Interesting article from Mike Coward in the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21050155-5010761,00.html):
Is Twenty20 now 50-50 proposition? Mike Coward January 13, 2007
CRICKET's governors risk alienating elite players and devoted fans if they cannot control their dangerous dalliance with the game's latest party drug, Twenty20 cricket. Such is their concern at the uncontrolled growth of this frenetic fare that Australia captain Ricky Ponting and his deputy Adam Gilchrist this week knowingly risked censure by calling for Twenty20 to be kept firmly in its place - even if this place is still to be defined. It is to be earnestly hoped the directors of Cricket Australia and chief executive James Sutherland are listening intently to what these incomparable cricketers and leaders are saying.
Already the sensitivity and complexity of international cricket politics has compelled CA to moderate its stance on these run and funfests. To ensure it won approval for its future tours program and met moral obligations to England and South Africa, CA did not oppose the scheduling of the first Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa this year - an event it views with scepticism.
If anything, India and Pakistan were more uneasy than Australia but the fact the Indian subcontinent and not Australasia won the right to host the 50-over World Cup in 2011 encouraged them to look on the Twenty20 World Cup in a more positive light.
Be that as it may, the ICC decision was taken with indecent haste and before a good many of the Test match-playing countries had even played the particular form of the game. India had its first experience of the slogathon just last month and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe a month before that.
Of course, one of cricket's greatest charms has long been its ability to mutate in such a way that it remains a relevant entertainment. And there is no doubt that Twenty20 fits seamlessly into today's popular culture. It's all colour and movement and over in a flash; utterly superficial.
But although it may have a place at domestic level and generate useful revenue, what purpose does it fill in the international arena other than providing the ICC with another dedicated event it can call its own?
Is it being played at this level because of dissatisfaction with 50-over cricket? Is the long-range plan for Twenty20 to supplant the 50-over game? Does cricket need and can it sustain a third tier of international competition? To what extent will a World Cup of Twenty20 cricket devalue the 50-over World Cup which for 35 years has been seen as the game's blue-riband event? How much revenue from television rights and sponsors would be lost if Twenty20 cricket became the primary limited form of the game?
These are among the questions being vigorously debated by the cricket community this weekend at the end of an extraordinary eight days when CA tested the patience and tolerance of cricket lovers like never before.
So much for the joy of the traditional game and the apparent re-establishment of the Ashes as the game's iconic series: that was eight days ago.
Since Ponting and his team-mates held up the Waterford Crystal trophy - rather than the actual urn which, for the moment, is on display at the Melbourne Cricket Club's new museum at the MCG - there have been 10 Twenty20 matches around the country, including the international won by Australia over England at the SCG on Tuesday. Yesterday the 50-over format got under way and the domestic Twenty20 final is on today. Roll up. Roll up.
Furthermore we have been compelled to accept rugby league ace Andrew Johns as a cricketer worthy of representing his state. What an insult to the intelligence of cricket folk, not to mention those who have had the honour of playing cricket for their state.
Again this begs the question whether it is the governors or their promoters, marketers and publicists who are truly running the game. The Johns exercise was a cheap stunt even for such a cheap form of the game.
For the sake of cricket generally and the sanity of its finest players, the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations and the executive of the ICC must meet urgently and define the role of Twenty20 cricket.
At the moment it is gaining momentum and threatening to run out of control. Such are the vested interests of the major players at the ICC table, one senses the overall welfare of the game is being overlooked. Clearly CA is caught between a rock and a hard place. And it is not alone.
It should never be forgotten that 50-over cricket began as a revenue-raising amusement and distraction to be appended to Test match programs. But very quickly avaricious governors scheduled more and more one-day matches and special limited-overs tournaments. Even anniversaries in the first-class game were celebrated with one-day events.
Nowadays it is not uncommon for Test matches to be appended to a series of one-day games. The game's priorities are often confused and the advent of Twenty20 at this level further complicates matters.
The first World Cup was played in England in 1975 - four years and five months after the first limited-overs international between Australia and England in Melbourne on January 5, 1971. The first Twenty20 World Cup will be played in South Africa in September just two years and seven months after the first Twenty20 international match between Australia and New Zealand in Auckland on February 17, 2005.
Regrettably the animated debate about the limited forms of the game be they of 40 or 100 overs deflected attention from a wonderful finale to the Ashes exhibition which has so engaged the public the length and breadth of the country.
On Thursday, more than 400 members and friends of the MCC gathered at the members' dining room for a dinner to farewell the exhibition. At the suggestion of club librarian David Studham, the dinner replicated that given to farewell Ivo Bligh and his England team of 1882-83.
