ICC need to deal with India too.

[andrew_nixon]

why do you think twenty20 should be started in india ??
please dont tell me that it will increase the popularity !

Of course not.

My point is that India just shouldn't say no to a Twenty20 World Cup outright. If they don't take part in one ICC event, they don't deserve to play in another, and certainly don't deserve to host one.

Is it a necessity for 20-20 in the sub-continent, i don't think so. ODI and even test cricket is still famous.

As I said earlier in this thread, it took 10 years for India to host an ODI at home. All the while they were saying that they didn't need to host one, as Test cricket was popular enough.

so what if people dont attend or there are no fullhouses for ranji trophy finals !!

That's what Twenty20 is for in test playing nations. To increase the popularity of DOMESTIC cricket. It's worked in England, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

As a side effect, it can be used to attract people to the game that may not otherwise be attracted to it. This may not be needed in India, but it is needed in other major cricket countries, and in countries where cricket is not well known.

A Twenty20 World Cup, perhaps played in a non-test country, could do wonders for the popularity of the game, and could make people who never even would have dreamed of playing, get interested in the game. Who knows, such a player may have the same natural talent of Bradman, Sobers or Tendulkar.

And if that Twenty20 World Cup does not feature India, it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Plus, a Twenty20 World Cup has the potential to make much more money that the ODI World Cup. It is much more attractive to TV, as games do not take up an entire day. Because it's more attractive to TV, it means more TV companies are willing to show it, thus increasing the value of the TV rights.

Then, because more people tend to watch it, and it has the potential of tapping into new markets, sponsors will be willing to pay more money.

It's India who will lose out in the long run.

You cannot judge a tournament by one player. Mark Ramprakash indeed has a good technique but whats the proportion like..when you look at all players.

The evidence shows that players with orthodox techniques have more success on average at Twenty20.

Players like Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Gilchrist,Dravid...did not become legends (or on verge of becoming one) by watching 20-20 or anything of that sort.

Of course not. But something must have stoked their interest in cricket when they were younger.

Twenty20 means that interest in cricket can be stoked in more people. And some of those people may just have the natural talent to become as good as those players you mentioned. They just may never have had a reason to start playing the game.

 

[usy]

Of course not.

My point is that India just shouldn't say no to a Twenty20 World Cup outright. If they don't take part in one ICC event, they don't deserve to play in another, and certainly don't deserve to host one.

As I said earlier in this thread, it took 10 years for India to host an ODI at home. All the while they were saying that they didn't need to host one, as Test cricket was popular enough.

That's what Twenty20 is for in test playing nations. To increase the popularity of DOMESTIC cricket. It's worked in England, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

As a side effect, it can be used to attract people to the game that may not otherwise be attracted to it. This may not be needed in India, but it is needed in other major cricket countries, and in countries where cricket is not well known.

A Twenty20 World Cup, perhaps played in a non-test country, could do wonders for the popularity of the game, and could make people who never even would have dreamed of playing, get interested in the game. Who knows, such a player may have the same natural talent of Bradman, Sobers or Tendulkar.

And if that Twenty20 World Cup does not feature India, it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Plus, a Twenty20 World Cup has the potential to make much more money that the ODI World Cup. It is much more attractive to TV, as games do not take up an entire day. Because it's more attractive to TV, it means more TV companies are willing to show it, thus increasing the value of the TV rights.

Then, because more people tend to watch it, and it has the potential of tapping into new markets, sponsors will be willing to pay more money.

It's India who will lose out in the long run.

The evidence shows that players with orthodox techniques have more success on average at Twenty20.

Of course not. But something must have stoked their interest in cricket when they were younger.

Twenty20 means that interest in cricket can be stoked in more people. And some of those people may just have the natural talent to become as good as those players you mentioned. They just may never have had a reason to start playing the game.

agreed with andrew there.

