Popular: ICC rankings | Bangladesh Premier League | A Zia
The Inbox

« A cricketing renaissance | | Cricket and generation Xbox »

Restructure the game around Twenty20

Posted by Cricinfo - on 11/11/2009

From Geoff Willetts, United Kingdom
Club cricket could well be the wave of the future © Global Cricket Ventures-BCCI


Much has been made in recent weeks of the need to rejuvenate the traditional forms of cricket. In the case of Test cricket, there have been suggestions of Test championships, night-time games with coloured balls, and reducing the number of days from five to four. In the one- day arena, there have been an even greater number of “innovative” ideas, such as split-innings of 25 overs each, reducing innings to 40 overs a side, more Powerplays, less Powerplays, and removal of bowling and fielding restrictions.

To get to the heart of the matter, the force behind this drive for change - as so often is the way - is money. Every sport needs to grow to survive. The ICC’s route to growth has been to significantly increase the overall number of international matches played, particularly in recent times with seven-match one day series becoming more common.

It is a continuation of a trend, however. In the last ten years there have been on average around 140 games of one-day cricket played per year, an almost 50% increase in matches per year when compared to the ten years from 1989-99. Unfortunately for the ICC, the size of the traditional supporter’s wallet has not grown at the same rate, and perhaps neither has their enthusiasm. Hence, to fill the stadium twice as often, and retain the same number of TV viewers per game, probably requires a market comprising twice as many cricket enthusiasts.

So, how to broaden the appeal of cricket? The rejuvenation suggestions mooted above have all been made in the name of increasing the interest of the game to the masses. The goal has been to try and introduce more excitement into what has always been a purist’s sport - one complete with its own set of complicated rules, statistics, and jargon.

Looking at other sporting codes, some have done it well, others not so well. Baseball is an example where teams can now play more than 160 games per year, any night of the week. Matches are typically played in packed stadiums even though games can be long, boring, the outcomes predictable, and with a number of dead rubbers.

Football is the same. In the UK, the big premiership clubs play 60-odd games per season, and every year the same teams inevitably dominate. Still each game is passionately supported by thousands of fans. A third example, rugby league, also prospered in Australia well beyond its original “working class” fan base.

The formats and rules for these sports have not changed significantly in recent history, yet the crowds still show up, every week. The three examples above all have one major thing in common: simplicity. You can explain the sport and its basic rules to someone who knows next to nothing about it in around 60 seconds.

Cricket is not simple - say the words “dead ball”, “reverse-sweep”, “LBW”, “silly mid-on” and “batting Powerplay” to the average American and their eyes glaze over. That’s before you tell them games can last five days and be declared a draw at the end.

In its present form rugby union is not simple either. Like cricket, it has been dogged by dwindling support in recent years. Both codes have made repeated attempts to improve their respective spectacles, and whenever this has resulted in increasing the complexity of the game, they have failed. An easy lesson for cricket’s administrators is therefore if you must do anything, then simpler is better.

Realistically, simplification of one-day cricket and “commercialising” Test cricket (a euphemism for day-night excursions) will not be enough to allow cricket to grow to meet the escalating financial demands of the game’s administrators. Stadiums need to be filled, and games that last a minimum of seven hours simply won’t cut it - even in the most simplified form imaginable.

This is where Twenty20 comes in. Twenty20 is the only true vehicle to grow the appeal of the game beyond the niche market that is one-day and Test cricket. Administrators have made no secret of their efforts to be “careful” to not saturate the market with Twenty20 matches. Too much Twenty20, they believe, will result in a failure to preserve the sanctity of the traditional forms of the game.

I would argue that limiting Twenty20 puts unsustainable pressure on the traditional formats to meet growth targets. The only option available is to tamper with the traditional form of the game, pushing it further away from its roots. How do you cater to the marked demand?

Increase the number of Twenty20 matches. This is the money spinner that will effectively fund Test and one-day cricket for the purists.

Play less “meaningless” one-day cricket, with shorter bilateral series and points systems that contribute to tournament seedings.

Continue to play Test cricket as it is today, but ensure a spread of games where the top teams don’t only play each other as often, and the likes of Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand play more games.

Done this way, the masses would get to see the games they are interested in, and the purists can still enjoy the traditional formats the way they are.

Now here is where the radical ideas begin. I would propose that the way to rejuvenate the game is to completely restructure it around Twenty20, where games are played once or twice a week (like football) for six months across a nine to ten-month season every year. This would allow for specific windows for Test and one-day cricket to then be created, and there would be additional rest periods for players as seasons overlap. Tests would count towards a Test championship, with a final to be played perhaps every 2-3 years, and one-day matches would all count towards seedings for World Cup and Champions Trophy style events that alternate every two years.

The club-based format, that has worked for most other sports, including football, rugby league, rugby union, baseball, NFL, AFL, ice hockey and basketball, would be the logical platform to do this. Additionally, a club-based format will enhance the relevance of international fixtures between countries, again in the same way as it does in football. The increased number of short Twenty20 games, coupled with a lower number of ODIs and shorter Test series spread across the year will relieve pressure on players complaining of burnout (though again, the baseballers playing 160 games a year don’t tend to complain about burnout, neither do the midfielders playing premiership football who run up to 15km per game, 60 times a year. But that’s an issue to be dealt with another time).

A model for the new system might look something like this:

Three Twenty20 premier leagues operate across different seasons around the world. These might be in India, Australia, and England (as examples)

Players play primarily for their Twenty20 club, and there are clubs from each of the eight major nations in every league. (For instance, New Zealand has a few teams in the Australian competition; Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have teams in the Indian competition; and the West Indies and South Africa teams in the English competition)

Each club has a number of feeder “first-class” teams who play local Twenty20, first-class and one-day cricket throughout the season in an attempt to earn a place in both the club’s premier Twenty20 team and their national one-day and Test team.

Matches will be scheduled such that the top players are not always playing Twenty20 and there is time for some domestic first-class cricket.

International windows lasting three to four weeks (enough time for two-three Tests and three ODIs), occur at four points in the year, perhaps December/January, March/April, July/August, and October/November - whatever suits the seasons of the most international teams best. In between, the club Twenty20 and feeder matches are played.

There would be no requirement for a player to represent a club from his country, in the same way Europeans and South Americans play in the English Football leagues. Granted, this is quite a radical idea, and it is hard to see the ICC agreeing to its format and implementation, let alone the cricket boards and players of each of the major nations. There would be multiple obstacles to work out, including how to share revenues, player allegiances, salary issues, club v country debates and all the other things that sports such as football deal with today. But in football there is evidence that the idea can work, and work well.

 
Feedback Feedback
Comments Submit your piece >>

Posted by: Anand Narayanan at November 11, 2009 3:40 AM

So you would throw out style (Tests) that has endured decades for the fashion of the moment?

Posted by: babu at November 11, 2009 5:23 AM

T20 as a panacea to all cricketing problems today is absurd. Cricket, in contrast to all other games you mentioned, requires total devotion and the player who applies his skill, dedication and perseverance to his game consistently, and possibly over 5 continuous days, is considered a great by many. That application is the essence and beauty of and everything good about cricket. What T20 does is to essentially kill the application part. In my dictionary, it’s not cricket, though it is played with a cricket bat and ball. What I don’t understand is why the game should be spread to other countries, who are not interested in cricket. In an effort to do that (presumably), the ICC and BCCI have ruined the game. The effect of all this is in 10 years time, there will be no game called cricket (even the T20 variety). Certainly money can’t buy everything. Just leave the game as it is and reduce no. of ODIs. That's all needed to increase interest in the game. If possible abolish T20s.

Posted by: N Isher at November 11, 2009 6:56 AM

Cricket is not football, and thank God for that. Sir, from your writing, I can only deduce that you are either (a)insane or (b)Lalit Modi writing under a nom de plume. Cricket has not sold its soul to the devil yet, so please stop giving the administrators any ideas, and please spare us your rather frightening pearls of wisdom!

Posted by: Mohan at November 11, 2009 9:45 AM

Geoff, agree entirely with your proposal. This is something I have been arguing for a long time now. Cricket needs to move to club format. Don't worry about the negative comments. It confirms that you are right

Posted by: richard at November 11, 2009 11:42 AM

What a great article!!! I agree with so many of the ideas given here. With T20 club cricket, it will be possible for so many more players from each country to make a proper career and living out of cricket, as opposed to just the regular international stars from each country pulling in the big bucks. Clubs also give fans a better opportunity to become passionate supporters of their favourite teams, and allows friends to argue with each other whose team is better (as opposed to everyone from one country supporting their national team which is more boring).

You are also completely right about all these 'meaningless' ODI's played these days. It just seems like administrators just shoehorn as many of these games into the calendar as possible, without any context whatsoever. A cricket league (such as IPL) would be so much better because every game will have meaning.

Posted by: Zenon at November 11, 2009 1:37 PM

I think 20 twenty cricket make us enjoy and have fun.it bring youngster into cricket.but test cricket never going to be die.

Posted by: D.V.C. at November 11, 2009 2:10 PM

"Geoff, agree entirely with your proposal. This is something I have been arguing for a long time now. Cricket needs to move to club format. Don't worry about the negative comments. It confirms that you are right[.]" So does this positive comment indicate that he is wrong then?

Posted by: William at November 11, 2009 4:10 PM

Can't agree with you more Geoff. I've been saying this for a long time too. If the administrators were to indeed follow these ideas, more players and support people would be able to make a living out of the game and more fans would have a game to go to every other week, unlike just sitting like couch potatoes before the telly watching Test cricket played in distant lands. Right now, how often does one get to see a Test match in one's city? People like N Isher represent this typical couch potato lot who completely miss the point. They're the kind who've never played sport and would have hardly every gone to a first-class match. It is this lot of "TV fans" that ails cricket. Let's please make cricket a truly mass sport by having a good club structure with deep penetration up to, I'd say, the village level. Clubs could be affiliated with the national cricket boards and a multiple tier system could incentivise performance and provide players a transparent structure to move their way up.

