Home > Bangladesh, Cricket Development > Opinion: Verdict on T20

Opinion: Verdict on T20

Firstly, lets not beat around the bush. T20 is the only way in which Cricket can get into the olympics. This has been the official response from the Olympic committe as well a few years ago, when they did not see that ODI was schedule friendly. So thats one main reason for looking at T20 favorably. Once the sport gets into Olympics, in many countries the govt funding increases dramatically, even if the interest in the masses is not that great. Already we see that T20 has become part of the Asian games, I think in 2010.

T20 is also targetted towards the people who think that 8 hours is too long for a game. I dont really understand that theory though. You dont HAVE to watch the full 8 hour game. You can watch only the 3.5 hour second innings. In any case, once you are addicted to the game, the 8 hour game does not look very long. And you have to understand that Cricket season is not like an MLB season with a lot of games within 3  months. There are only 20-25 games every year, and some of them are not even followed by the fans due to either telecast issues, or timing issues. In any case, the argument is there.

Now we get to the final part. T20 is very non serious cricket. It just is. A couple of bad overs (only 1 if you are Yuvraj Singh) can make you lose a match, and a couple of good overs, from the bat of Jayasuriya, or Afridi, or even the Bangladeshi batsmen can make you win. Once the team gets derailed, there is no chance of getting back. In ODI, if you go down at 50/5, someone can still have a partnership, and perhaps crawl to 210 in 50 overs. Then the bowlers will have something to bowl at. In t20, if you need to score at least more than 120-130, becuase anything less or equal to that, and the side batting second, with 10 wickets, should easily make the target (unless you dont have any brains like SA against Ind).

The other fallacy in terms of defining what is fun in cricket vs what is not is that lots of 4s and 6s will make it exciting. Thats baloney. A close contest makes it exciting, nothing else. And in any case, the contest should be between bat and ball, not bat and bat.

Last year there was the Pakistan India ODI series in which there were some of the flattest pitches that you would ever see. The problem with those games was that safe scores were those in excess of 320. A score of 280 was eaily chased down. Thats stupid becuase if the team batting first has to face morning conditions and goes through 15 overs being cautious, they have just lost the game. They can slam bang in the rest of the overs, and unless exceptional scores are made in those, they have lost the game. All the games were quite boring despite a lot of 6s and 4s being hit.

ICC has recently started that they want to jazz up the ODI by introducing free hits in them. Thats not good. If you want to experiment, things like this, or that super sub rule, should be limited to T20. 50 over cricket should stay with the roots of the game in terms of rules, the only difference being that the innings has been limited to 50 overs.

One thing about Bangladesh. When Bangladesh beat WI, there was someone on Cricinfo who got carried away and wrote “Bangladesh will reach the semi final of t20 WC. You read it first here”. This statement is pretty much “in your face” now. Bangladesh dismissed Gayle for 0 on the thrid ball of the innings. Scotland would also have won against WI in the summer in an ODI if they had been able to do that. But the point is, that Bangladesh will probably be able to beat WI in an ODI these days as well, provided that there is some series scheduled. Chances are higher if the series takes place in Bangladesh. ICC has to do more to get Zim and Ban to play WI and Eng, while also getting the top associates to play Zim and Ban. There is no movement by the ICC to do either at this point in time, and thats bad.

So the verdict is, I hate T20 cricket. But it is here to stay. Not too sure about what the older generation said in 1975 when the first limited overs world cup was played. It was 60 overs btw, the game lasted 9 hours.

  1. farhan
    September 21, 2007 at 3:44 am

    well nasir i dont agree with you, what ppl want is sixes not low scoring matches, they want bowl going out as many times as possible,this is action packed game so they want to see T 20, as far as you said about the skills level in this game i think to hit a ball over the boundary is itself a skill, why GARRY KRISTEN did not have same fan followings as SHAHID Afridi ,you still need skills in T 20 games , and those are to hit the ball, also to improvise but these skill level are some kind of different to test match cricket, i think T 20 will attarct lot more ppl around the world and that great news fro cricket , WITH T 20 cricket in next few years YOU WILL See cricket crososing the boundaries from asian sub-continent to all over the world.THAT can be only good for this sport.

