Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Leave 'em wanting more Twenty20 is a viable format, but the game's administrators need to get the balance right July 20, 2008 Feats like Yuvraj Singh's six sixes in an over should be the exception, not the rule, if Twenty20 is to retain a sense of magic about it © Getty Images   Twenty20 started in England, as is the tendency with new forms of cricket, but soon received a considerable boost when Texan entrepreneur Allen Stanford invested some of his millions in the Caribbean in the format. Then India gave the game widespread publicity, pizzazz and pull by unveiling the IPL. Now there is a planned EPL in England, and Australia is considering an upgrade to their competition; Twenty20 cricket is suddenly all the rage, just like global warming, high fuel prices and the iPhone. What is it about Twenty20 that attracts feverish interest and substantial investment? Firstly, the public have embraced it. Programme a match and they flock to the stadium. Secondly, in a fast-moving world it requires a comparatively short time to complete a Twenty20 game. And finally, with all the hype surrounding Twenty20, it's easy to overlook another considerable advantage - equal conditions for both teams. In many limited-overs matches one team bats in the daylight and the other at night, and if the pitch deteriorates it hampers the team batting second. A Twenty20 match, on the other hand, is played under virtually the same conditions for the duration. And while the game is often denigrated by being classified alongside a short stay with a prostitute, as in wham, bam, thank you ma'am, there is no better spectacle than a well played match. The thrilling World Twenty20 semi-final between India and Australia was as skilful and competitive as any 40 overs of cricket I've witnessed. The IPL franchise system also provides Twenty20 with another huge advantage over its longer relation, the 50-over international. In theory, every IPL game is between two evenly matched sides, whereas some ODIs are the sort of mismatches that make the Iraq war appear to have been a fair fight. For the sake of its long-term health it's important Twenty20 retains elements of a tactical battle and the thrill of a contest, with the result decided by the superior skill and thinking of one outfit on that day or night. There's a strong temptation to be seduced by the excitement of sixes regularly flying over the ropes. There's no doubt the most thrilling and best recalled moment of the tournament in South Africa was Yuvraj Singh's brilliant six strikes in an over. Nevertheless, performances of that sort should be the exception not the rule, so that they retain the magic quality that rarity brings. There's another good cricketing reason why administrators should keep a wary eye on the correlation between bats and boundaries. Sure, improvements in the first and the shortening of the latter can lead to more sixes, but that in turn will drastically reduce the importance placed on great fielding.     The wristy Sunil Gavaskars of the world should occasionally be able to have their way with the Joel Garners, and likewise, the lithe Malcolm Marshalls should be able to threaten the wicket of a lanky Kevin Pietersen type   Whenever the limited-overs game is discussed, one of the first things mentioned by the fans is the excitement provided by brilliant fielding. Two of the most beloved players in recent memory are Jonty Rhodes and Andrew Symonds, and while no one would classify either as a one-dimensional cricketer, it's their fielding that first attracted the attention of the selectors and the fans. The other reason to keep an even balance between bat and ball is to ensure the game doesn't literally become the stronghold of the "power" players. Cricket should never emulate basketball and become a game where size matters. The wristy Sunil Gavaskars of the world should occasionally be able to have their way with the gigantic Joel Garners, and likewise, the lithe Malcolm Marshalls should always be able to threaten the scone (and wicket) of a lanky Kevin Pietersen type. In the long run the contest is the thing that keeps people coming back to watch cricket, whether it lasts five days, five hours or five overs. There's no doubt that Twenty20 is a vibrant and viable game but the crucial job the administration faces is to get the balance between game and entertainment just right. If they want a clue they should look to the industry they've been encroaching on more and more in recent times, the entertainment business. A good comedian tries to leave 'em laughing but the smart ones also leave 'em wanting more. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (12)

	Email

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 12 comments

Posted by sajidkahn on July 21 2008, 15:12 PM GMT

I would suggest that T20 should now be accepted by all people, it doesnt matter if they like it or not. Because its the cricket of the time, and people love it. Secondly, i will add, that in T20 more runs should be included apart from 4 and 6, depending on the distance 8,10,12 runs which intersting. This will increase the un-predictiblity of the game and so more thrill and fun. Best Regards, Sajid, Holland

Posted by Batmanian on July 21 2008, 04:58 AM GMT

anmn, I agree there's more and more entertainment options available for Indians (and everyone else). I hope Twenty20 maintains interest in traditional cricketing lands and helps, through the desi-spora, the game make inroads in 'markets' like North America through this simplified form. I think it's interesting that Chappell mentions the leveling nature of the Twenty20 format. There's definitely room for engineering closer competition for immediate entertainment purposes. For connoisseurs, however, the uncompromising five day Test will always be the pinnacle (and any direct or indirect (through player or facilities development) subsidy through Twenty20 is most welcome). The thing about Tests is they're not just about entertainment. There's the 130 years of meaningful history and records and there's the tactical beauty of asymmetrical warfare (where an Australia is going in for the kill while a Sri Lanka is holding out or watching to pounce on a chink in Australia's aggression).

