The PlanetCricket View: Why I Hate 20/20 Cricket

[PlanetCricket]

Article by hawkeye -

I love cricket. However, every year at around the time of the Indian Premier League I try my best to avoid every cricket website, every cricket news story, every cricket TV station, and almost everything else to do with cricket. This might seem strange in light of my
aforementioned affection for the game. But the reason is simple: I hate the 20/20 game.

Call me a snob if you will, but I find it difficult to truly appreciate a game that is mostly about hitting a cricket ball farther and more often than your opponent. The 20/20 game involves precious little nuance and not much of the ebb and flow that can make the test game so intriguing. There is hardly any place for defense when batting, or any of the subtleties that is the hallmark of good bowling. It is an inferior game.

And while I accept that the excitement it generates and its brevity could serve to lure new fans to cricket, I believe the cricket schedule is getting much too crowded for it?s own good. The IPL seems endless; there is an Australian Big Bash competition, an English 20/20 league, and now there is a Bangladesh Premier league as well. Where will it end?

It is only a matter of time before even more cricketing nations jump on the 20/20 bandwagon, sparking a bidding war for the best talent available. Pretty soon, it appears, a substantial number of the major players will be playing 20 over cricket somewhere in the world while their and national teams will be forced to field 2nd or even 3rd string teams.

It has already begun to happen. I have seen the West Indies struggle to take test wickets in the Caribbean while a supposedly unfit Jerome Taylor was charging in for his IPL team half-way round the world. Chris Gayle?s destructive bat has not been available to the West Indies since the 2011 World Cup because of a dispute with his board, no doubt fueled by the fact that he is regularly and lucratively employed elsewhere.

If other cricketing nations are not already experiencing similar problems, they soon will. I know that the no-objection certificate is supposed to prevent this problem, but we have already seen the strained relations between players and their boards that this can produce. And is it really right to try and force professionals to play for their national teams when they want to be engaged elsewhere?

And you can?t really blame the players either. An athlete?s career lasts only a few years, and injury or loss of form can make it even more fleeting. A player cannot reasonably be faulted for trying to maximize his earnings while he can. After all, it could all end tomorrow. And considering he would have dedicated many years to honing his talent for the game, he probably would not have acquired other marketable skills. What happens to him then? Should he not try to secure his future as quickly as he can, given the uncertainty of an athletic career?

I do not know how the danger posed to the traditional game by its 20/20 version is going to be resolved. It seems to me, though, that the ICC has got to find a way to seriously streamline the cricket calendar if it is to preserve the viability of the longer forms of the game. Twenty/20 cricket is here to stay and there needs to be a way for all forms of the game to co-exist. And they better act with haste too, or the great test game will not be long for this world.



More...

 

[formula1man]

I think T20 is crickets way of competing with the various football codes. and I also think there is quite a lot of strategy to T20 its just a different type of strategy then normal cricket.

 

[ArcherMcKinley]

I think T20 is crickets way of competing with the various football codes. and I also think there is quite a lot of strategy to T20 its just a different type of strategy then normal cricket.

Football has always remained the same, regardless of being club or country. Also, you don't see a footballer missing out on a chance to represent his nation, all that often.

What I'm hinting at is, that T20 cricket is having too much of an affect on other formats.

I agree with what hawkeye said.. "Twenty/20 cricket is here to stay and there needs to be a way for all forms of the game to co-exist. And they better act with haste too, or the great test game will not be long for this world."

 

[SaiSrini]

20/20 cricket has brought about positive changes to test cricket in that it has quickened up scoring rates and also reduced chances of dull and boring draws. More and quicker runs, also chances of wickets, less boring matches than before. In an indirect way. it puts spotlight on bad wickets (because batsmen score tons on bad wickets and people talk about such wickets hampering cricket) and brutally exposes ordinary players when they visit conditions where batting is not so easy.

There are positives too from T20's. If consumed in decent doses, it can complement test and ODI cricket really well.

 

[formula1man]

I believe the balance of T20 has been great this year in Australia. I loved the Big Bash and it wasnt overdone. Then just after it finished we picked a Big Bash XI in the T20Is to see them all play together, and the fact that they took it seriously for a change was good to see. Then with the World Cup just around the corner, I think its great. But yes I dont want to see International cricket being destroyed for T20. Although I wouldnt be totally upset if all forms of domestic cricket became more popular and had less international matches.

 

[Owzat]

T20 has its place in cricket, however competitions like IPL do cricket no favours as the $$$$$ is influencing player decisions.

I'm not sure it does have a positive influence on Tests either, it further reinforces the daft viewpoint that cricket is "all about runs" and it isn't. Cricket is about a contest between bat and ball, sadly T20 is not an even contest.

