growth spurt in the early 90s that made it look like it may become a dominant sport and look where it is now!

Kids and their parents do not like multi day games. Even more than a few hours is a stretch. Hence they are opting out as a school sport in droves. They are interested in T20 though. The T20 rules can change in the future. But it will have to be spectator friendly. It is a professional sport. Kids want to play what they like to watch. So the near future is T20. Let's work on making that a better product and ensure Australia is one of the drivers of the T20 bus.

80,000 spectators last night. I think it's here to stay. Based on that you would think its going to become the predominant form of the game. I would imagine the number of tournaments wil expand around the world too. Players will gravitate to it for the reasons you mentioned less work and more money. But also that is where the good players will be. So if you want to test yourself then that's where you will go. Sure the Australian test players are on a good financial wicket. However spectators are the market and the market calls the shots. TV rights value will revolve around what the spectators want. Cricket is driven by tv rights as we know.

Oh for heavens sake!!!! Once again (and yes I'm rising to the bait), I get it, you're morally superior for only watching test cricket - the 10 course menu However I would really like one of you superior people to answer the flowing question/s 1: how else, in the modern, professional sporting environment are you going to be able to offer enough financial rewards to attract and retain talented sportsmen/women to cricket? 2: How is cricket going to have enough product to keep the TV paymasters happy? Especially given the regular complaints about oversupply of ODIs? 3: how do you attract enough kids to the game to allow it to retain its place in our culture without the tool of T20 which they love (and which for many will be an entry point to longer forms I suspect) 4: given almost every other country doesn't care about tests anyway (given their crowds), why turn your back on the future just because it doesn't suit? (Not to mention our players would leave in droves for the money)

As a dad with kids (8-11) I would say that the flaw is not with Test cricket, but limited attention spans. This is going to be an issue in many areas, not the least of which is when they get jobs (and I include my sons here as well). Test cricket has its problems, but it's not the game, but the weakness of some of the sides, the lack of a "World Championship", and corrupt and self-serving administrators. T20 is not the saviour of cricket, but it IS a well-packaged piece of entertainment that is flavour of the month right now. I personally think that Test cricket will always survive, and go though ebbs and flows of popularity over time (as it has done periodically over its 140 year history). What does need to happen is to clean-out the corrupt and self-serving international cricket administrators and replace them with a selection of ex-cricketers with intelligence and business-leaders with an enthusiasm for sport, i.e. administrators with the best interests of the game as a priority.

Difficult? I would opine that the skills required to be a good T20 player are easier to acquire than the skills required to be a good long-form player. Not only that, but the skills between the two formats are starting to separate, so becoming a good T20 player will lessen your ability to be a good long-form player (David Warner has admitted this just recently). So we are fast approaching the prospect of a young cricketer having to "choose" between the formats - concentrating on the T20 game would essentially preclude an individual from ever reaching the pinnacle of the long-form game.

T20 is closer to entertainment than sport. It's very similar to the superstar club football friendlies they have out here - 90,000 to see Manchester United in a "warm-up" match for the EPL season. Huge crowds, great atmosphere, but not that much interest in the result. They come for the spectacle and the occasion, not to see a competitive sporting match. It's a great product, for now, but I'm not sure that T20 franchise cricket will be able to sustain the excitement over 10-20 years without having a "meaningful" competition (miking-up "live" players is a sign that it's not that serious). The entertainment is "new", but there are only so many sixes to keep your interest when the "product" is the same every match.

Well, the 75,000+ who are watching the Melbourne derby seem to like it.

So did a bunch of overpaid has beens tell you to have this opinion, or did you come up with all on your own?

Nobody knows who I am so it's hardly big noting. Secondly I think experience when discussing a topic is helpful. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.