Posted by abhi_boston on July 20 2008, 13:28 PM GMT

I think the possible solution for the overkill of T20 is to have only one league in the subcontinent and southern hemisphere and one in England. In my view IPL could be expanded to 16 teams, with some of the teams coming from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. If we can have four teams from these three countries it would be easy to find twelve cities in India to support the franchises. EPL should not have more than 9 teams and the current county structure is old for T20, Australia and NZ could combine to have one league or maybe they could be a part of the league in the subcontinent.

Posted by kingofspain on July 20 2008, 13:10 PM GMT

Sensible article but the advice already hasn't been heeded. 20/20 is rubbish though, real cricket fans- i.e. the cricket "industry's" best customers don't like it. Casual supporters attracted by the novelty factor will soon move on to something else. Attendances already are down in England.

Posted by podichetty on July 20 2008, 10:42 AM GMT

Wow !what an article by Ian. He is pretty meticulous about the way he wants to project the future of T20, especially his last line (smart ones also leave 'em wanting more)is very thought provoking. While the T20 is in its infancy stage, one should not overdo it and kill the goose that is laying golden eggs, instead it must be used to globalise the game, but definitely not at the cost of test cricket. Contrary to popular belief, I too agree with Ian in that T20 is not all about slam bang, but a great deal of skill is also involved. Its a game where the players who have better hand-eye coordination are believed to succeed than their stylish counterparts. Ultimately, in order to become a complete cricketer, one needs to have such attacking skills as well. Well done Ian !

Posted by Patrick_Clarke on July 20 2008, 10:29 AM GMT

This Australian slant on the 20:20 debate makes me think that rather than having an Australian and South African domestic 20:20 tournament, why not a Southern Hemisphere tournament on the lines of Rugby Union's Super 12 Tournament, played in either October or February when international commitments are a bit lighter. It could comprise the 6 Australian states, maybe 6 South African sides based on their biggest grounds (Cape Town, Durban, Jo'burg, Port Elizabeth, Centurion & Bloemfontein) and 2 New Zealand sides (maybe a North Island side splitting its matches between Auckland & Wellington and a South Island side based on Christchurch & Dunedin). All sides could throw the doors open to an agreed number of overseas players as per the IPL.

Posted by Manuu on July 20 2008, 10:21 AM GMT

Agree with Ian. All three forms should be played and overdose of any one form can have a detrimental effect on the others. The great thing is that all three forms allow different skill sets to prosper so that allows a wider type of sportspersn to embrace the game. I am tempted to add that 50 over cricket should be reduced to 40 overs. I am not old guard but I must say that the sanctity of test cricket must be preserved at all costs. It is like fine wine. You need time to truly enjoy it. For the scullers there is Twenty 20 and 50 overs cricket. I see nothing worng with it. But please not too much of either.

Posted by Governor on July 20 2008, 09:47 AM GMT

Well done Chappelli!! Twenty 20 cricket should be used as a marketing tool and a career incentive tool for budding young cricketers to allow them to choose cricket as their sporting career. Many talented sportsmen have chosen other sports ahead of cricket. The financial rewards and career path cricket had to offer is limited. With 20-20 cricket, the career path has opened for a budding cricketer like Shaun Marsh to make a good living out of the game. Test cricket and 50 Over cricket must be preserved at all costs. The dream of a young cricketer to be the next Glen McGrath and Ricky Ponting on the test stage is every young cricketer's dream. The cricketer's mental and physical skills will be tested in test cricket under all types of conditions. When they pass those tests, the cricketer's name will be written in the record books and the financial rewards will come. Have a look at Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Ricky Ponting.

Posted by Gizza on July 20 2008, 07:40 AM GMT

Nice article Ian. Any cricket fan with half a brain would know that the contest between bat and ball is the most important thing in the game.

Posted by Naseer on July 20 2008, 06:17 AM GMT

First of all I totally disparty with all the hype created by meddia, which has made the T20 as threat for 50-50 or test matches, it is absolutely rubbish, it does not matter how many forms are there but cricket will live with its extensive and rich verity which can be afforded by it quite smoothly. coming to to the topic, it is quite astonishing, the format which is considered great success and futur of the game has certainly found itselt under the threat of surrendering to overload. This is yet another baseless which is going to be planted by the media, the forcast is quite bright for the future, there is no need for such predications, unless there is any spark or glimpse of demanding situation.

NEW FANTASY: India v Australia Test series - prizes to be won Enter now - series starts October 9     Watch our daily Cricinfo SportsCenter news round-ups Available on Cricinfo.tv     Live scores, news & ball-by-ball commentary on your phone Cricinfo Mobile