|
|
Whose game is it anyway?
September 20, 2007
|
Cricket as adrenalin shot: in Twenty20, the moments are the plot
© Getty Images
|
|
This is the new world. You spend nine hours on a flight across an ocean, a couple more to reach your hotel, and still manage to squeeze half a cricket match into what remains of the day. It was a pity that only one half of that half was meaningful: Sri Lanka's challenge against Pakistan fizzled out under lights in a flurry of compulsory but fatal strokes. As the first experience of live cricket in this version of the World Cup (though it isn't officially a World Cup, we're told; that comes next year), it wasn't particularly memorable.
But then what is, these days? This tournament is only a week old but it already seems to have started a long time ago. It seems ages since Shane Bond took a wicket with his first ball. Last seen, he was disappearing into the stands against Sri Lanka. Or was it against England? Was it yesterday or the day before? As matches blur into one another, the memory gets hazy and scrambled. You are left with a lot of moments, but can you place them? Can you find context?
You see, I am trying to like Twenty20. I really am. I know it's here to stay, and as long as I choose to make my living out of cricket writing, it's my professional obligation to watch the game and write about it. I really don't want to sound either like an old bore or a cricket snob. Give the damn thing time, I tell myself; it might grow on you.
There have been two enthralling matches in the tournament so far - which is admittedly twice as many as the first phase of the 50-over World Cup had. Zimbabwe's win over Australia, because of its unlikeliness and because everyone loves the underdog; and the tie between India and Pakistan.
I wouldn't call that match a win for India. The bowl-out ruined it for me. A thoroughly thrilling game reduced to a farce by five minutes of meaninglessness. Even in a penalty shootout, which many football fans deride as a lottery, there are basic football skills on display. In the senseless adaptation of the concept to cricket, part-time bowlers have a much better chance of success than regulars. And honestly, what's wrong with a tie? It's rare and precious. Why must cricket copy football thoughtlessly?
The best way to enjoy this game, perhaps, is to enjoy the moments. That will take some reorientation because it is not the way we grew up watching cricket. Yes, cricket is finally all about the moments, but there's always the larger plot to consider; a lot more goes into making those moments. In Twenty20, the moments are the plot. Games can often be decided by one innings, one spell, one over: it is cricket without pauses. You flow with the tide, soak in the atmosphere, and come back for more the next day - or the next hour. It's not cricket as art but cricket concentrated into an adrenalin shot; it's designed to give you a kick but not to linger.
In Twenty20, games can often be decided by one innings, one spell, one over: it is cricket without pauses. You flow with the tide, soak in the atmosphere, and come back for more the next day - or the next hour
|
An over can produce two sixes and two wickets, and if Bangladesh are batting, it's more likely to be the first over than the last. A top-order collapse could mean absolutely nothing. And the finest strokes could be followed by the ugliest hoicks.
Of course it's a far better game to watch at the stadium than on TV, but how much of the fun at the ground is real? The DJ gets into action at every over-break. Every boundary and every wicket is a cue for the dancers to go into overdrive. Some of them don't even know the game. It all feels a bit contrived and lacking in understanding. Edges are cheered as lustily as sublime strokes.
Yet it's easy to see why Twenty20 has a future. It is far less demanding on the spectator: it requires much less patience, engagement, and understanding of the nuances. And it has no history or tradition to intimidate new audiences. Most of all, it is short and something is happening all the time. If you are not burdened with cricket's past and the knowledge of its finer, complex aspects, Twenty20 is pretty good entertainment. It has revived domestic cricket in England, and in South Africa where audience figures for Test cricket have fallen hopelessly.
My children, who have dumped cricket for football, loved the bowl-out. My son, in fact, sat with me to watch the last five overs and was so excited about the "shootout" that he started text-messaging his friend at 1.30am and dragged his sister out of bed. As they cheered and exulted at every hit by the Indians, I was left with conflicting emotions. It felt like both victory and defeat. I was delighted by their sudden involvement with my game, but was it really my game?
