Australia news June 13, 2010

'Australia late in capitalising on T20' - Matthew Hayden

Cricinfo staff
  shares 32

Matthew Hayden, the former Australia opener, has said Australia missed an opportunity to capitalise on the enormous potential of Twenty20 cricket when the format was still in its developing stages. He claimed the desire to protect 50-over cricket - Australia's own creation - and a primary focus on Tests and ODIs when the IPL was yet to materialise may have contributed to Australia's delay in cashing in on Twenty20. Hayden also spoke of the need to make one-day cricket more meaningful and exciting for fans and players alike.

"As a player, I think we in Australia were slow to react to T20,'' Hayden, who is now part of Cricket Australia as board director, told the Sunday Age. ''We didn't see much of it here for a start. It seemed to be something that was happening everywhere else. England created it and was holding competitions, but the IPL hadn't started yet and our primary focus here was on winning every Test match and being one-day champions.''

A conservative approach in trying to safeguard 50-over cricket, Hayden said, could have prompted the delay in realising the potential of Twenty20. ''There must have been some concern, being conservative as Australians tend to be, that we've got this great product, 50-over cricket, which KP [Kerry Packer] invented and which changed the cricketing landscape, and we didn't want to leave it behind,'' Hayden said. "We were all proud of 50-over cricket, we'd nurtured it and grew it and it was - and still is - good for the game.

"But the little brother, Twenty20, isn't little any more. He's grown up, he's now market leader and yelling from the mountain. Twenty20 is fuelling change.''

The surging popularity of Twenty20 cricket, many believe, has threatened the viability of the 50-over format. Cricket Australia, in order to draw more people to the game, has decided to trial split-innings one-dayers next summer, with games divided into four innings of 20-25 overs each. Hayden said that, in addition to making one-day cricket more exciting, it was also important for administrators to ensure there wasn't an overdose of the format.

''I understand the fans more now than ever because, as a viewer, I want to see a game that's exciting, innovative and entertaining,'' Hayden said. "When I was in the Australian team, I could sense there was meaningless cricket going on. I always struggled to get myself up for matches against minnows. It's not like Freddie Flintoff with his eyes wide open, bearing down on you for the Ashes. I could feel that in the team and now I can feel it from the outside, too. It needs to be dealt with.

''With one-day cricket, people say they still love it, but it doesn't have the excitement it used to, certainly not compared to T20. We have to work out when and how we play one-day cricket. It's a pathway to the World Cup, which is still a valuable property, but it has to be programmed in a way that makes sense. Seven one-dayers at the end of a Test series isn't [giving much] meaning.''

Hayden has compiled his suggestions in a dossier, which he has submitted to the ICC. ''Greater minds than mine will act on this, but these things must be considered when discussing the game's future,'' he said. ''The intention of that dossier was to start conversations. I hope it leads to a more meaningful calendar.

"The game's gone beyond cigars and meetings in cloakrooms. The way it's played and viewed has changed and now we need to streamline what's important and what's not. It brings great challenges. I think CA understands that. They know change is coming and needs to be embraced.''

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY lucyferr on | June 15, 2010, 6:29 GMT

    It's nice to see the Aussies come to their senses at last. I hadn't realized they thought of 50-over cricket as an Australian product (which I do realize is different from saying they invented the sport) - so that was an interesting perspective I learnt from the article. Anyway, now that they've finally see the light, I hope they start globalizing the Big Bash the way Modi did with the IPL (but with more class than crass - shouldnt be too hard) - broadcasting matches live on YouTube, selling merchandise available at Aussie restaurants all over the word, moving the tournament so its last week doesnt compete with the Australian Open (tennis) for newspaper coverage, attracting players from more countries so that they get newspaper headlines in those countries, etc. I mean, the Big Bash is older than the IPL - its first edition was in January 2006- and it's a crying shame that the Aussies haven't done more with it, even allowing for the fact that the Indian market (esp diaspora) is bigger.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | June 14, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    Hayden did not say AUSTRALIA or PACKER invented 50 over cricket. He said Packer invented THE PRODUCT!!! That is coloured clothing, restricted circles and fielders, night cricket, coloured balls and general razzamatazz of an event. Everything that is taken for granted nowadays. The one day game, or even 50 over game was invented in England decades prior, but the way they played it was boring, I recall England posting 9 fielders on the boundary off the last ball of the match to prevent Australia striking a boundary. The game had not advanced at all since its inception until Packer came along. Why don't people read the article correctly before placing their feet in their mouth and typing garbage.There is no doubt Australia, and even New Zealand didn't take the T20 express as seriously as other countries, you only have to look at the 2005 game between to see the clothing, wigs names used and general carefree attitude to see they didn't take it too seriously. Well said Matty Hayden. .

