Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Grow up already If Twenty20 is to be more than a fad, it needs to evolve and become more multi-dimensional, and balance the entertainment and the cricket better April 27, 2008 Cheerleaders are all very well, but when a format is as predictable as Twenty20 often is, they become the main event © Getty Images   Before assessing the achievements of IPL while still in its infancy, I should first declare my interests. If I want to watch dancing girls, I go to the Moulin Rouge. If I want to drink, I go to a bar. If I want to listen to music, I go to a concert. Therefore I wouldn't be high on the priority list of those promoting regular Twenty20 cricket matches. I like the game, and when it's played the way it was in the second-semi final of last year's world tournament in Durban, where India beat Australia in a match full of high-calibre cricket, it is an exhilarating form of the game. However, I'm just not sure about 40-odd successive days of Twenty20 cricket. Everything in moderation is not a bad motto. Now that the game has become mainstream entertainment rather than just a curiosity, the administrators need to give serious consideration to the way they pitch Twenty20 cricket. They should constantly be looking for ways to ensure the game evolves rather than let it be a fad, and this involves doing something more appropriating a "mindlessly follow the USA" approach to promoting the sport. There is a dire need to ensure they achieve the right balance between cricket skills and the entertainment factor. I once watched an American gridiron game live in Australia and came away thinking that any game that relied heavily on dancing girls was a rather shallow sport. There are still people who like to watch cricket with a mate who understands what is going on and discuss the play between overs. They don't want to be deafened by loud music or inane chatter over the PA. If Twenty20 is going to make a serious long-term contribution to the game, a variety of fans needs to be embraced. The other main consideration is the balance of power between the bat and the ball. Last season I asked Andrew Symonds if bats had improved during his career. "Don't worry about during my career," he said with a smile, "In the last five years they have improved dramatically." It's hard to stop progress and nobody should be castigated for trying to improve their product, but the problem is, they can't make corresponding improvements to the ball. It's not like golf, where the fairways can be lengthened to accommodate the improvement in clubs and balls. With Twenty20, once again bowlers are being handicapped. If it keeps raining sixes, the boundary-clearing shot will become so commonplace as to be mundane. In the first eight matches of the IPL, nearly 27% of the runs have been scored in sixes. That compares with about 4 and 7% respectively in Test and ODI cricket in the 21st century, a period of increased big hitting in the game. It's only a small sample of IPL matches but it is a trend to watch.     It may be that the shortened version of the game will evolve into a 30-overs-a-side contest, consisting of two 15-over innings for each team. While still retaining brevity, this length of game would require a tactical approach and also ensure the middle-order batsman doesn't go the way of the dodo   If, as a few players have said, the game is becoming one for power-hitters, it will lose a lot. Batting should be a mixture of skill, thought, timing and power, and the day it depends solely on the latter it will be a lot less interesting to watch. Reliance on six-hitting to keep the crowd interested is a recipe for a fad, and it will also make it difficult to judge between the good bowlers and the also-rans. It may be that the shortened version of the game will evolve into a 30-overs-a-side contest, consisting of two 15-over innings for each team. While still retaining brevity, this length of game would require a tactical approach and also ensure the middle-order batsman doesn't go the way of the dodo and the steam train. From the moment it was invented, Twenty20 was a game with inherent flaws because it relied so heavily on the close finish to be a thrilling spectacle. If the battle between bat and ball is a no-contest, there isn't a lot to retain the patrons' interest if, as happens so often, the result becomes a foregone conclusion early on. That is when the dancing girls become the main attraction; and pretty soon the patrons will discover those at places like the Moulin Rouge have more to offer. And even after watching a constant stream of dancing girls at the Moulin Rouge, I came away convinced that an unbelievably skilful juggler and two classy gymnasts were the most interesting acts. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (68)

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 68 comments

Posted by chazzy on April 29 2008, 18:10 PM GMT

The sidekicks of T20 i.e. Music,glamor & cheerleaders are only to attract the segment of the crowd which was not cricket-savvy. For the cricket afficionado it is still about the chemistry between runs and wickets, and physics of projectile of aerial shots, and the aerodynamics of the new and old ball swing. There is a valid point of doing things rightly by doing it in moderation. 59 matches over a period of 40 odd days is mind-numbing. If the league has been designed similar to the EPL of Football, the organizers must now use their head to try spanning the event of the period of an year. There are challenges with this form of planning. The Gelling of Teams, momentum with the players matter in a tournament like this. But then in order to sustain some interest in this format, duration between games, might prove to be pivotal.

Posted by thalakola on April 29 2008, 13:31 PM GMT

Twenty20 is batsman game with emphasis on powerhitting to thrill the spectators. If that is the case, inorder to have a balancing act, it should borrow from the hongkong sixes format, where a batsman should retire after scoring a set number of runs. In case of twenty20 it could be 50 max. This generates extra interest in the game as other batsman come to bat and adds to the spectator interest. The bowler can try his wits against the new batsman rather than the old one who belted him for sixes.

Posted by Samwise67 on April 29 2008, 11:40 AM GMT

I completely agree with the author. I watch cricket to watch a contest between bat and ball and while I do enjoy good batting, I also enjoy the sight bowlers taking wickets. I thought that the reactions of the commentators during the Kolkatta Deccan game were indicative of how the contest has been ruined in this format. On a pitch that was a little difficult to bat on the batsmen were in trouble with a couple of people being hit on the arm by balls that spat from a good length. The commentators were calling this a dangerous pitch. I fear that if this carries on cricket will become another version of baseball (a game without soul). Maybe bats should be made thinner and boundaries pushed back to redress this imbalance. Finally, bowlers deserve a little help from the pitch and administrators. In one game I saw a delivery miss leg stump by two inches. It was called wide. If a batsman cannot reach that delivery, maybe they should not be playing international cricket.