  2. September 21, 2007 at 5:21 am

    Nasir, the older generation said pretty much the same as you’ve just said about Twenty20 when one-day limited overs cricket was introduced.

  3. Art
    September 21, 2007 at 6:08 am

    Well my late father enjoyed the short game when it started and up until the day he died. I have always the short game except where the wickets are prepared entirely in favour of the batsman. Cricket is a competition between bat and ball and that sort of wicket preparation kills the sport.

    T 20 is interesting but for the rules of cricket it is too short. It looks grand of course all that flashing about but a good batsman in T20 needs more than just an ounce of luck to play consistently.

    The 50 overs game certainly has brightened up test cricket quite remarkably but I am at this stage struggling to see what T 20 will really do. I guess I will have to watch a little more of it and think about it a little more.

    Besides I have 50 over day night match to umpire next Friday and that will be interesting enough without worrying about T 20, lol

  4. fred
    September 21, 2007 at 8:48 pm

    When a batsman’s wicket has no value, the game has no meaning. Seeing lots of 6s doesnt make it interesting, any more than watching 1 boxer land 100 punches, cos his opponent has his hands tied up.
    Interesting that despite the WC being deemed as bad as humanly possible, a poll on the aussie cricinfo site shows most people rate this 20-over thingo less watchable!
    Cricket in the Olympics? Probably never. And who cares really. The most Olympic friendly format would be 6s, though.

  5. Art
    September 22, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Well the cricket spin machine is working overtime here. It appears that the ‘ladies’ like T20 or so the spin goes.

    My wife is a cricket tragic and she will watch it but is not absorbed by it.

  6. Art
    September 22, 2007 at 12:50 am

    Well the cricket spin machine is working overtime here. It appears that the ‘ladies’ like T20 or so the spin goes.

    My wife is a cricket tragic and she will watch it but is not absorbed by it.

  7. Ram
    September 22, 2007 at 5:57 am

    Let’s face it…The prospect of seeing huge money was the chief motivation for the ICC to come up with this concept of a Twenty20 World Championship…Has this event been successful?…Well, ESPN STAR yesterday released their ratings confirming that this World Cup has been a huge success in its core market, India where even non-India matches involving minnows have attracted good viewership…BUT, it seems the reality isn’t so obvious…How different have the crowds been in comparison to the so called ill-attended World Cup in WI earlier this year?…Except maybe for the SA games, I haven’t really seen packed, capacity crowds in this event as was promised given the ridiculously low ticket prices…Even the Pak-NZ semifinal hasn’t attracted a full house…Matches involving lesser teams have continued to be played in front of virtually empty stadiums…or, how competitive have the minnows been despite this being the reduced version?…What has this event done for making this sport more popular?…I would say the ODI WC helped raise the profile of cricket in Ireland more than what this event has managed anywhere in the World….

    It must be remembered that just having more and more 4s and 6s being clobbered isn’t going to make this sport healthier…Yet, the ICC and the media (where the general expectations from this event have been much lower compared to the WC proper) will fool the rest of the World into believing that this event has been a huge success simply because of the no. of 4s and 6s on view and stats such as ESPN STAR’s findings…In fact, if I remember correct, both the GCC and the ICC’s official partners were quite happy with the overall conduct (including the crowds, TV viewerships etc) of the WI WC despite India’s and Pak’s early exit, and all the negative publicity…It’s just that the proliferation of ODI cricket has not only increased the fatigue factor but also raised the expectations of the public about the ODI WC and has consequently prompted too much negative reaction from the mainstream media…It would be in the interest of World cricket if Twenty20 is left to all these leagues that Test boards are coming up with and use that as an excuse to reduce the amount of commercial ODI cricket at the international level…This would not only preserve the popularity of Test cricket but also that of the ODI WC…Intl cricket is and will remain strong enough to hold its own with Test and reasonable ODI cricket supplemented with league Twenty20…

  8. Bruce Gaskell
    September 22, 2007 at 5:58 am

    Entirely agree that a close contest creates excitement, whatever the sport.