As for tactics etc, there is little scope for a game to swing back and forth when it lasts less time than one standard ODI innings. There is also little 'recovery time', if you're 50/4 in an ODI you're in trouble but there's time to post a total, in 20-20 you might make some kind of recovery to 120/8 say, but chances are unless it is a bowler's wicket it won't make any difference.

 

[iridescentt]

I tend to disagree. I see T20 cricket as the perfection of the batting technique in a concentrated format. Whilst on the other hand the bowlers for that matter mustn't truly rely on line and length as it leads to predictability. Which in turn means they must rely on their variational deliveries, discipline and a bit of luck - but it goes to show that either side needs some of it, too. That is why its seen as such a revolutionary part of cricket - it differs in so many ways to Test cricket - yet people still diss it as it doesn't seem natural.

Anyway, tbh, domestic T20 leagues should comprise of mostly (99.999999999%), if not all, homegrown players. No more oversea players I say. Sure profitability may fall, but it'll finally be used for its true intentions. To breed and blood T20 players. Plus you'd rid yourself of the international scheduling problems that tends to favor the domestic leagues without the diligence of the player.

 

[harishankar]

I am glad that the BCCI is in trouble over IPL decisions and franchises. The BCCI needs to eat some humble pie.

As far as T20 is concerned, I think the format should be restricted to those Celebrity cricket leagues and domestic tournaments (without the hype and glitz of the IPL circus). After all, it makes no sense playing one-off or two T20 matches in a serious cricket tour. Just feels out of place in international cricket.

 

[Ahmad94]

Your views are appreciated and understood. Unlike in Test cricket a batsmen?s true potential and capability is not exposed to the game. In a format like T20, a lot of players are not of the standard of ?proper? cricket. No offense meant to any supporters but some players out of IPL can?t just be pulled out and put in to Test cricket. This, IMO, is the reason behind the failure of India in Test. Take Pakistan as an example, currently dominated in Test Series against England, why? Well they have different players well adapted for different formats, players like Younis Khan, Azhar Ali, Saeed Ajmal.
I share your opinion however the high glamour and the fast games will never stop me from watching IPL or T20 tournament. In this day and age, no one has time to appreciated all 5 days of test cricket, myself included, only checks the score at the end of the day and occasionally watches an hour if I am free. Let?s admit it, as good as classy batting looks where players like Sachin, Yousuf, Dravid make it looks delicate and an art. I would rather watch something where the average strike rate is 150 not 50

I hope you understand my view

 

[formula1man]

they should at least put stricter limits on how many overseas players can be picked for domestic T20s, however you could see people sacrificing their international career for an indian passport.

 

[6ry4nj]

I tend to disagree. I see T20 cricket as the perfection of the batting technique in a concentrated format. Whilst on the other hand the bowlers for that matter mustn't truly rely on line and length as it leads to predictability. Which in turn means they must rely on their variational deliveries, discipline and a bit of luck - but it goes to show that either side needs some of it, too. That is why its seen as such a revolutionary part of cricket - it differs in so many ways to Test cricket - yet people still diss it as it doesn't seem natural.

I sort of agree. If ever I give up ignoring T20 in the hope that it'll go away, I will attempt to cultivate an attitude like yours...

 

[sifter132]

I'm warming to T20 actually, especially as my interest in 50 over stuff wanes. In fact, I was thinking of writing an article about why 50 over cricket sucks this morning I think essentially, people enjoy good close cricket and lots of action ie. 6s and 4s, stumps flying etc. As I see it right now 50 over cricket just strings out a game that could be played over a shorter period. And despite the Powerplay tweaks, there is absolutely nothing of tactical interest in the middle overs. Both teams play as though they'd prefer to get into a time machine and fast forward to the next powerplay/40th over.

 

[hawkeye]

Would you be in favor of getting rid of the 50 over game and just have t20 and tests? That could probably be looked at. Then again the 50 over world cup is highly regarded so how do you get rid of that?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I've lost interest in domestic 20/20, it's played too much and lost all it's meaning in the endless cycle of matches.

however there are a few things i digagree with that you've said. it is a good thing that gayle has the financial backing from t20 to stand his ground against his board. players shouldn't be bullied by there boards because they don't have the option of taking their skills else where.

I also thing it's good that it provides more opportunities for cricketers, some players in the IPL don't have a hope of playing international cricket but they're able to make a good living by performing in the IPL, it makes cricket a better career option.

 

[hawkeye]

Supercat, we don't really disagree. I too am happy that many more players are now earning substantially from the game. But I think T20 is getting too prevalent and is somewhat crowding out tests. If it becomes worse than it is now then we may have national teams not being able to field their best team--as is happening now with the WI. That is what I think the authorities need to act to remedy. And I think the scheduling might be a way to try to do that.