Every time a Test team collapses in the modern era – and is bowled out of 36, 60 or 67 – the cricketerati goes into a tailspin of condemnation, blaming the insidious influence of T20 cricket on modern batting techniques.
The front foot, if it moves at all, is positioned towards the leg side so that the batsman may be in an ideal slogging position, when any well-coached youngster knows best practice mandates placing your front foot adjacent to where you expect the ball to pitch so that your eyes are in the right position to monitor – and combat – the moving ball.
And that’s before we even start talking about the batsman who fails to notice everybody is wearing whites and instinctively attempts an unscripted reverse sweep for six when he should be defending his wicket for his cricketing life.
Doubtless, the proliferation of T20 franchises has contributed to some dismal dismissals.
But I’d like to argue a case for the positive influence of T20 on Test cricket.
Whilst batting techniques may have suffered, we’ve also seen players bring a T20 mindset to Test match problem-solving, with exhilarating results.
Washington Sundar attracted deserved acclaim for his poise under pressure in his recent Test debut at the Gabba. That he performed so well on the back of just 13 first-class matches is to his credit.
But the guy had also played 107 T20 matches, 20 of them in the international arena. Is it any surprise, then, that he kept his head in both innings in Brisbane? He doubtless endures more pressure in the IPL.
I daresay there is a generation of young cricketers – from all countries – marching towards Test match cricket, armed with a deep ocean of experience, having already performed under the claustrophobic tension created by the partisan crowds and fickle remuneration to be found in the T20 world.
The perfect mix of Test match grind and T20-style controlled hitting was surely on show when Ben Stokes batted at Headingley in 2019. Would any batsman, in any era, have been able to flick the T20 switch so effectively as Stokes did on that tragic day?
Ben Stokes celebrates England’s third Test victory in the 2019 Ashes (Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
Though he had played with such admirable circumspection for almost a day’s doggedly determined batting, Stokes adopted a T20 mindset from the time Leach joined him with 72 to win and the last man at the wicket.
And it was breathtaking to see him suppress any fear of being dismissed as he mowed down the runs required, like a thrashing machine in heat, in less time than it takes to say, “Alan Border and Jeff Thompson took a more cautious approach in 1982 in remarkably similar circumstances, until the ball with Thommo’s name on it finally got him!”
Yes, the prevalence of T20 cricket has made Test batting more tenuous in some circumstances.
But the fearless T20 mindset is also worth celebrating.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Yet we still remember Border and Thompson almost 40 years down the track!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yep.
Paul
Roar Guru
but for one incredibly poor umpire call and a lack of reviews, this innings of Stokes would have been consigned to the history books as a glorious failure.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I agree Paul, and for every McCabe or Stokes instance, there would be a dozen other occasions where it didn't come off. It's just that players of such class get to have their day on some occasions.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
All valid points LiM. In your example, I'd take Mike Hussey every time. Although, I think I remember him saying he was nervous, to the point of incontinence, in this first Test because he wasn't used to so many people watching. That said, I've been hearing since I was 9 years old (ie: when WSC started) that short form cricket would kill Test cricket....and look at the marvellous Test series which have taken place over the 40 plus years since then; right up until the gripping series against India last summer the current series taking place in India. If ODI / T20 / IPL etc subsidise the cost of Test cricket and bring new fans to the game, then I'm all for that. I do, however, take your point regarding the relegation for Shield and County cricket to after-thoughts. That said (again), there's natural selection at play too. The Test specialist who devotes his time to County cricket will have an advantage when it comes to Test selection, right?
armc2906
Roar Rookie
Interesting perspective Peter, unfortunately I see T20 as causing the downfall of first class cricket. Witness only the short thrift given to the Sheffield Shield here in Australia in deference to the big bash. Where once young Australian players would spend their winters playing English country cricket, now the majority prefer to chase the riches on offer in various T20 leagues. To your point about Washington Sundar, yes his experience in T20 no doubt helped him when under pressure on test debut. But who would you rather have leading your batting lineup? A batsman with 100-odd T20 games under his belt, or a Mikey Hussey type? Someone who had made over 10,000 first class runs before making his test debut?