Sport is about skills and possibilities. Tests provide the best platform for a full exhibition of cricket skills. Twenty20 shrinks that range. But spectator sports are also about enjoyment. People having a good time can't be such a bad thing after all.
Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine
© Cricinfo
 Read Comments (44)
|
|
Comments have now been closed for this article
|
|
I am a big fan of cricket,i love this sports and i want more country to involbe to this sports and i think T20 is the best way to attracts people to cricket,which will help to earn the revenue what sometimes is hard to achieve from test cricket(last year when srilanka was playing with new zealand the number of the attandence was lower than total number of players,officials and ground staffs).No matter how much i love T20 my love for test cricket is still the same.We should not ditch T20,from my personal experiance i can say lots of people i know who didn't give a damn about cricket even they are also watching T20 or asking for scores and ..etc...,
Posted by fff1992 on September 23 2007, 14:55 PM GMT
|
|
Sambit, as a traditionalist myself, I sympathize with your feelings. But this format is growing on me every day and I am loving it now.
I also would like to see the number of overs increased to 25. And another feature that would restore some fairness to the team batting first is: The team batting second will get a minimum of 5 wickets. And they get only the double the number of wickets that the first team lost. So, if the first team lost only 3 wickets, the second team gets only 6 wickets. Of course, if the first team lost 5 or more wickets, the second team will still get only a maximum of 10 wickets. This adds some intriguing parameters to the mental and planning aspects of the game instead of just randomsly swinging the bat at the last 5 overs. There is some advantage to preserving wickets. What do you think of this idea?
Posted by ideaman on September 23 2007, 06:13 AM GMT
|
|
While bowl-outs can be interesting specially during a semi final, final tie, I'd like to see it little more balanced. Instead of bowling at vacant stumps, why not have a batsman stand and hit the ball. Each team sends one batsman to bat alternately and whoever scores more runs in 6 balls takes the cake.
On another front, Twenty20 obviously doesnt test a player's/team's ability as well as does a 50-50 or a Test, but it can be best thing to bring new viewers.
Also, the downside of the format being a lottery could be a boon in disguise as now any team can beat any other team. And plus, tosses will no longer make a huge difference in the team's fortune, unlike what has been often argued (albeit by losing teams) that breaking up of a pitch, or over cast swinging conditions changed the course of a one day game. In this tournament, except for one match (Aus-SL) no team could argue toss made a difference.
Finally, cricket is a huge business, and like any runs on demand and supply.
Posted by cric_cric on September 23 2007, 03:04 AM GMT
|
|
Lets compare cricket and football...(sorry cudn't read all the comments above me, so don't know if any1 has already spoken on this) Y are almost 100 Nations following football and just 8 nations following cricket. I guess the reason is quite evident. It entertains the spectator and its gives a value for his money. We Indians, who are cricket crazy, follow football, next to cricket, even when we don't have a star football team. Skills aren't the only part a game should showcase. How many people buy tickets to watch a TEST match which exhibit all forms of skills in its finest form? And now see how many people buy tickets to watch T20. A game shouldn't have too many formats.
We talk about lack of skill display in T20 because this is the first time T20 is happening on a large scale and its shrunked. Let the game develop, and you will see a splendor of skill exhibited by players then. Change is Nature's Law.
Posted by Arun_R on September 22 2007, 04:19 AM GMT
|
|
I do not agree T20 will help cricket. If making the game popular is all that matters, we will soon end up having 10/10 or even 5/5. I fully understand test cricket is a bit too much for people these days with life being so hectic. But ask any player, even the very young ones, and the answer is that test match is the ultimate one. I am a Bangladeshi fan and our team still struggles in test matches because our players grew up playing limited overs matches. The few successes that they have were in the ODIs and surely they wil have some more in T20. But in test cricket it will be very difficult.
Promoting T20 is really hurting the basic fabric of the game. Newer nations who will begin cricket with T20 will even find ODIs very hard to handle. I agree there is a need to globalize the game, but not by curtailing the game this way and making a joke of this beautiful game.
Also the game is so loaded against the bowlers. That is not fair. Already the ODIs are against them.