    I don’t understand why anyone would enjoy watching Gillespie score 200 against Bangladesh, or Brazil scoring 10 goals against someone.

    The fact of the matter is though that the 50 over format has always been somewhat flawed precisely because it does not create a close finish often enough. At the last world cup there were only 5 or 6 matches that you could genuinely call close. (admitedly that includes the minnows)

    It stands to reason that the lower the scorelines the closer the match, which is partly the reason why 20/20 is attractive, for all its faults, it’s a format that will deliver close finishes more often than 50/50.

    Of course the King of sports, Test Cricket, rarely delivers a nail biting finish on the 5th day, but the ebb and flow and build up of tension in a good match over 3-4 days before a result is certain makes up for this.

  9. farhan
    September 22, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    WELL every one having his own ideas i think there can be one thing that can save cricket from dier state and that is T 20 , whatever you ppl argue T 20 is the format that will attarct to more ppl and to ppl who are not really fond of cricket either.seeing results it seems that pakistan is the probabaly the most GOD gifted team in this world so they should win the final easily as my knowledge says,but who knows lets see.

  10. farhan
    September 22, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Coming to the point which form of the game is better , Its really up to public to be honest I think that T 20 game is creating a lot of interest in people even of countries other than subcontinet so thats good to see , what we want this beautiful game to develop and i think T 20 can help in this regard I dont see test cricket attracting ppl to see boring 5 dayers draw its modern era ppl dont have 5 days to watch a drawn game

  11. September 23, 2007 at 1:50 am

    farhan…… why are you comparing test cricket with t20? compare ODI with T20….

    test cricket is not for newbies……

  12. fred
    September 23, 2007 at 3:15 am

    If you think the Japanese, Chinese, Americans, and Nigerians are awe-struck by the wonder that is 20-over cricket, please think again, Farhan. To put it politely, its not that they couldnt give a shit, they dont even know its on.
    Not even the cricket playing community in Japan is watching this. Attempts to jump on the 20-over bangwagon have failed, too.
    Has the backlash started already perhaps?

  13. Bruce Gaskell
    September 23, 2007 at 5:52 am

    The fact of the matter is, aside from a few warm up matches, there are not many international 20/20 fixtures scheduled outside the World Championships. Unless a lot more are put into the Tours Programme at short notice then this argument may seem pointless in a few months time.

    Lets hope for some good Test and ODI series this winter/antipodean summer. 20/20 will go back to being a money spinner for domestic sides and an introduction to the game for Cricket-sceptics. In England it has managed this without damaging Test or even ODI crowds.

  14. Tim
    September 23, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    Disagree. I’m a great fan (provided the wickets aren’t too batsman-friendly) though Tests will always be No 1.

  15. farhan
    September 23, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    well i am not comapring the test cricket to T 20,I consider the test cricket being the biggest honour for any one in cricket and will remain always, but what my point is that to introduce a format of cricket that will attract not only ppl but also to with it will bring money, and thats can only be possible with T 20 cricket, seeing ODI cricket world cup it was really necessary to bring something new to cricket and thats the best thing happened to cricket that ICC was able to stage such a entertaining world cup, well coming to japnese who cares about them, they are good in baseball while seeing T20 i am sure they must have liked T20 cricket rather more compared to BASE BALL as ball is more times going out into crowds in T 20 cricket,well everything is for money and when T 20 brings you more money then why ppl should be hesitant in adopting this format.

  16. Art
    September 23, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    farhan makes reference to the poor crowds or comparartively poor crowds at the ODI World Cup.

    Crowds in the West indies over the years have tended not be huge and certainly many of the grounds have only small capacities.

    Cricket should and must share the tournaments across the cricketing world. Oh and one of the great faults about cricket now is the ‘money’ side of it. This is not to say that top class cricketers should not earn good money but money is not the be all and end all of sport. I hesitate to be critical of the BCCI but it treats the cricket fans with almost disdain. the fans I am talking about are the average Indian supporter not the corporate rich who can sit in luxury in some corporate facility and not mix with the ‘others’.

    I am looking at perhaps T20 being introduced into the local competition here at some stage. Not quite sure where it will fit into the program but a knock out series played in one day by the eight first division teams would nbe an interesting concept.

