Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Twenty20 can't be the main event What effect will a steady diet of the shortest form of the game have on players? April 13, 2008 Twenty20 lacks balance between bat and ball and remains hugely dependent on close finishes to satisfy customers © ICL A former Australian captain and the doyen of commentators, Richie Benaud often describes cricket as "the most controversial game of all". The long list of the major conflicts in the game down the years confirms his assertion, and if you delve into history, a lot of the upheaval has played an important role in the game's evolution. However, beginning with the change from underarm bowling (not the 1981 delivery), right through to World Series Cricket, though there has been much arm-wrestling between players and administrators, rarely has any of it done as much harm to the game as was feared at the time. Most of the skirmishes have been prompted by the players - the bowlers' dogged determination was responsible for cricket going from underarm to side-arm and then to the high-arm mode of delivery - or entrepreneurs, as in the case of Kerry Packer and WSC. The emergence of the ICL mirrors that of the WSC in that a media baron started his own league because he was disenchanted with a television rights process. However, the IPL is unique in that it was initiated by administrators. Consequently that eliminates one of the main concerns the cricket establishment has about entrepreneurs raiding the sport: the money that accrues from those endeavours isn't ploughed back into the development of the game. Nevertheless, in this case the ICC has chosen a course of moderate resistance by not giving the IPL tournament a window in the international schedule, while at the same time banning players contracted to the opposition ICL from competing in traditional matches. Typically, as is usual when the game is in a state of upheaval, the players currently have conflicting emotions. On the one hand some ICL players who have just completed a second season of purely Twenty20 competition say they are craving longer games and are bemused that they can't play traditional cricket when those contracted to the IPL can. At the same time, a recent survey conducted by the Australian Cricketers' Association reveals that almost half of the players contracted to the national board and state associations would consider early retirement to play in either the IPL or the ICL. With all the money and the hype surrounding the two Twenty20 leagues that's not surprising. However, I'll bet Michael Clarke isn't one of the 50%. During the World Twenty20 tournament in South Africa last year, Clarke faced just four balls in five matches. Being denied serious involvement in a match is a cricketer's worst nightmare but players can cope if they also compete in longer games where they have a chance to participate meaningfully.     If players aren't honing their all-round skills in longer games, the fans will eventually notice a steady erosion of the aesthetically pleasing aspects of cricket watching. A regular diet of slogged sixes without some exquisite cover-drives, elegant leg-glances and productive hook shots would be of long-term interest only to fickle fans   The million-dollar Twenty20 question is: what effect will a steady diet of the shortest form of the game eventually have on players? If players are weaned on only Twenty20 cricket, the game would eventually be in danger of becoming a passing fad. In contrast, a mixed menu of long and short versions of cricket would satisfy a range of tastes. If players aren't honing their all-round skills in longer games, the fans will eventually notice a steady erosion of the aesthetically pleasing aspects of cricket watching. A regular diet of slogged sixes without some exquisite cover-drives, elegant leg-glances and productive hook shots would be of long-term interest only to fickle fans. A game dominated by big hitting would lack the much-needed competitive balance between bat and ball and remain hugely dependent on close finishes to satisfy customers. However, if more senior players retire to participate in either of the two Twenty20 competitions it's not all bad news. For a start, it would assist the culling process, as selectors seem to find it more difficult to blood youth in the professional era. Also, with numerous academies churning out players who expect a full-time job in cricket, a couple of extra avenues of employment would be most welcome to the young hopefuls. There are many possible positives from this upheaval but the one with the most upside has the smallest chance of occurring. A revamp of the way cricket is administered would require a major revolt by the players or a complete back-flip by the officials - both about as likely as Zimbabwe beating Australia in a Test match. If such an upheaval were to occur, it would lend further support to Benaud's opinion but it would also be another important step in the evolution of the game. Any amount of controversy would be worth it to see the game finally administered in a way that befits the 21st century. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (23)

	Email

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 23 comments

Posted by Djabhinav on April 15 2008, 10:10 AM GMT

The satatement is true that 20-20 cant be the main event because there is no future of the players for the long term in the team as they get habitual of playing extravagant shots and get out cheaply. On the basis of 20-20 you cant pick up a good team for the one dayers and test .This is only fun side of cricket with lots of money .And when a team is playing 20-20 match then it is bound to happen that you may be watching similar shots played all over the match with no real placement and class.

Posted by s3ns3 on April 15 2008, 07:41 AM GMT

I agree that a steady diet of slogged sixes without aesthetically pleasing strokes will be of interest only to fickle fans. Hong Kong sixes is a fine example of that - just too boring to watch. However, as IPL is primarily a money making event, there are lots and lots of fickle fans to support it and keep it going. Yuvraj's six sixes in an over seldom gets mentioned and he has found it difficult in the longer versions ever since. What really has given a kick for IPL is the victory of the underdogs India in T20 world cup which was totally unexpected.

Posted by Pinkmorewood on April 15 2008, 06:58 AM GMT

Seldom have I read a more agreeable article. As a father of two small children, I don't really have the time to sit in a cricket stadium watching many days of a test match. The Twenty20 world cup in my country last year was great in that for three hours I could be out the house and watch an entire match. The downside, however, is that i don't really remember any of the results and I don't remember it being very exciting. Even ODIs have lost their appeal. Maybe marrying the two forms of the game and having 35 over a side cricket is the answer? I want to see more test cricket. And I don't really care which two teams are playing.

Posted by heph on April 14 2008, 08:47 AM GMT

Twenty20 looks interesting at the moment. Let us see how viewers react to very frequent sixes and bowlers. One-day cricket is different from Twenty20 because even though it is fast-paced, it has most flavors to it (fast bowlers, leg spinners, correct cover drives, slogging). Twenty20 on the other hand has only shown an attacking brand. It's just like an action movie, it looks interesting at the start, especially to the young, but as soon as it becomes monotonous viewers lose interest.

Posted by RaghuramanR on April 14 2008, 04:08 AM GMT

Ian may give 'upheaval' 0.001% chance, but I am not willing to give even that. Given the way IPL/ICL is going and the money that has been 'pledged' on that, this ultra-short form of cricket will be the 'natural dream' for aspiring youth. Not the 'long drawn out' Test match. To all those fine flicks, glances, straight drives, cover drives all along the ground, adios.

Posted by RichardHobbs on April 14 2008, 03:35 AM GMT

I believe that Twenty20 is great for both increasing popularity and getting youngsters involved in the game. Purely from a monetary perspective it is also a viable proposition to further encourage its emergence. In saying this I can't see players allocating most of their technique and abilities to Twenty20 cricket. Players will still hold Test cricket as the most important version of the game, just like they did when one day cricket made its meteoric rise. If managed correctly by administrative bodies, it will ensure that player burn out won't occur and that Twenty20 will progress into a highly lucrative form of the game. The ICC need to find a good balance between the three forms of the game so that Twenty20's rise can be monitored and the main emphasis is still on test cricket. If managed correctly the game could be massively advantageous for cricket.

Posted by Saibaskar on April 14 2008, 02:12 AM GMT

Well, what Chappell says was what was said when one-day cricket started becoming popular. But, one-day cricket did bring a certain character out of cricketers - that is playing under pressure, to be precise in pacing their innings. This is an aspect you don't have to bother much in Test cricket. It also re-emphasised the importance of bowling good line and length and encouraged bowlers to be less predictable. One-day cricket's contribution in the fielding department has been amazing. Today we get more results in Tests not only because batsmen are more adventurous but also because bowlers have become more accurate (they cannot afford to be otherwise) and the way half chances are getting converted into wickets. And one-day cricket has brought in its own set of stars like Bevan and Yuvraj to name a few and had given lifeline for players like Symonds who are now blossoming into good Test cricketers. So, let us wait and see what addition Twenty20 will bring in for cricket with an open mind.

Posted by A_PROUD_INDIAN on April 13 2008, 20:19 PM GMT

I agree with Chappell. Twenty20 is quite interesting, and is a good package to urge non-cricketing nations to take up the sport. But the real examination of teams and players comes only through Test matches. The IPL/ICL are giving chance to local boys to get good money, its a good thing for them; not everyone is going to make it to the international side. But only Twenty20 games will make cricket one dimensional - i.e only hard hitting and flat wickets. Good technique, better focus, chance to fight back - all these aspects of Test cricket will go out of the window. So administrators, please don't over do T20.

Posted by CricketPatron on April 13 2008, 20:08 PM GMT

It is the 21st century and Twenty20 cricket has come to stay. It is natural that scores of game enthusiasts and players who were raised on the traditional version of the game, long for the longer versions. But ask this question: Is it still nice to write letters, send it by post and wait for weeks or months for a reply? We are in the age of the internet and SMS where people hate to be out of touch even for a few hours. But does this fewer and fewer personal snail mail letters caused us to loose our writing skills? The answer is an affirmative no. In fact, whole realm of bloggers has in fact, opened up new avenues for all kinds of thinkers and writers. So the bottom line is: The slower version of the game of cricket will go down in history as part of our long cricket heritage but the skills that we acquired through the slower version of the game has to be reinvented to meet the newer version of the game.

Posted by bis_d on April 13 2008, 20:02 PM GMT

Another excellent, balanced, thoughtful article from Ian Chappell who is rapidly becoming the doyen of cricket pundits. As he rightly says, it is the administration of the game which needs to change to be able to manage the exciting but unpredictable changes the game is undergoing. Anyone who simply wants to leave things to the market is not a true lover of the game. What we need are people like Chappell - people who know the game inside out and are steeped in its values and history - to be administering the game but are we going to get that?

Watch our daily Cricinfo SportsCenter news round-ups Available on Cricinfo.tv     Fantasy cricket: India v Australia and Bangladesh v New Zealand Login to check the standings     Live scores, news & ball-by-ball commentary on your phone Cricinfo Mobile