20/20 Cricket to dominate world sport

Article from BBC

I've long held the opinion 20/20 will dominate world cricket and is the vehicle to take it into new markets. I know there are some in the ICC that share my views. In Germany I really think we should do a lot more with this form of the game.

Can't see it dominating world sport but it looks like it really is taking off.

So who's for, who's against and who thinks a cricket has legs and jumps in the grass?

I like it, good as a spectacle, but I like one-dayers and tests more. Find that 20-20 is a bit unfair on the bowlers, and they've been having a hard enough time of it lately with all the flat hard wickets that seem to be the norm. I think the ICC should allow more than the current 3 20-20 international games per series, so little seems a bit ridiculous, and it's not really taxing on the players, just on the little kids who've got to return the ball after a boundary!

Hmm, sticky wicket that one but the idea bowls me over...

I've long been an advocate of doing away with the 50 over game and having a two innings 20/20 game.

20/20 brings what is sorely missed in cricket...fast paced action. It'll never dominate world sport, but it will, I hope, dominate the cricket scene.

I agree, can't see it dominating in any markets where cricket isn't already big, but it's definitely exciting to watch. Given the time to sit back and watch, though, I do enjoy a good 5-day test. The future of one-day tests doesn't look that rosy, though.

I like it, but whether I do or not is irrelevant because it's inevitable that it will come to dominate the cricket scene as it's what modern spectators want and are prepared to pay for, whether at the ground or on the telly. Add to that the fact that it's already a fact in India, where the large fanatical population and increasing financial capacity is providing the ideal launching ground and I don't see that there's much anyone could do to stop it if they wanted.
As for dominating world sport, well, whatever. Possibly, but not in my lifetime.
What 20/20 is already doing is marginalising 40 and 50-over stuff, which is now neither one thing nor the other.
As for Test cricket, no other form of the game can ever come up to that, but it's a totally different animal.

Well, I like 20Twenty, less chance of getting sunburnt ha ha
Full tests are great for watching with a hangover on telly though, nothing much happens and it's less busy, good for a snooze. But probably I'm a good target for 20Twenty, as someone who will watch cricket, just rarely five days of it (unless someone has got me a ticket, then I'd go).
And 20Twenty has other attractions.

Being a cricket player myself and having played for University and some cricket clubs, I can say that this 20-20 thing is more of a commercial thing rather than the actual game although its fun. Its more business and a flashy thingy. But anyways, I like this concept as it promotes the game.

I reckon cricket is the perfect game for the chinese, as it would suit their smaller frames the same way it does the indians, and the chinese like numbers and statistics and stuff too. Imagine if they got into cricket too

It's also much better suited to getting up a pick-up game. What did we use to play down the park on a summer evening in July? 20 overs a side, that's what.

As a spectacle, I really enjoy watching 20/20 and I've enjoyed watching the IPL more than I thought I would. I could see 50 over cricket losing out to 20/20, but not tests. Doomsayers predicted that the rise in popularity of 50 over cricket would lead to the demise of tests, but that hasn't happened.

But I can see 50 over cricket declining because traditionalists have never been that keen on it anyway and most of the "instant" cricket fans will jump over to 20/20.

If it can promote cricket in the rest of the world, then it can't be a bad thing though.

Twenty20 just reminds me of the cricket we played at school i.e. just kids messing about.
Test cricket has a depth and beauty like a fine wine whereas Twenty20 is just a VodkaBull.

far from killing off test cricket, I think one-dayers brought some positive changes by speeding up run rates and making batting teams more aggressive. I think twenty20 has had a similar impulse on one-day games. Except for England, of course. They are dismal at that game and don't seem to have learned anything.

I was going to compare the 60 metre dash to the marathon, but that is much better.
However I wouldn't say "just" a Vodka Bull.

Nothing gets away from the fact that cricket is simply an ritualised form of standing around in a field?

"Indian police say the organisers of the new tournament transforming Indian cricket could be fined if cheerleaders are deemed to be dressed indecently."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7366516.stm

Interesting developments:
I think the drive is to get it on level with something like American Football. Quite possible. There is no other sport in India that can even compete.

The public decency laws in India are pretty strong...ohhh and the Washington Redskins cheerleadeers are supposed to be the best.

Good pick Sharukh Khan!!