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree that only a class batsman can flick the switch, John. I think the Stokes innings in Headingley is a contender for the best innings I have seen in my lifetime. (I didn't see any of Lara's 153 in Barbados in 1999.) There is a risk that some batsman can not transition from T20 (or ODI) to Tests because they develop the kind of bad habits I described in my article. But to echo your own point; the class batsman can. David Warner is a great example. He emerged from nowhere to play T20 for Australia and progressed to become a dynamic opener in the Test arena. Doubtless there are other examples.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
Interesting article however only a class batsman can”flick the switch” if he represents his country in multiple forms of the game. I’ll use a former player Sehwag as an example as somebody who would probably play the same regardless of a Test or 20/20. However I think the key word is”technique”. If a batsman early in his career is playing mainly BBL where the expectation is to play shots from the start, it may produce a confused mind set at times during Shield or Test match cricket later in his career particularly if batting to save a game. Thoughts?
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Paul. I take your point that Stokes had nothing to lose once Leach joined him at the crease at Headingley. But there is still a difference between batting with gay abandon, because you have nothing to lose, and actually executing the strokes which Stokes played. Reverse sweeping Lyon for six and backing yourself to long drive a six without any regard for the fielder stationed to catch the mishit...they are features of T20 cricket. They may have happened in other formats, before the introduction of T20, but they have become prevalent since that time. I think controlled hitting, without the fear of getting out, is a skill which has been supercharged by the T20 experience. I'd also draw a distinction between the legendary innings by Graham (1893) and McCabe (1932) because my understanding - nothing having seen those innings live (!) - is they they took on the bowling from the first ball. By contrast, Stokes literally flicked a switch. He stonewalled for a day before going berserk in the last wicket stand.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree, JGK, that my title should have been how "T20 cricket has enhanced Test cricket batting". Others may have a different perspective, but I'm struggling to see the positive impact of T20 on bowling tactics or skills. T20 has, however, supercharged fielding skills; particularly relay and/or juggle catches on the boundary.
JGK
Roar Guru
Is it worth noting that even if T20 has enhanced batting in those situations, it doesn’t seem to have enhanced bowling or captaincy?
JGK
Roar Guru
Maybe. The role of the “finisher” in ODI cricket has been well understood since at the least the 90s and certainly predates T20s. The proliferation of T20s has obviously given players more practice at that sort of innings.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Peter, yet another interesting article. I'd suggest there are two very different issues here. The first is how players, especially young players, can be blooded in international cricket by playing short form games, be it IPL T20 or ODI internationals. Australia used the 50 over format very successfully in the 90's to both keep the budding talent interested and hungry to play Tests for Australia, while using that format to make the guys comfortable around senior players when they came to wear the baggy green. Adam Gilchrist is a perfect example of this. The second issue is one you posed in the question, "Would any batsman, in any era, have been able to flick the T20 switch so effectively as Stokes did on that tragic day?" I'd suggest that was simply a case of an attacking batsman going for it, knowing he had little to lose. I'd also suggest there have been any number of great innings of similar type played. Two that spring to mind are by Harry Graham in his first Test way back in 1893 who scored 107 in 140 minutes, apparently running down the pitch at Lords to belt England's express quick Bill Lockwood to all parts. Stan McCabe did something similar in 1934, scoring 232 in 235 minutes, including 72 in a last wicket stand of 77 with Fleetwood-Smith. I take nothing away from Stokes effort but to me, it had little to do with T20 cricket and everything to do with an attacking batsman doing what they do best - attacking.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I reckon he brought a T20 mindset to both matches, JGK; controlled power hitting, without the fear of getting out.
JGK
Roar Guru
I’d argue that Stokes’ Headingley performance was more reflective of his 50 over skill. He played a similar innings in the World Cup final just a few weeks earlier.