 

[sohum]

Twenty20 would definitely boost domestic cricket in India, and it may even spur more money to flow into the domestic game. This would definitely be an added bonus to the development of Indian cricket, because youngsters who are Harris Shield (school cricket) stars sometimes quit the game because playing for your state doesn't fetch you too much money. I, for one, know that I have never been interested in domestic cricket. This may change if I had a strong Twenty20 team to revolve around, for example Mumbai. It would be great to say, "Let's head over to the pub after we thrash Delhi in that Twenty20 game tonight."

However, starting out with an international competition, with all the countries (minnows et al) participating, with or without Twenty20 experience, would be the wrong move, I believe. The only way I could see this being justified is by holding it a 'developing' nation such as the US or Netherlands or Dubai (UAE). The ICC must realize that cricket development is like building a house. You cannot put the roof on if you haven't built the actual house. Twenty20 is the roof of cricket. If you stimulate cricketing interest through the shortest version of the game, you are not developing them in the long run.

Look at Kenya--they were given ODI status. They performed well for a while but are back down, as the interest has faded. Once a strong cricketing background has been developed, you begin adding things like ODI cricket and Test Cricket. It is tough marketing a 5-day game to a new country, but I'm sure we don't want to see cricketing nations that enter a splurge, for half a decade, and then sink back down into the dark abyss of screwed up cricket countries.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Twenty20 is the roof of cricket. If you stimulate cricketing interest through the shortest version of the game, you are not developing them in the long run.

You've got that completely the wrong way round. Are you seriously suggesting that we try and build cricket's popularity with test cricket?

It hasn't worked has it?

How many non-test countries have a national league involving anything other than one day or Twenty20 cricket? Scotland and the Netherlands have a two day league, and I think Kenya has tried to get one off the ground, but thats it.

Twenty20 spawned a national league in the USA in less than a year. It didn't take off, but that was more due to mismanagement than the format. Remember it did have TV coverage AND got people to the grounds.

Twenty20 cricket, with it's short time frame, and purposely quick action, is THE best format to introduce someone to the game who isn't interested in it.

It gets people into the game, and into the system. In the non-test countries, they will rise to the top, and the ICC has a system whereby they gain the chance to represent their country in the 4 day Intercontinental Cup, which is set to expand into a second division in a couple of years time.

They play Twenty20 at the lowest level, then into 40-50 over a side cricket at club level, then into one day cricket and four day cricket at international level.

 

[sachinisgod]

I disagree to most of it!!!

Hi everyone! Some of these views mite have been expressed above but there were some extraordinary mistakes in that article beside the argument itself...so jumping most of the messages in between...

First of all andrew - didn't expect such distorted facts from you.

At the moment, they are the only test team to never tour Bangladesh for a test series. They played there for the inagural test for Bangladesh in November 2000, but have not been since.

Where did Sachin equal Sir Don Bradman's 34 tons...??? Where were India touring before Pakistan toured India last year???

But why have a tour to Pakistan just two years after the previous one?

That's tough to understand if you don't understand the history of the two nations and the history of the sport between them...

http://www.baseballonvalium.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=583

India and Pakistan have recently announced that they will start playing each other at neutral venues again. But will ODI status team Canada be invited to make it a tri-series if they play in Toronto? Of course not. Canada are not a money spinning team.

you answered all your arguments yourself in that one sentence.

If one wants the development of the game in different countries and across continents, then ICC needs money. You count the number of sponsors of any ICC events and you'll find that a majority of that money comes from India. It is natural because no where else u'll find a populace of 800 million hooked to the game. The amount of screen time a cricket match can give to a corporate cannot be rivaled and the amount of public exposure that screen gets in India cannot be rivalled by any country in the world - perhaps not even all of them put together. So Indian sponsors are natural and hence it is natural that they will expect that the games they sponsor get full attendance at the ground too. Now let us know where Canada finds a place in this game of economics.

Howsoever one wants it to be so, but cricket is no more the leisurely game played for fun. Its a competitive sport played for the prize and the prize money and organized for the sole purpose of earning more. The advent of oneday cricket first and Twenty20 (which you've so vehemently put up a case for) later is a proof of that. And whether the world and ICC like it or not - in this economy of world cricket - the market is a monopoly. The name of the giant is not ICC or Australia (better team) but it is India. And it is already established so unfortunately for ICC, it has to tow the line - whether it wants or not. And ICC and its oldest members have recognized this fact already.

Let me take the denial for Twenty20 first - ask yourself "why did Twenty20 came into being?" Because people in the UK didn't have the time to watch a full length match of cricket. They felt that it would be better for them to watch a mini-match after a full day of work. In India people don't feel that way. When India plays Pakistan or Australia, half of the India (thats a very large no. of people) puts the match on its top priority - for the whole day (ODI) or for the complete 5 days. So if BCCI is convinced that the grounds gonna be full whether its a test match, ODI or Twenty20, then why would it support a format which brings lesser gate fees and lesser On-Air time??? This holds equally true for Pakistan, but the stakes in terms of gate fees and On-Air time are lesser. Perhaps that's why they have started the Twenty20 competition in domestic cricket. There's no reason why BCCI shouldn't do it. It certainly will boost the attendance and marketability of the domestic cricket in India. But as long as half of India keeps dropping whatever it is doing because there is a cricket match on somewhere, it will take a lot of cajoling for India to agree to international twenty20 tournaments or to take them seriously enough.

You've kept mentioning the non-test playing nations in your article. Well first, they get to play in those world cups because the cost of organizing those matches is absorbed by the "money spinning" matches between India and other major nations and some other interesting match combinations like Australia -England, Australia - NZ, Pak -Aus etc. So there's nothing wrong (except chances of influential betting) in India playing Pakistan in Toronto and inducing either England or Australia to join them. And I strongly disagree with you when you say that India doesn't care about non-test playing nations. Both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe got to play their first test matches against India. I know of no other test playing nation that has played a tri-series with two non-test playing nations - India did in 98-99 (Coco Cola Cup/Trophy with Bangladesh and Kenya). And Indian crowds blessed even those matches. Bangladesh's gaining the test status was because of strong Indian support. The list can go on...but the point is that BCCI is as aware of the need for the game's expansion into uncharted territories as it is of earning the cash. And many times it gets put to good use too. I am sure you know about a couple of grounds in WI getting ready for the World Cup with BCCI's aid.

I think I read a couple of posts about who would break away if India did. The fact is that everyone will have to - and they recognize it better I suppose. That's why Aussies have almost agreed to biennial series with India and England every four years. Pakistan will play India every month coz nothing generates as much revenue for its board as a touring Indian team. There's only one series/tournament that can hold any value on its own if India back off from ICC - Ashes. Unfortunately it in itself cannot generate that tremendous bulk of revenue so that ICC can indulge in charity. And you talk of expelling India out of the WC??? You've forgotten what happened in Champions Trophy in SL and the 2003 WC??? Indian players couldn't be barred from the tournaments for the fear of loss of revenues even though their personal sponsors clashed with the tournament sponsors (both Indian corporates btw). Where players can't be barred you talk of barring the team??? Dream away!!!

But does that mean that the future of the game is bleak??? No. But that future cannot be brightened by making 10 year boring plans that don't take into account what is happening in cricket world at that particular time. If ICC really wants to generate revenues and make the game popular - then they should ask for a small compensation from teams everytime they break away from their drawn up schedule. They should cut crap format tournaments like the last two Champions Trophy. They should have two tiers in every format of International cricket and induce more teams in the lower tier. And last but not the least - have some one like Jagmohan Dalmiya run the show in the ICC for a few more years because though most of the ignoramuses love to call him all sorts of names, but few know that under him ICC's treasury grew to almost ten times the value it had been when he joined. The same goes for his tenure at BCCI. Its because of his business acumen that BCCI bagged a sponsorship award in front of which all of the footie clubs of Europe pale away. Autocratic or crazy - he had his positives and so does India's domination of the Cricket Economy.

Nothing personal here - just a conflict of views. I know the post is too long but then your article was long too.

cheers

Sachinisgod

 

[Cricket_god]

ICC should first concentrate on developing cricket in nations where there is interst in cricket like bangladesh,west indies rather go to usa,canada etc whose teams are mainly made of people of indian,pakistan origin.

 

[sohum]

You've got that completely the wrong way round. Are you seriously suggesting that we try and build cricket's popularity with test cricket?

It hasn't worked has it?

How many non-test countries have a national league involving anything other than one day or Twenty20 cricket? Scotland and the Netherlands have a two day league, and I think Kenya has tried to get one off the ground, but thats it.

Twenty20 spawned a national league in the USA in less than a year. It didn't take off, but that was more due to mismanagement than the format. Remember it did have TV coverage AND got people to the grounds.

Twenty20 cricket, with it's short time frame, and purposely quick action, is THE best format to introduce someone to the game who isn't interested in it.

It gets people into the game, and into the system. In the non-test countries, they will rise to the top, and the ICC has a system whereby they gain the chance to represent their country in the 4 day Intercontinental Cup, which is set to expand into a second division in a couple of years time.

They play Twenty20 at the lowest level, then into 40-50 over a side cricket at club level, then into one day cricket and four day cricket at international level.

You've quoted the ICC's plan, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a pot of bullshit. I, as a cricket enthusiast, do not want a bunch of teams with lower quality, as much as I want a few teams with high quality. It is not the ICC's god-given responsibility to make everyone play cricket.

In addition to that comment, if all the current test playing nations (except Bangladesh) began playing international cricket through Test Cricket, why do you think that the same cannot happen in the future?

 

[andrew_nixon]

In addition to that comment, if all the current test playing nations (except Bangladesh) began playing international cricket through Test Cricket, why do you think that the same cannot happen in the future?

Because all those other countries had the game seeded there by the British. They were already used to cricket.

Are you seriously suggesting that the best way to introduce cricket to someone who has never heard of the game is to say "Come and watch this game, it lasts 5 days."?

Before one day cricket came along, when test cricket (or other multi-day cricket) was the way people were introduced to the game, there was just seven members of the ICC. One day cricket has seen that grow to almost 100. Whos to say that Twenty20 couldn't see it grow past 150?

It is not the ICC's god-given responsibility to make everyone play cricket.

Actually, it is their responsibility to increase the popularity of cricket, and get more people watching and playing the game. And if you think that games that last 5 days are the way to do that, then the evidence just doesn't back that up.

 

[puddleduck]

I know a fair few mates who do not really enjoy cricket, sure they got taken in a little by the Ashes, but that was all-action cricket that had twists and turns that even a one day international could not match. Having always been a test match fan, I personally find that far too much ODI cricket is played as it is, I also feel that if they were to reduce the amount of ODI cricket and in turn increase 20-20 cricket they could see a reduction in injuries to the key test players.

Less charging in for 10 overs on flat batsman paradises. Less sprinting tons of singles in a stop start measure for batsman, less hoiking of the ball over 50 over periods, that in turn seem to even cause Batsman injuries these days. Going back to my mates who are not massive cricket fans at all, they all have really enjoyed the 20-20 cricket, and I have seen first hand people who were not interested in County Cricket, actually now tempted to spend a day with me in the current season at a Lords watching Middlesex. I've always told them that it's just a day out in nice weather having a booze-up, but not until they saw 20-20 cricket and sat through a whole match have they ever been inclined.

So in my opinion, its a good step, and it is most definately the ICC's role to broaden the game of crickets horizons. Let us not forget that without the ICC, India do not exist as a cricket nation, nor do they have anyone to play. It is them that do not have a god-given right to do as they please within someone elses Competition.

 

[ronny_kingsley]

Really? How many people attended the final of the Ranji Trophy?