It was this tour, sponsored by the MCC, which gave rise to the mythical Ashes when Bligh was presented with ashes in an urn - a jest about his crusade to recover the ashes of English cricket.
20-20 Cricket is brilliant for domestic cricket to get people interested in criket. Its entertaining and fun.
However the best way I can describe it is by using Rugby Union sevens as the exmple.
On the international stage if it is going to be a mainstream event it will need to be played by specialists as Rugby sevens is, and you leave the proper cricket in place.
Too much emphasis cannot be put on 20-20 cricket in the international program, unless it is run independantly such as the rugby sevens is IMO.
Exactly Charlie. Somehow I can't see Twenty20 bringing in more money in an international sence it'll just take money that was already there and more it around a bit.
Originally posted by holcs: 20-20 Cricket is brilliant for domestic cricket to get people interested in criket. Its entertaining and fun.
However the best way I can describe it is by using Rugby Union sevens as the exmple.
On the international stage if it is going to be a mainstream event it will need to be played by specialists as Rugby sevens is, and you leave the proper cricket in place.
Too much emphasis cannot be put on 20-20 cricket in the international program, unless it is run independantly such as the rugby sevens is IMO.
I really hope 20-20 cricket is much more to cricket than the 7s is to Rugby. In fact, 20-20 can be something special for cricket, which the 7s isn't to rugby.
There's absolutely no reason why a 20/20 world championship should not be a success. For a start - just don't call it a 20/20 world cup. Secondly, only hold it in years when there is not a world cup.
As to the format have the top six countries ( or the top 5 plus the host )and have them play each other in a round-robin format with the top 2 sides contesting the final. The competion would be over in 2 weeks.
There is no way that such a competition would detract from the World Cup.
I am not ashamed to admit that I am a Twenty20 fan. Its great entertainment, even one sided games can be a good laugh. I would like to see one International Twenty20 being played at the beginning or end of a series.
As for the Twenty20 World Cup, I think it should replace the ODI Champions Trophy of which I am not a fan, a Twenty20 World Cup every 2 years would be good, I think the whole tournament in South Africa will last just over a week wont it?
I dont think it will replace 50 Over Cricket but maybe decrease the amount of 50 over games being played. Seriously players are always moaning about the amount of Cricket they have to play and I dont think they would be overly disapointed if there are less 50 over games being played.
Originally posted by B@sil: There's absolutely no reason why a 20/20 world championship should not be a success. For a start - just don't call it a 20/20 world cup. Secondly, only hold it in years when there is not a world cup.
As to the format have the top six countries ( or the top 5 plus the host )and have them play each other in a round-robin format with the top 2 sides contesting the final. The competion would be over in 2 weeks.
There is no way that such a competition would detract from the World Cup.
Easy solution. Just replace the spurious non-event that is the Champions Trophy with a 20-20 world cup so there won't be a reason to stage 20-20 in the same years as the premier world cup, the ICC cricket world cup.
I floated an idea a while back that t20 should be used in a similar method to the reduced number rugby stuff.
There's a global tour of r7s, where fringe internationals (and some blokes who simply put, have no chance of making the 15 a side teams) get to travel the world, playing in places that aren't necessarily traditional rugby strongholds, in front of decent crowds. (Dubai, South Africa, NZ, USA, Hong Kong, Aus, Eng, Scotland for the 06/07 tournament)
The ICC is always bleating about getting the game to more global countries and has plenty of associate members who could host a round or two.
Let Test nations pick players with no senior international caps and less than 5 seasons FC experience, let other countries have one guest player if you like, but that would work.
Say 8 rounds each year, divvy up the Test playing nations so they host a round every 2 years, add 3 associate members each year and away you go.
Probably needs more thought, but it finds a place, and probably a global TV market, without damaging the prime products.
Going on last night's example, I'd say to provide several thousand people with an excuse to bounce beach balls around for a few hours, and to give cops practice in catching and deflating said balls.
I suppose it's better than tennis or Rugby if you that's what you want to do . . .
The aim of Twenty20 is to reduce the exclusivity of cricket and attract the unwashed rabble to the game. Judging from a number of incidents involving spectators around the world in recent seasons, it is succeeding.
I hope there is a lot of hype generated for the upcoming twenty20 world cup in South Africa. Because it'll need to be drowned out by hype once the crowd realises that seeing six after four after six after four after six hit with no real risk attahced is actually more boring than anything cricket's ever dished up. I think it will need hype after the first few matches.
)and have them play each other in a round-robin format with the top 2 sides contesting the final. The competion would be over in 2 weeks.