  • POSTED BY Tigg on | June 14, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    It's about how the matches are ordered. Tests are still the ultimate, and any player that says they would rather play T20s than tests is either A) injured to the point of falling apart or B not a particularly good player and thus needs the inherent randomness of T20 to provide an illusion of grand skill when slogging with a bit of luck is what they are doing.

    The best T20 batsman don't slog. Usually the ones that have learn't their trade in a hard test landscape have the skill to place the ball so don't need to go over the top and risk losiung a wicket. Just look at Sachin.

    Anyway, my orginal point about match orders is that things need the right build up. An ideal series should be 1-3 T20s, 3-5 ODIs and 3-5 Tests. the focus should be on building up to the Test series as the grand finale. ODIs or T20s as the finale are too short and therefore become a boring anticlimax.

  • POSTED BY nce8 on | June 14, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    GO MATTHEW HAYDEN, GOOD CALLING.

  • POSTED BY Shahsa on | June 14, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    Ok Guys I totally agree with Mathew Hayden that " we should make cricket more exciting". And yes he is right when he talks about 5 test matches 7 ODIs and 2 T20s being too much cricket with the same opposition in a tour, its so boring. Just to make cricket more interesting and worth to spend our valuable time, I think that there should be 1 test match 3 ODIs and 2 T2O in each tour ....It will make all formats of the game worth watching and there will be no danger to any one format for being eliminated. Who is Agree with me ?

  • POSTED BY gramedgar on | June 14, 2010, 4:48 GMT

    Hayden is just speaking the flaming obvious here, and I hope he gets listened to by those 'greater minds'. I would love to see England playing a total of 11 international games per summer [5 tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s] rather than the 22 we get this summer. In the same way that county cricket is messed up and serves the financiers rather than the fans, international cricket is now bloated and unstructured. Like the ECB taking the Sky money, this short-sighted greed has diluted and hidden the product. Great job.

  • POSTED BY Jegs on | June 14, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    Maybe ODIs should follow rugby like the tri nations, 6 nations. They are similar sports in that there are a similar number of good teams. This might create more interest instead of pointless bilateral 7 odi series which become meaningless towards the end if they are one sided. eg australia's last 2 odi series in india and their last one in england. The Asia cup is a good example. There should also be more T20s and a few less odis. It seems ridiculous to me that a build up to a world cup consists of 4 or 5 games. Thats nowhere near enough to get ur best team out and hone ur skills.

  • POSTED BY bjcm12 on | June 14, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Yes totally agree with Hayden. But CA is making a mistake by having Micheal Clarke as the 20-20 captain. Cameron White is the most suited to captain 20-20 game for Australia and he has shown cthis in the state 20-20 tournament. And Shaun Marsh needs to take Micheal Clarke's position in batting. Clarke is not a 20-20 player like Ponting. he should play only one dayers and tests. After Ponting he should take over as captain but he needs to have patience to stay so.

  • POSTED BY on | June 14, 2010, 3:51 GMT

    You guys arguing about what Hayden said (Australia invented 50 over format) should read the first paragraph of the article again. Hayden doesnt say that at all, the article publisher put that opinion in, if Hayden said that it would be in a quote. What he did say - KP invented the 'product' of 50 over cricket - KP promoted it and made it a professional game.(Which is correct) Anyhow, I agree whole heartedly with Hayden. Australia was slow to recognise T20s potential, it was only this summer just gone when the domestic comp really took off. 50 over format in its current form is dead. The overs from 15-40 are mostly about watching a couple of batmen push singles...its predictable and dull. Changing the 50 over game to 2 innings of 20-25 overs is counter productive, it ruins the format. I would like to see fielding restrictions in place for the whole 50 overs. Get rid of those stupid powerplays and just make it easy. That way a team could bat excitingly at any time during the innings.

  • POSTED BY on | June 14, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    What Hayden told in his speech is one hundred per cent correct as far as my concern. ICC should reduce the size of the tour by reducing matches and hosting triangle series that could also reduce players' burden of playing too many matches. It facilitates spectators to cheerful contests.