Batsman taught to slog? Rubbish. Twenty20 has shown that batsman with orthodox techniques play better.

Mark Ramprakash has a technique so orthodox, it's almost worthy of a place in a museum, yet he is one of most consistent performers in Twenty20.

For Ranji Trophy finals if not still 1000 people get to the stadiums ( i had seen one in which Mumbai was there).


Ramprakash is a consistent performer no doubt but still the best batsman for 20-20 ( as far as I know) are stills the Brown's,the Maddy's,the Loye's who in my opnion are technical idols for youngsters as how not ot bat.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Ramprakash is a consistent performer no doubt but still the best batsman for 20-20 ( as far as I know) are stills the Brown's,the Maddy's,the Loye's who in my opnion are technical idols for youngsters as how not ot bat.

That's not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the most consistent performers at Twenty20 are those with more orthodox techniques. The "sloggers" can score 50+ one match and get out in single figures the next.

For Ranji Trophy finals if not still 1000 people get to the stadiums ( i had seen one in which Mumbai was there).

Twenty20 matches would attract much more.

Less than 1000 people attent Middlesex's county championship matches at Lord's. The Twenty20 matches there have been sell outs with 28,000 people attending.

 

[sohum]

Before one day cricket came along, when test cricket (or other multi-day cricket) was the way people were introduced to the game, there was just seven members of the ICC. One day cricket has seen that grow to almost 100. Whos to say that Twenty20 couldn't see it grow past 150?

Again, you're chasing after numbers. Is there a need for the whole world to play cricket? I don't think so. That is also why I don't think the ICC has to make the whole world play cricket. Their job is to manage cricket (which they haven't been doing with too much demure) and not to force other countries to play the game, at the same time changing the way the game is played in the current cricket-playing countries.

The beauty of cricket must be appreciated in its traditional fashion. If you're going to lower the standards just to attract audience, I would not be for it. It is very unlikely that someone who got into cricket through Twenty20 would ever be interested in watching test matches.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Again, you're chasing after numbers. Is there a need for the whole world to play cricket? I don't think so. That is also why I don't think the ICC has to make the whole world play cricket. Their job is to manage cricket (which they haven't been doing with too much demure) and not to force other countries to play the game, at the same time changing the way the game is played in the current cricket-playing countries.

The beauty of cricket must be appreciated in its traditional fashion. If you're going to lower the standards just to attract audience, I would not be for it. It is very unlikely that someone who got into cricket through Twenty20 would ever be interested in watching test matches.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. The point of sport is not to stop people from playing it if they want to, and not forcing people to play. If they don't fin cricket interesting, so what? We do, we love it, and we want to see more competitive cricket, not people who believe the point of the sport is too take wickets and score runs. We appreciate the ebb and flow of the game, the pressure and the tension between players. Once the ICC has the top countries playing top quality cricket, then that mildly interested kid who tunes in on a rainy afternoon and ends up watching a fantastic match might then try and become the next best thing.
Like you said Nixon, the more orthodox players do better, so wouldn't 22 orthodox classic players locked in a test match from two regular countries be better to watch and more attractive than 22 unorthodox players from unheard-of countries playing 40 overs of wham-bam cricket?

 

[m_vaughan]

I disagree. The sport has to grow worldwide. Really the same 10 teams playing each other all the time will eventually get boring.

Take football as an example. Greece winning the European championship, Senegal making it to the Quarter finals of their first ever World Cup. Even in cricket, Kenya entering the semis of the Cricket World Cup in South Africa. It all adds to the excitement and growth of the game.

Sohum and Zorax will come and go, however, cricket has to survive and grow. And the key to that is Twenty20.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

But the point Nixon is making is that Twenty20 will try and bring in people from places like England and Australia, but why should we lower our standards for people who are not interested.
I don't have anything against minnow nations playing (Heck, I'm a big fan of four of them), but if lowering cricket's standards is what it takes to attract them, then no thanks.