Posted by: Ram at November 11, 2009 5:30 PM

I think the article is very nicely written. However, I would dispute its message.

1. American football is complicated. People go crazy here.

2. My issue with T20 is this. You can never see a No 10 and No 11 have a partnership of 115 runs and then loosing the match in the last over. The game needs to be long enough to sustain momentum swings.

I would take your plan. Replace T20 with ODI.

Posted by: Lucifer at November 11, 2009 6:21 PM

Baseball and Rugby have simple rules? Really? Then what is so complex about cricket? Things like reverse sweep, et. al. that you mentioned are just events in the game. They may or may not happen in a match. The outcome does not depend on them. Simply put, one team bats. Other team has to score more than the first to win. That's how simple cricket is.

Posted by: Ppp Sss at November 11, 2009 8:59 PM

Yeah...we can do away with romance and foreplay also considering every one wants it quick. What hogwash !!! The game of cricket has a particular format. That is why its called cricket and not football. Cricket was never ever meant to be a game that could be squashed into one's coffee break. In this era of instant gratification, long hard won battles are to be cherished.

Posted by: MartinAmber at November 11, 2009 10:50 PM

Well, the substance of the article was interesting, but the conclusion read like sporting hell. Windows for Tests, whilst everyone plays a mediocre, regressive imitation of a sport all year round? Three World T20s in two and a half years not enough for the jumped-up, overfed, screaming little baby?

Mind you, the world's rapidly going to hell due to its ongoing obsession with money at the expense of so many of the things that helped us evolve, so why should cricket be any different? Would the last person ... please turn off the lights, etc.

Posted by: ahmed at November 11, 2009 11:34 PM

you cant structure the game around t20. all these t20 comps are too annoying. i cant stand this ipl and CLT20. Its on far too much and its spoils the feeling you get when watching a game. Players are getting tired too much and suffering from burnout, just look at Australia recently. We need to stick to the normal ODI and Test series the teams play. T20 should remain when teams tour one another and for the T20 world cup. On a club level, i would say the CLT20 is sufficient, but get rid of the IPL.

Posted by: Mark at November 12, 2009 12:57 AM

With all due respect, this is a hilarious suggestion! Sounds like an English football fan realizing he's feeling comfortable with a commercially driven format that he can relate to. Probably with the hope he will understand the sport of cricket, but horribly overlooking the pure value and tradition of the beautiful game. Maybe, perhaps, he feels that the necessity of skill to win a cricket game should be forgotten in the name of luck and chance, indeed it is likely the only way England stand a chance of challenging any one else. Mind you, I mean no offence, I am an Englishman myself, but do consider such contamination of our dear sport rather unwelcome.

Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2009 1:54 AM

Twenty20 cricket is not real cricket.

Posted by: li at November 12, 2009 2:45 AM

So you would throw out style (Tests) that has endured decades for the fashion of the moment?

Posted by: Terry Jones at November 16, 2009 1:25 PM

I dont agree. I would replace current structures with the following:
(1) Multi-tier relegation International Cricket:
* 6 tiers (1-6,7-12,13-18,19-24,25-36 & 37-48) that plays T20I & ODI. T1&2 play test cricket, T3&4 play 4day 1st class and T5&6 play 3day 1st class cricket. Home & Away series (points from all 3 forms) over 2 years with Final At end. Top team goes up, bottom team drops down, with Affiliates playing off for T6 spots.
(2) Domestic Cricket Champions League
** Champions League alternates between 4day, 50over and 20over, with 4th year (ODI WC) off.
** CL made up of 1 team from each test country and 1 team from each region.
** Top Associate, Affiliate & 2nd team from test country in each region play off for the one region team spot (could use knockout competition).
(3) ODI & T20 World Cups
** @ every 4 years with (1) final other 2.
** All countries play regional qualifiers for 10 spots (region of top 10) & other 4 spots from playoffs (region of next 10) where seedings apply.

  Post your comment
Posting Guidelines >>
Name:
Email Address:
Comments:
characters left
The Inbox will feature submissions from you with us playing gatekeeper as we do with the rest of the site. We will set no rules apart from ensuring a certain quality that you have come to associate with Cricinfo. You may write on the aspects of the game that you hold dear; about matters that rile you; about players, teams and trends; you may share your memories and views, and you may so do so in 100 words or 500. The only tip we will give you is to repeat a line from our style sheet: Brevity is not just the soul of wit, it is the heart of all writing.
Latest News
Specials
Sitemap  |  Feedback  |  RSS  |  About Us  |  Career  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
© ESPN EMEA Ltd