  • POSTED BY lucyferr on | June 15, 2010, 6:29 GMT

    It's nice to see the Aussies come to their senses at last. I hadn't realized they thought of 50-over cricket as an Australian product (which I do realize is different from saying they invented the sport) - so that was an interesting perspective I learnt from the article. Anyway, now that they've finally see the light, I hope they start globalizing the Big Bash the way Modi did with the IPL (but with more class than crass - shouldnt be too hard) - broadcasting matches live on YouTube, selling merchandise available at Aussie restaurants all over the word, moving the tournament so its last week doesnt compete with the Australian Open (tennis) for newspaper coverage, attracting players from more countries so that they get newspaper headlines in those countries, etc. I mean, the Big Bash is older than the IPL - its first edition was in January 2006- and it's a crying shame that the Aussies haven't done more with it, even allowing for the fact that the Indian market (esp diaspora) is bigger.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | June 14, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    Hayden did not say AUSTRALIA or PACKER invented 50 over cricket. He said Packer invented THE PRODUCT!!! That is coloured clothing, restricted circles and fielders, night cricket, coloured balls and general razzamatazz of an event. Everything that is taken for granted nowadays. The one day game, or even 50 over game was invented in England decades prior, but the way they played it was boring, I recall England posting 9 fielders on the boundary off the last ball of the match to prevent Australia striking a boundary. The game had not advanced at all since its inception until Packer came along. Why don't people read the article correctly before placing their feet in their mouth and typing garbage.There is no doubt Australia, and even New Zealand didn't take the T20 express as seriously as other countries, you only have to look at the 2005 game between to see the clothing, wigs names used and general carefree attitude to see they didn't take it too seriously. Well said Matty Hayden. .

  • POSTED BY Tigg on | June 14, 2010, 11:01 GMT

    It's about how the matches are ordered. Tests are still the ultimate, and any player that says they would rather play T20s than tests is either A) injured to the point of falling apart or B not a particularly good player and thus needs the inherent randomness of T20 to provide an illusion of grand skill when slogging with a bit of luck is what they are doing.

    The best T20 batsman don't slog. Usually the ones that have learn't their trade in a hard test landscape have the skill to place the ball so don't need to go over the top and risk losiung a wicket. Just look at Sachin.

    Anyway, my orginal point about match orders is that things need the right build up. An ideal series should be 1-3 T20s, 3-5 ODIs and 3-5 Tests. the focus should be on building up to the Test series as the grand finale. ODIs or T20s as the finale are too short and therefore become a boring anticlimax.

  • POSTED BY nce8 on | June 14, 2010, 9:51 GMT

    GO MATTHEW HAYDEN, GOOD CALLING.

  • POSTED BY Shahsa on | June 14, 2010, 5:05 GMT

    Ok Guys I totally agree with Mathew Hayden that " we should make cricket more exciting". And yes he is right when he talks about 5 test matches 7 ODIs and 2 T20s being too much cricket with the same opposition in a tour, its so boring. Just to make cricket more interesting and worth to spend our valuable time, I think that there should be 1 test match 3 ODIs and 2 T2O in each tour ....It will make all formats of the game worth watching and there will be no danger to any one format for being eliminated. Who is Agree with me ?

  • POSTED BY gramedgar on | June 14, 2010, 4:48 GMT

    Hayden is just speaking the flaming obvious here, and I hope he gets listened to by those 'greater minds'. I would love to see England playing a total of 11 international games per summer [5 tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20s] rather than the 22 we get this summer. In the same way that county cricket is messed up and serves the financiers rather than the fans, international cricket is now bloated and unstructured. Like the ECB taking the Sky money, this short-sighted greed has diluted and hidden the product. Great job.

  • POSTED BY Jegs on | June 14, 2010, 4:14 GMT

    Maybe ODIs should follow rugby like the tri nations, 6 nations. They are similar sports in that there are a similar number of good teams. This might create more interest instead of pointless bilateral 7 odi series which become meaningless towards the end if they are one sided. eg australia's last 2 odi series in india and their last one in england. The Asia cup is a good example. There should also be more T20s and a few less odis. It seems ridiculous to me that a build up to a world cup consists of 4 or 5 games. Thats nowhere near enough to get ur best team out and hone ur skills.

  • POSTED BY bjcm12 on | June 14, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Yes totally agree with Hayden. But CA is making a mistake by having Micheal Clarke as the 20-20 captain. Cameron White is the most suited to captain 20-20 game for Australia and he has shown cthis in the state 20-20 tournament. And Shaun Marsh needs to take Micheal Clarke's position in batting. Clarke is not a 20-20 player like Ponting. he should play only one dayers and tests. After Ponting he should take over as captain but he needs to have patience to stay so.