The concept is fine enough as a gimick but all the cheerleady, musicy bits around it are frankly somewhat pathetic. Mind you they have those somewhat sad NPower girls at tests too I suppose so its not limited to 20/20

out of interest, how does a Texan get a knighthood?

Probably made a large donation to the labor party.

I hate those dancers too...totally embarrasing

Hopefully this will spell the end of 45/50 over matches, which are the most boring form of cricket known to man. Test matches and Twenty20 are the way to go.

I've never seen a 20/20 cricket game. I know one day matches can be very exciting. So I suspect the 20/20 can be too. However my biggest love is watching test matches. I think the 20/20 game will attract lager louts, big bucks and people with the attention span of a flea to watch the game. Hopefully the test matches will keep going another 30/40 years, so I have something to do in the summer when I retire.

cant really see the point of that. I assume 20/20 is designed so that it appeals to those without much of an attention span and can be fitted into about 3 hours. With two innings it'll be a longish game again and no more or less likely to be exciting than a 50 over a game. At least with ODIs it tales some skill to build and rebuild innings, 4 innings of purely thrashing and not having to worry too much about losing wickets seems just too much like a lottery

20/20 is fine but take it for what it is and dont replace other forms of the game. And its ridiculous that players who are ok at 20/20 can suddenly be considered as having test match potential eg Nixon and Mustard

plenty of exciting 50 over games during the bank holiday weekend, including Scotland beating Lancs in a thriller!

I enjoy the spectacle that is 20/20 cricket but it is what it is - a slog fest. A very fast paced game (in cricketing terms) that has brought a lot of new interest to the game and has been a marketing sensation. However, it is just one form of the game, and should not be seen as a threat to the other formats, which come with their own pros and cons but are IMHO just as interesting.

Maybe they should look to introduce this style of game to baseball and make that more interesting to watch at times.

Took them a while but looks like the double innings 20/20 could be a reality...




Double innings 20/20 could be a reality

If it replaces the 40-over job then that makes a fair amount of sense.

As for the return to three-day championship matches, that makes sense too for at least three reasons. One, the increase to four days was meant to make it a springboard for Test players but that ain't working. Two, the game is faster now so if there's no result within three days there's not much more chance of it being over in four, what with the English (and Welsh) weather and all. Plus they are talking about upping the minimum number of overs in a day too. Three, nobody is going to the grounds to watch championship games midweek anyway, so cut your losses boys.

I disagree. I think you need 4 day games to prepare for test cricket. England may not yet be a team that can regularly compete with Australia, but they are certainly competitive against all other nations. Nobody watches state cricket in Australia either, but they wouldn't dream of cutting back the length of a game. First-class cricket cannot sustain itself and has just become a feeder system for the national sides - this is an inevitable result of more international cricket being shown. Why would anyone go to see Durham v Yorkshire or South Australia v Tasmania when you can see England v South Africa or Australia v India? People used to watch first-class cricket in the old days because 40 or 50 years ago there were seasons where no international side toured and there where no home tests played at all in a year. Those days are over, but it doesn't mean people aren't interested in watching anymore.

I also think the idea of 3 day games with an increase in overs per day is a stupid idea - players, fast bowlers in particular struggle to stay healthy anyway. In the last years, plenty of England bowlers have been out through injury anyway and this has hurt the national side. Squeezing 4 days worth of overs into 3 days is going to make that even worse.

No. I think the solution would lie in playing less first-class cricket. Last year, English counties played 16 championship first class games in the season. Given the amount of other matches played in addition, this is simply too much. Australian state sides played 10 each. Obviously, given the success of the national side, it would appear that 10 are sufficient for players and selectors alike. So I would propose the counties split into a 3rd division - making 3 divisions of 6 teams, and cut down the number of games they play to 10 each, like the Aussies. As well as preventing burn-out and cutting financial losses (I assume most county games make a financial loss), it makes batsmen value each innings more and every bowler try that much harder in every spell of bowling, because after that game's over, there's a long break before the next game...

3 day CC? No thanks. Just get rid of Pro40!

The Pro40 has to be the thing to go, no doubt about it. But if they replace it with a 2*20/20 then so be it, the game needs to generate revenue.

I don't want a 3-day CC either. But they do need to play less cricket. If they cut to 3 divisions or, better, conferences with playoffs then they can keep the 4-day format. It's all a question of fitting it all into the season without overtaxing the players, bowlers in particular.

I like the 2 innnings 20/20 concept too, because there's far more scope to adding a tactical element to it.