Posted by khanma1 on September 21 2007, 12:39 PM GMT
|
|
Now I am certain. This format won't go. May be it can be incresed to 25 overs each. That will be better. 50-50 no doubt improved fielding, fitness and positive play in Tests. 20-20 or my proposed 25-25 will do the same to 50-50. Stroke making will further improve in 50-50. Another option is to play two ininnings of 20-20 just like in a Test match for a decision. This will reduce chances of shoot out.
Posted by T20uncertain_fan on September 21 2007, 11:08 AM GMT
|
|
I caught on to cricket watching ODIs, and gradually moved to Test cricket. At this point of my evolution as a cricket fan, test cricket is infinitely more enjoyable than T20. But then lets analyze the argument from a purely marketing angle.
Cricket fandom is declining. And new converts are not coming in big enough numbers to backfill the lost eyeballs. Now if you want to attract a fresh devotee, you have to evolve her through various steps. In the post T20 world here is how the scenario would work
1. With T20 format, the game is more international and understandable. The entry barriers for a non-convert have gone significantly down. So many first timers would sample the game.
2. T20 are designed to be more thrilling, hence the newcomer would be hooked to try it a second time.
3. Once the newcomer is hooked to the format and has started recognizing star players, she would follow these stars to ODIs and later to Tests.
Hence, I believe T20 is a good thing, so sit back and enjoy.
Posted by anban on September 21 2007, 03:43 AM GMT
|
|
I am follower of cricket in what ever form. It is very easy to dismiss a new form by saying that it is spoiling the game. Not long ago Test matches ended in draw most of the times which caused people to move away from them. Who would like to watch a match for 5 days that ends in draw. More recently we see test matches ending in result more often then not. Have we asked why? A simple answer is effect of one days.This makes test more intersting to watch.
I guess 20 20 would have similar impact. This is part of evolution. We will see more scores of above 400 in one days. Much better fielding and much better running between wickets. Even bowlers would evolve to be much better.
Does 20 20 not require skill? A batsmen has no time to set his eye and gauge the pitch. Think of how much he has to concentrate as he has to hit every ball right from first ball. Look at scores, only good batsman have scored and good bowlers have taken most wickets or stopped runs. Skill & concentration are must.
Posted by AdityaKapoor on September 21 2007, 00:29 AM GMT
|
|
Crappy article, seems inspired by people who used to criticize ODIs. 30 years down the line, one day cricket is most popular version of this game. Cricket is not a lousy game anymore where some 60 yr old hag is limping around for last 4 decades, mocking the word change itself. Twenty20 is a poor format because Shane Bond was seen disappearing into stands! couldn't it just be that he didn't bowl well. How is his captain so successful here? In fact almost all the players who are doing well here are established good players, proving that only skillful can survive. Test is cricket might be a really old format, but its too forgiving. You bowl a pathetic outside off ball, and its left alone by the batsman, here those useless balls are going into stands, how does that make the format bad. You make a 100 ball 10 and still have another inning to bore people to death. Its sport for god's sake. It "is" supposed to take a toll. There are no "ties" in life, there shouldn't be any in cricket.
Posted by abhijeet1in on September 21 2007, 00:20 AM GMT
|
|
Sambit,
Let me disagree with your point about the bowl out. You think that if Wasim Akram and Uthappa were to bowl five deliveries on the stumps, Uthappa would win? Maybe on one rare occasion but not most of the time. Time will prove to you that good bowlers will become better bowl out shooters. Soccer is the same. Some good penalty taker will make the penalty most of the time but a defender or some other not so good shooter can also take a good penalty like Uthappa hit the stumps.
I loved the bowl out. I thought it tested the skill of the bowlers just like penalty shooters.
Now about twenty 20. I think you need to stop thinking like old-timers who almost always say: ah my game was that one, not this. Who is to stay that hitting six balls out of the park in six balls takes less talent than making a double hundred in 400 balls? Define talent for me. Is talent scoring a test century or effecting a brilliant run out?
Posted by mfin on September 20 2007, 22:18 PM GMT
|
|
|
Read all 44 Comments  |
| Top ^ |
|
|
|