    We are starting to see real greed in cricket now in several areas and that is being pushed by some in the guise of helping out the Affiliates etc. I am wondering about that. Test cricket is the top of the sport. One day cricket has certainly influenced test cricket in recent years, I am not sure exactly what T20 will do though however I am inclined to believe there will be a demand for flatter wickets to produce more hitting. Perhaps in one day and T20 we can do away with bowlers altogether and put a bowling machine at each end and make it a slog fest.

  17. farhan
    September 24, 2007 at 2:08 am

    well you can’t ignore the importance of bowling even in T 20 cricket, looking at the worldcup of this format it shows that pakistani bowlers bowled very well so they got reward to be into the final, even indian bowlers did well so they are too, IN my view I think to bowl in T20 is easier job compared to bowling in TEST cricket WHAT you only need to create pressure by just restricting batsmen from getting scores while in test matches YOU MUST HAVE GREATER QUALITIES to get a BATSMAN OUT, youh certainly need to have some qualities a good bowler in T 20 format,watching

  18. farhan
    September 24, 2007 at 2:15 am

    I think AFRIDI, UMAR GUL,SOHAIL, VOTTERI,RP SINGH AND STUART CLARK did well as bowler in this worldcup. i really impressed with AFRIDI and GUL they seems to me the bets bowler of this format, it would be really tough for any batsman to slog them out.Well i think one day you will get more bowlers who will be the masters of THIS FAST PACE CRICKET.

  19. September 24, 2007 at 3:45 am

    ok….. after watching the semi finals as well….. i am more clear about exactly what i dont like about t20…… needless to say, the format is here to stay, but more for cricket expansion purposes than anything else…..

    1) I think Nasser Hussain also alluded to this during his commentary in the Pak-NZ semi. T20 cricket is a format in which a team can dominate 90-95% of the game, and just lose due to the remaining 5% at the end. Zimbabwe nearly lost the game against Aus, despite being in a strong (winning) position for 38 of the overs in that match. Pakistan could have lost the semi against NZ the other day, despite dominating the whole game. Something like this is akin to a Soccer match in which a team keeps attacking and keeps hitting the pole 20 times, while the other team just gets the ball once and scores to win. Such a thing has happenned in Soccer, but it is an exception. In t20 cricket, it has happenned often enough during its short history for it to be considered the norm. For any sport, so much of ‘luck’ factor is not good. It doesnt look good for the game for the winning captain to come out and say “We sucked throughout the game, but lucked out in the last 2 overs!”

    2) You have to keep in mind that 120-130 runs is the par score. Any team will be able to chase that down with 10 wikcets in 20 overs. No risks are needed for that chase. It is very easy in T20 to miss the plot early in the first innings, and become 15/3. Usually, teams have not been able to recover from such situations, and usually end up making an extremely predictable game. In an ODI, even if a team scores 180 on a wicket where 250 is a good score, they are in with a chance if they bowl well, because 180 is still a lot of runs.

    3) I am not a good batsman, and I dont understand batting that much anyway. But whenever I did bat, every delivery could not be hit for a 4. You had to wait for the right delivery, and 50 overs were enough time for someone to be able to do something. 20 overs with 10 wickets, and you are talking about a batsman essentially consuming 3 overs in which he has to show his skill. It can happen in baseball, becuase the batter gets 9 lives. But it is very unnatural for any serious cricket.

    4) This world championship T20 was not something that came out from the Test nations as a whole. In fact, there was opposition to it. So far, people have been following it because there is nothing else to follow. The cricket calender has been cleaned out for this tournament. I will believe that there is a lot of traction, when there is a Pak v Aus ODI going on, but Pakistani people would rather watch an Ind v SA t20 because they find it more exciting……. I know a lot of people who do that with Test cricket vs ODIs.

  20. February 14, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    well, the fact is simple – t20 will stay, and stay for a much longer time that you caan ever expect – infact t20 ill drive away the one day game – and get ready for this – the one day cricket will be reduced to shambled. Offcourse the test cricket will stay – but no one day. The earlier they declare the one day’s cricket’s demise the better fro cricket as a whole.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: