T20 - is it cricket?

[Number 6]

There's no "general cricket discussion area" so I've put this here.

Personally I do not like the direction T20 is taking cricket, especially so with the huge sums of money now being offered for it.

IMHO we are only a hamburger and a rule change or two away from baseball. There are no tactics, no room for a bowling plan, it's pure slog it and hope stuff that we used to play as kids. Anything less than 50 overs is not "cricket" in my book.

I'm also not enamoured of the audiences; alcohol fuelled and giving out verbal abuse to players and umpires unhindered by rule or protocol. It reminds me a little too much of premier league football for comfort. T20 is a game for football "fans" with nothing better to do in the summer in my opinion.

I turn down any invites to stand in T20 games.

Discuss?

[TrueDub]

Not a lot to discuss really - you don't like it at all. That's your preference and you're fully entitled to it.

I don't mind it as a spectacle, and it can be a giggle to watch & play, but I prefer longer forms of the game as the tactical side of things becomes more prevalent.

[Number 6]

No, I don't like it, that's obvious.

I wondered whether I'm in the minority and whether others agree that it will end up ruining the game?

[missingleg]

Number 6, I've had this debate at length with my friends and some of us are still divided! T20 cricket (which is a form of cricket, however much it is reminiscent of baseball) does require an element of bowling skill, and is not all about slogs - but this skill level is nowhere near the required amount of skill required for proper cricket (and I'm taking first-class & test cricket). Test cricket will always survive, because players are aware of this. 50-over-cricket will be in danger of being cut down or dropped from the international calendar.

Anyway, one thing that I really hate about one-day and T20 cricket is the gimmickry - coloured clothing, tiny boundaries, booming music at the sight of any boundary, 'free-hits', 'powerplays', etc etc. This is why this form of the game attracts such a footballesque audience, and those who have very short attention spans. Sorry if this sounds too elitist, but I believe it's true. Also, the stupid money levels remind me of football and threaten to marginalise the sport - if it hasn't already.

I could go on at length about my hatred for T20, but I won't! It all went wrong when it was introduced to international cricket, because I can understand that counties need the money.

[Number 6]

Jun 26, 2008 12:18:24 GMT missingleg said:

Number 6, I've had this debate at length with my friends and some of us are still divided! T20 cricket (which is a form of cricket, however much it is reminiscent of baseball) does require an element of bowling skill, and is not all about slogs - but this skill level is nowhere near the required amount of skill required for proper cricket (and I'm taking first-class & test cricket). Test cricket will always survive, because players are aware of this. 50-over-cricket will be in danger of being cut down or dropped from the international calendar.

Anyway, one thing that I really hate about one-day and T20 cricket is the gimmickry - coloured clothing, tiny boundaries, booming music at the sight of any boundary, 'free-hits', 'powerplays', etc etc. This is why this form of the game attracts such a footballesque audience, and those who have very short attention spans. Sorry if this sounds too elitist, but I believe it's true. Also, the stupid money levels remind me of football and threaten to marginalise the sport - if it hasn't already.

I could go on at length about my hatred for T20, but I won't! It all went wrong when it was introduced to international cricket, because I can understand that counties need the money.

But the only bowling skill required is the ability to bowl yorkers, the only aim is to stop batsmen scoring boundaries, not to get them out. Players, bowlers and batsmen, will inevitable hone their skills towards T20 requirements because of the huge amounts of money available potentially.

Because of the popularity of T20 amongst the intelligence challenged officianados I'm convinced that the bad crowd behaviour will permeate into other forms of cricket too. At T20 it appears to be OK to jeer at players and call the umpire a blind t**t just like the behaviour at a football match.

The games have cheerleaders, stupid americanised team names, annoying music for every 6, 4 and wicket.... look at the IPL where the cricket is a secondary distraction to the pop stars, dancing, showbiz razamatazz etc and T20 will go there too.

[missingleg]

Yes - therein lies the skill - bowling dot balls and keeping low economy rates. T20 is not a game for the bowler and one of the reasons I hate it so is that it isn't a fair contest between bat and ball, which is what cricket should be. Bowlers need some skill, but it's not a skill I appreciate much.

Gimmickry is what it's all about, and frankly it's designed for those with short attention spans. Sadly, those kind of people outweigh the purists.

[jaybee]

I totally agreee.
Many years ago we used to play T20 - but then it was called a beer match and we only did so when one side had folded and the match finished early!
Paradoxically the losing side from the match proper usually did much better - often winning.
T20 gives an extreme example of the problems which have come into league cricket - poor behaviour, loss of many captaincy skills (e.g. when to declare, use of spinners) and a mindset which totally discounts the value of a draw in making a 'dead' game intriguing - where a 'losing' side struggles to hang on until time is called.
As for the coloured clothing, cheerleaders etc - don't get me started!

[fatpunter]

It matters not whether we like 20/20 or not. Personally I don't mind but it brings in the punters and punters bring in cash.
That's all there is to it.
It's no good hoping that the old days of the county championship would come back, these games are played in front of 1 member and his dog. 1 member and his dog will bring sandwiches and a flask and no money.
It's all about economics.

[missingleg]

fatpunter, I'm not sure whether or not you're trying to be provokative. Assuming you're not, I'd say that you make a good practical point about economics but miss an important consideration: principles. Obviously, nowadays (I sound like a grumpy old man don't I!) money comes ahead of principles, but I'd rather keep a grip of the essence and the soul of cricket. It's an opinion, frankly - which is what this thread is about, so of course it matters whether we like T20 'cricket' or not. That said, I understand your points.

[cavebubonem]

Sorry to have come late into this one, guys - I've been busy umpiring in a new League. The essential point about Twenty20 is that it is the answer to a certain American baseball Club owner who came to England and saw a County match with the usual poor attendance. It must have been a lively day, as he remarked "I cannot see why you can't sell this game: it is faster than baseball, has more levels and more points (sic) scored." In essence, T20 has been around for a long time. In Hertfordshire, there is an evening League than plays fifteen eight-ball overs per innings (120 balls, as T20) that attracts enthusiastic support and tough, quickfire matches, and a big audience for the final - exactly what our transatlantic friend was saying. Somehow, a sea-change has brought the format into full focus, and the crowds - and that's who it's for, 'cos they bring the money - love it. The money pays for the facilities, the lighting, the adverising and, of course, the players. As to whether it harms the sport, I doubt if a mediocre side would beat a skilful team regularly. The fielding skills have improved at all levels, and some of the shots have moved to the senior format with surprising results. To accuse the T20 format of encouraging drunkenness and bad crowd behaviour is absurd - this can be seen in all the most popular forms of sport, and in the High Street, and needs to be addressed by better education and stricter control. The gate money from T20 should be utilised to effect these controls in our stadiums. But how can we decry a pursuit that brings kids into the sport, promotes interest in the fairer sex, gets families out together for an evening in the fresh air and provides a result on the day? It is very unlikely that Test cricket will die out as a result - it is still hugely popular and demands the highest levels of ability from the players. Some form of four-day game is necessary to maintain the skill and stamina of those aiming for the top. But the ordinary Joe wants something he can cheer and take his kids to that won't force him to take a day off. Mark my words, as I predicted years ago that we'd get the 2012 Olympics because that's the precise length of a cricket pitch in centimetres and the plan to use Lord's for the archery had been announced, so I predict that the 2020 Olympic Games will see Twenty20 cricket played. Of course, I could be wrong... but I'm an umpire!