If the do I hope they add a declaration option for an extra bit of tactics.

There'd no point declaring - Unless you could add those overs you don't use in the first innings onto your second innings.

That would make it very interesting...

In fact, if you allowed teams to declare, to make it even more interesting, allow them to bat past the 20 overs in their first innings and have less overs to play with in the second innings. Then give bowlers an 8 over limit for the whole day. The captain can choose how that's split up between the 2 innings.

I reckon that would be a great game. You'd have to call it split 40 over cricket instead of 2*20/20

You could call it 20² or 20/20squared or something. I am sure the ECB would have more creativity than myself.

I always had a 15-25 over declaration in my head. If you collapse you can declare after 15. If two batsmen are going like a train you could go on to 25.

We should try this in a friendly as I think it would be a scream.

I reckon we should try it here in Munich.

I wouldn't see the need to limit the declaration that much though - I'd make it between 5 and 35 overs, and only then to ensure that there was actually a 2nd innings played. You could declare at the end of any over and if you're bowled out in the 1st innings, you lose the remainder of that over.

I would think most teams would declare between 15 and 25 overs anyway, but the less you regulate it, the more it leaves the door open to tactical thinking.

interesting ideas, I guess that means one could still keep restrictions for first 5 overs each time

but as I said above, isn't the whole attraction for the jumping on the bandwagon post Ashes 2005 etc fans the fact that it now only takes about 3 hours? Increase complexity and double the time and it may be interesting for cricket fans but I assume you would lose the whole point of it being quick. So I don't really see that it would be much more or less exciting than 40-50 over games (which can be exciting)

Anyway, whatever you design, the stroppy BCCI will stamp its feet and stop people playing if it doesn't like the look of them anyway, so they'll probably ruin whatever game you design

It seems unlikely that cricket of any sort will dominate world sport whilst Otto Normalverbraucher has to pay to receive it. I can't even listen to the test match on my shitty BBC/Alice "Broad"band connection. Big soccer games are still free on TV, and it is the same in many other countries.

considering how tight and exciting the Pro 40 was this year including an incredible "final", I reckon just cut the traditional 1 day games from 50 to 40 overs to remove some of the dead middle overs - 40 overs is just right for allowing the game to ebb and flow. The only advantage of 2020 is that it is relatively short if you want to encourage the average short attention span football supporters and generate cash, but if you are going to stretch it to 2 x2020 anyway then you lose that anyway - 40 overs is the way to go. Did I say that the match yesterday was amazing...

Notts won, did they?

Edit: I see that they didn't.

But I don't agree that 40 overs is the same as 2*20, because you have 10 wickets at your disposal rather than 20

nah, as the captain (world's best wicketkeeper) said "defeat plucked from the jaws of victory"

gutted But brilliant/lucky by Sussex

Irrespective of what to do with 20/20, I think 40 overs rather than 50 would be good for 1 dayers - definitately has the character of a 1 dayer still without so much "dead time" in the middle

Indeed, 40 overs is def not like 2x20/20, but my argument is that one of the main reasons for success of 20/20 is that it is all done and dusted in 3 hours so is a nice evening out for people who dont want to watch 6 hours+ of cricket, which is the whole idea with atrracting new fans as far as I have understood it. That element of success would be lost with 2x20/20. And all the tactical elements discussed might be interesting for the experts, but would probably just make it confusing for the sort of fans who the authorities seem to try and attract (cf. powerplay rules).

No doubt 2 x20/20 will still attract more people though - only 6000-7000 people yesterday at the Pro40 title decider.

The game over in an evening is definatly one of it's main attractions but people like watching batsmen T-Off as well. 6's and 4's is what it's all about. Any a steady flow of wickets as well if possible. 50 overs is cricket is a dead man walking.

sure, thats why I'd advocate 40 overs considering yesterdays game and a few other Pro40s seen this season, full of wickets, 4 and 6s (100 off 10 overs to win while 8 wickets down yesterday - certainly as much if not more tension and over a longer period than many 20/20s I've seen), but enough time to give it a little more ebb and flow than 2020. 20/20 has its share of non tight finishes just as 1 day stuff does. 6, 4 and wickets is part of it but tight finishes is the real name of the game I think. 40 overs seems to go a lot quicker than 50 but maybe its just wishful thinking. With 40 over OD games I reckon they could exist alongside 2020 as they are different (look at how rubbish the 2020 champs have been at pro40).