  • POSTED BY on | June 14, 2010, 3:51 GMT

    You guys arguing about what Hayden said (Australia invented 50 over format) should read the first paragraph of the article again. Hayden doesnt say that at all, the article publisher put that opinion in, if Hayden said that it would be in a quote. What he did say - KP invented the 'product' of 50 over cricket - KP promoted it and made it a professional game.(Which is correct) Anyhow, I agree whole heartedly with Hayden. Australia was slow to recognise T20s potential, it was only this summer just gone when the domestic comp really took off. 50 over format in its current form is dead. The overs from 15-40 are mostly about watching a couple of batmen push singles...its predictable and dull. Changing the 50 over game to 2 innings of 20-25 overs is counter productive, it ruins the format. I would like to see fielding restrictions in place for the whole 50 overs. Get rid of those stupid powerplays and just make it easy. That way a team could bat excitingly at any time during the innings.

  • POSTED BY on | June 14, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    What Hayden told in his speech is one hundred per cent correct as far as my concern. ICC should reduce the size of the tour by reducing matches and hosting triangle series that could also reduce players' burden of playing too many matches. It facilitates spectators to cheerful contests.

  • POSTED BY popcorn on | June 14, 2010, 1:12 GMT

    I do not agree with Mathew Hayden's views that Australia has been slow to react to the T20 gasme.We ALL know that T20 is a lottery and IS NOT REALLY CRICKET. Australia have won 3 World Cups in a row, and oone earlier in 1987, and were finalists on two other World Cups - starting from 1975. Why kick a winning streak? No other country could even come close, so the losing countries have embraced T20. The fact that there have been three different winners in the three editions of the T20 World Cup AND the IPL says it all - T20 is a lottery - not cricket. It is to Australia's credit that Michael Clarke has led brilliantly, and the Team reached the Finals of the 2010 T20 World Cup..

  • POSTED BY Anneeq on | June 13, 2010, 23:43 GMT

    For me its like this, ODIs have served its time and we have moved on. Test cricket in the pinnacle of our sport, our jewel and it will forever remain so. 50 over is an innovation than has gone past its sell by date, we should just stick with tests and T20s. Stop trying to put the 3 of them together, stop limiting T20s and promoting 50 over cricket. It bores a lot of people, the only people that like it are guys like Ricky Ponting, an Aussie wanting to keep the Aussie innovation going. I doubt having 4 innings of 25 overs will make that big a difference, we still have an issue of time. People just cant be bothered waiting 8 hours for a result. I agree with Phoarey, ODIs should go, we should stop talking about T20 as if its something that requires no skill. You have to be on the money all the time in terms of bowling, the fielding standards have to be sky high and the batting shot selection has to be spot on. In tests, u can just feel ur way into the match.

  • POSTED BY vichan on | June 13, 2010, 21:03 GMT

    @Gizza again: You also seem to think that day-night cricket is an Australian invention. Once again you are incorrect - this too is an English invention. The first such match was as far back as August 1952, when Middlesex played an Arsenal representative side at Highbury, North London. I would love to see a re-match some time! More details at http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/240292.html

  • POSTED BY vichan on | June 13, 2010, 20:58 GMT

    @Gizza: I think Hayden was talking about "50 over" cricket to distinguish it from "T20", as both are one-dayers. But I'm pretty sure he meant longer version one day cricket in general, rather than any specific number of overs per side. Anyway, even if he did mean that 50 over cricket was invented by Australia, he would be wrong. The first 50 over match was a couple of years after the first county one-dayers, in 1964, when Sussex organised such a match against the visiting Australians. These 50 over matches against the touring teams became annual fixtures from that season. 50 over cricket of any kind, including in international matches, didn't come to Australia until the 1979/80 season. So, no: 50 over cricket is NOT an Australian invention, but an English one.

  • POSTED BY luvindia on | June 13, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    @Maestro_of_Cricket, asillypoint and all others when Hayden says "capitlizing", he means australia missed the boat to get maximum monetary benefits out of it, as IPL do. He means Australia should have done something before india came up with IPL.

    Now a days, players/administrators are not worried about winnings cups. Money matters friends.

  • POSTED BY Percy_Fender on | June 13, 2010, 18:04 GMT

    I must say that Hayden seems completely oblivious about the history of the game.As Vichan rightly points out nearly everything in cricket but coloured clothing first happened in England. It is truly the home of cricket in every sense of the word. It is for this reason that it is surprising that they have won an ICC tournament for the first time only in 2010. The other thing I would like to point out to Hayden is that India knew virtually nothing about 20/20 cricket when they went for the World Cup in 2007. Despite this they won it. That clearly brings out that luck is more important than anything else in this form of the game. So all this business of " I came late to the party" is all typically Australian bull.It is just that they have not had the luck so far. They will win one soon enough if the frequency of the World Cups for this format remains what it is.

  • POSTED BY MaruthuDelft on | June 13, 2010, 17:26 GMT

    Lottery? Come on; even in the greatest game of all (soccer) one mistake could cost a match. I thought T20 would discourage attacking fast bowlers because teams could not afford to have fielders in slips; I thought because of T20 spinners would disappear because attacking players seem to pick them up at will in traditional cricket if they really want to; I thought the boring medium pacers would take over; all wrong; the cricket Australians played at the recent T20 world cup was as exciting as any cricket ever played;the pace trio was brilliant; Warne and Kumble are the best T20 bowlers in the world; Hussey played the greatest innings ever in whatever the form of cricket; and T20 fielding is a pleasure to watch.

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 16:04 GMT

    very good excuse

    Failure to win the titles prompted them to say they were slow to adapt

    And i remember Mr ponting said there should be 3 Finals

    oh grapes are soar

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 15:36 GMT

    As always, Matthew Hayden tries to find excuses as to why Australia lost against the Poms. Why did Australia then play in the Twenty20 world Cup? I wonder what dishes he will dish up when Australia looses the upcoming Ashes Series? Come on Mate, Get over it!!!

  • POSTED BY ArchieTambo on | June 13, 2010, 15:21 GMT

    I'm an Aussie, and Johnny T. is spot on. As a public speaker and visionary, Hayden makes a great opening batsman. Let's just say his intellect and insight show no signs of being as towering as his presence at the crease. The well chronicled disconnect between his professed Christian beliefs and his foul mouthed sledging of all and sundry on the pitch shows he has little difficulty tolerating (or even recognizing) the huge gulf between what he says and what he does, which is just the sort of grandiose cluelessness we've grown to expect in any future administrator. Coupled with his planet-sized ego and the total self absorption of the modern sportsman, I'm sure he'll go far in his new role.

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 15:06 GMT

    You know I really like the 50 over format. I really do, and I know majority of cricket fans like it too. I hope they don't get carried away and introduce this to international cricket replacing the 50 over format.

    I know they are really bored doing their job and just cant help bringing in ridiculous changes. But seriously..cricket is just getting complicated by the day. Try explaining the game with all the new rules to a person who doesn't know nothing about the game. ...

  • POSTED BY stmookeyj on | June 13, 2010, 14:55 GMT

    Too slow maybe, but 20 over games rely too much on the side batting first to make between 130-170 to make it half a contest. And now I feel that T20 will be LOSING interest more than continuing to gather momentum if anything because of the glut of meaningless games (particularly in the IPL that I only take a glance at) and World Cups played seemingly yearly.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | June 13, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    @Vichan, Hayden said that Australia invented the 50-over format, not the orginal One-day (40 over) or first ODI (60 over) formats. And of course England also invented the 20 over format later down the track. But the 50 over invention along with day-night cricket is Australian.

  • POSTED BY Phoarey on | June 13, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    Keeping ODIs going is an absolute joke. Wait and see the dud crowds this summer - even against the Poms. T20 is not a lottery. The best team has won the KFC for several years, the best team won the Challenge Cup, the best won the recent World. The T20 revolution will eliminate the meaningless one dayers because it can pull a crowd at tribal club or state level. Hopefully international summers will generally comprise just 3 tests and 3 T20s.

  • POSTED BY vichan on | June 13, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Not sure where Hayden is getting this idea of Australia and Kerry Packer inventing one day cricket. One-day cricket began between English county teams in May 1962, with a 65-overs per side tournament called the 'Midlands Knock-Out Cup'. The next year a new tournament called the Gillette Cup (still running, as the Friends Provident Trophy) began and in the summer of 1969 the counties started a one-day Sunday league (now the Natwest Pro40 League). The Australians didn't begin playing one-day cricket until later in 1969 when it was already well established in England. So Hayden's assertion betrays a lack of knowledge on the game's history...as with almost everything in the game - be it the googly, Duckworth-Lewis or T20 - England is where it started.