Posted by vibh007 on April 28 2008, 19:22 PM GMT

with other boards trying to catch up with IPL with their own products, it is going to be a too much of supply of a product which is degrading in quality.especially with t20 making the game more of an entertainment than the game. the attempt is to make the game shorter so that it can compete with football etc. But in that case cricket looses its meaning. its a game designed to test the skills, patience, grit and power hitting. but t20 mainly tests power hitting and bowlers are more like a dead bowling machine. only future will tell if t20 will spread the game or end up killing it.

Posted by Xahid on April 28 2008, 13:58 PM GMT

I agree with Ian that it really is not necessary to make twenty 20 just another show like that of a magician or a drama in a theatre.Twenty 20 is a good proposal until it stays within the customs of cricket.Cricket has been named the gentleman's game but the way 20 20 is shaping up in IPL cricket seems to be changing into showman's game.I mean what really is the need of dancing girls,music,and other things when cricket provides the entertainment as Ian has stated.Yesterday i was watchin the IPL match betweem Mum Indians and Hyderbad.I felt disappointed with the way cricket has been ouertaken by needless things. Cricket is itself an entertainment and does not need the help of cheerleaders and other things to entertain us.

Posted by vinodkumar on April 28 2008, 12:55 PM GMT

T20 is inherently entertaining and you don't need shortened boundaries and Cheer girls to make it entertaining. People craving for non cricketting entertainment need to look elsewhere and not the game. Why shorten the boundaries for the shortest form of the game? Its not that its any difficult to hit sixes and fours with regular boundaries. If you break the T20 (evena 50 over) into parts there are the power play, the middle over and the slog overs. In a 50 over format the power play lasts the duration of T20 and if you have wickets in hand the last 12-10 overs are for slogging and being cheeky.The people who complain about the 50 over game are only concerned about the middle overs. In a twenty over game you have merely 4 middle overs. Since the format is so much in favour of the batsman as they have license to go slam bang for a minimum of 16 overs why make it any worse for the bowlers by reducing the boundaries.

Posted by voyager on April 28 2008, 12:15 PM GMT

Administrators of the game must take a note of this overwhelming concensus (demnd)on reviving the contest b/w bat and ball. Another interesting statistics of 20-20 and also of one day cricket recently is how fewer runs are scored of '3'. Organizer over the years are keep pulling the boundaries in and batsmen hardly have an opportunity to run 2 let alone 3 if the ball is stopped inside the boundary. Compounded with the continuous improvement in bats and pitches,what once use to be winning score has become a cakewalk chase for the team batting second. I thinks there should be regulation on the boundary distance that is enough for batsman to run for three if the ball is chased and stopped just inside the boundary. Let the spinners show their skill with the flight and turn and let the fast bowlers set traps for miscued pulls and hooks and relax the one bouncer rule. Overall I like 20-20 format better than one-day which has become boring, I think one day cricket would fade away.

Posted by RaghuramanR on April 28 2008, 08:35 AM GMT

'Power' hitting or 'slam bang' cricket was always one of the means to score runs, not the ONLY means. Ability to test batsmen on seaming conditions, bouncy wickets is giving way to 'being as frugal as possible' in 20-20. 20-20 is actually 80-20 loaded heavily in favor of batsmen. Medium becomes the message, McLuhan said not long back. The way cricket was played used to be entertaining and the cricketers did not have the idea of playing 'TO ENTERTAIN' some spectators. It is in the last 10 years that cricketers are morbidly obsessed with wearing 'I am an entertainer' label, which is comical to say the least. 'Cheer' girls/leaders are adding no less to the rot. 20-20 is just the story of killing the goose that lays the golden egg- short term/lived option of making more money for the 'administrators'. Death of cricket may not be far away in the future.

Posted by Suthagaran on April 28 2008, 07:21 AM GMT

Undoubtedly T20 packs a lots of entertainment and excitement. In my view, The T20 matches are more biased towards batsman game. Actually bowlers also should be rewarded for their achievements. At least a bowler can be rewarded like if he bowled a maiden over, or best bowler in the match (like DLF max sixes in the match). Then the bowlers also will be boosted to play with their max potential. Another advantage for batsman is giving free hits. I just think, both the batsman and bowlers should get equal chances, then the game will be more interesting.

Posted by Des_65 on April 28 2008, 02:17 AM GMT

Test cricket, ODI and T20 are different ball games. I enjoy the first two forms and will keep an eye on the third before giving my opinions. But, one thing I don't like about T20 is the short boundary because then a mis-hit which could have resulted in a catch, does not show the power of the hit when compared to the one which goes to the stands or out of the ground. To discriminate between them, there may be different runs alloted depending upon where the ball lands - 6 runs in the stand, 8 runs to the roof, etc.; there can be two boundary lines, the first for 4 and the second for 6, if the ball falls between the two lines, then its 5 or may be out if caught. There can be more runs alloted (say, 10) if the ball lands directly in specific areas on the field if not caught. Only 6-8 batsmen (out of 11) per team should be asked to bat in an innings; one bowler may be given 5 overs or one over may be under arm. Any more suggestions and brain-storming? I hope some1 keeps track of these!

Add to del.icio.us | digg this | Stumble It What's this? If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content on cricket, you may use these buttons. When you add them to any of these sites, you "social bookmark" them for others to find and rate. More on del.icio.us>> More on digg>> More on stumbleupon>> Close

WI v Aus edition now live - Play now Cricinfo Cricket Quiz NEW fantasy cricket game - England v South Africa (starts July 10) Login and enter your team now Cricinfo on the go - our mobile services WAP and Mobicast