  • POSTED BY Johnnyt on | June 13, 2010, 10:06 GMT

    'Greater minds than mine'. For once Mr Hayden makes sense when opening his mouth.

  • POSTED BY asillypoint on | June 13, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    @Maestro_of_Cricket. You're so right, Australia is the master race. Whatever next? Plenty of whatever!

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 8:19 GMT

    Nobody can capitalize on T20. It is lottery. Even the most formidable team can be brought down by a feeble team in this format. In Test cricket you need to be on top for most of the time in 15 session whereas in T20 it just need to be good in just one Test session of time to win the game.

  • POSTED BY CricEshwar on | June 13, 2010, 8:09 GMT

    With the talent and intent that Australia posses, planning and strategy can take a backfoot for once and is not going to do any harm for their cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 7:22 GMT

    May the new concept lead ODIs to their bright future!

  • POSTED BY lamecoolguy on | June 13, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    So true. The Aussies paid the price of not concentrating on T20 and took it as a 'fun game'. I don't think its too fun for them now because for 3 world cups they haven't managed to win a single one. It really must be frustrating.

  • POSTED BY Maestro_of_Cricket on | June 13, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    Australians are never too late. With all the T20 specialists in the country, it is pretty easy to find the right groove. Just look at how they came to the World T20 finals in the Caribbean. No fuss. Aussies are always at the best of their game, be it Tests, ODIs, T20s, bench strength or whatever.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Maestro_of_Cricket on | June 13, 2010, 5:46 GMT

    Australians are never too late. With all the T20 specialists in the country, it is pretty easy to find the right groove. Just look at how they came to the World T20 finals in the Caribbean. No fuss. Aussies are always at the best of their game, be it Tests, ODIs, T20s, bench strength or whatever.

  • POSTED BY lamecoolguy on | June 13, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    So true. The Aussies paid the price of not concentrating on T20 and took it as a 'fun game'. I don't think its too fun for them now because for 3 world cups they haven't managed to win a single one. It really must be frustrating.

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 7:22 GMT

    May the new concept lead ODIs to their bright future!

  • POSTED BY CricEshwar on | June 13, 2010, 8:09 GMT

    With the talent and intent that Australia posses, planning and strategy can take a backfoot for once and is not going to do any harm for their cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | June 13, 2010, 8:19 GMT

    Nobody can capitalize on T20. It is lottery. Even the most formidable team can be brought down by a feeble team in this format. In Test cricket you need to be on top for most of the time in 15 session whereas in T20 it just need to be good in just one Test session of time to win the game.

  • POSTED BY asillypoint on | June 13, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    @Maestro_of_Cricket. You're so right, Australia is the master race. Whatever next? Plenty of whatever!

  • POSTED BY Johnnyt on | June 13, 2010, 10:06 GMT

    'Greater minds than mine'. For once Mr Hayden makes sense when opening his mouth.

  • POSTED BY vichan on | June 13, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    Not sure where Hayden is getting this idea of Australia and Kerry Packer inventing one day cricket. One-day cricket began between English county teams in May 1962, with a 65-overs per side tournament called the 'Midlands Knock-Out Cup'. The next year a new tournament called the Gillette Cup (still running, as the Friends Provident Trophy) began and in the summer of 1969 the counties started a one-day Sunday league (now the Natwest Pro40 League). The Australians didn't begin playing one-day cricket until later in 1969 when it was already well established in England. So Hayden's assertion betrays a lack of knowledge on the game's history...as with almost everything in the game - be it the googly, Duckworth-Lewis or T20 - England is where it started.

  • POSTED BY Phoarey on | June 13, 2010, 11:30 GMT

    Keeping ODIs going is an absolute joke. Wait and see the dud crowds this summer - even against the Poms. T20 is not a lottery. The best team has won the KFC for several years, the best team won the Challenge Cup, the best won the recent World. The T20 revolution will eliminate the meaningless one dayers because it can pull a crowd at tribal club or state level. Hopefully international summers will generally comprise just 3 tests and 3 T20s.

  • POSTED BY Gizza on | June 13, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    @Vichan, Hayden said that Australia invented the 50-over format, not the orginal One-day (40 over) or first ODI (60 over) formats. And of course England also invented the 20 over format later down the track. But the 50 over invention along with day-night cricket is Australian.