Future of cricket October 23, 2013

Should Twenty20 be Over-30s only?

  shares 107

On a night of erudition and deep thought on what cricket means through the psychoanalyst eyes of Mike Brearley, it was his 1981 Ashes tour adversary and now Australian selector Rod Marsh who floated the most radical concept for the future health of the game. In a discussion following Brearley's Bradman Oration for 2013, Marsh offered the suggestion that Twenty20 matches be restricted to players over the age of 30.

While careful not to attribute the idea to himself, nor even express his wholehearted support for the concept, Marsh forecast the possibility of T20 becoming a sort of long service reward once cricketers had fought through the longer game for their club, state and country. Such a scenario would lengthen the careers of those players who reached their later years with physical and mental baggage, while also eradicating the current trouble most nations are experiencing around grooming young players for three wildly disparate formats.

Among the most versatile and adaptable cricketers currently playing the game are the group still old enough to have gone through their formative years when sound fundamentals of defence, strike rotation and technique were the first order of business. In recent years T20 has increased the impetus for developing players to build up on power and learn outlandish shots well before they have established a bedrock game, leaving many floundering in first-class or Test match contests.

"A wise man said to me not that long ago that you shouldn't be allowed to play Twenty20 cricket until you're 30," Marsh said. "And if you just stop and think about that, I don't think that's a bad solution. Maybe it should be the topping on the cake after your career, after you've fought your guts out for your country, after you've given everything to the real form of the game, then you get your rewards by playing the short form of the game. I'm not saying I agree with it necessarily, but I'm not saying I disagree with it. In fact I'm sitting on the fence."

Sharing the panel with Marsh, Brearley and the former Australia women's captain Alex Blackwell, Greg Chappell said the struggle to adapt to Test matches, T20 and everything in between at an early age was the source of an almighty struggle for many players and their mentors. As Cricket Australia's national talent manager, Chappell has often glimpsed the tension between such contrasting goals.

"It's a heck of a challenge," he said. "The modern cricketer is challenged more than any other generation before with the different formats and the adaptability required to go across the formats. I think it will be very hard for most cricketers to play all three formats. It is a real challenge for young cricketers to try to develop their game to be chopping and changing so much and playing so much T20 cricket early on. What it requires to be a good hitter is very different to what it requires to be a good batter."

Brearley's address, delivered at the Langham Hotel in Melbourne, had ruminated on how cricket and sport in general could mean nothing and everything in the same breath, and how it was arguably more respectful to an opponent to give them no quarter on the field rather than to be insincerely courteous. Later, when pondering how cricket had changed, he said the preponderance of support staff and computer analysis had complicated the game for captains and coaches, while limiting a player's ability to think on his feet.

"The biggest change is the number of people around the dressing room, apart from players," Brearley said. "When we came to Australia we had a manager, a physio, a scorer and maybe an assistant manager … we didn't have a coach, and if we did it was the assistant manager who might do a bit of coaching. Sometimes I'd be worried he was getting someone to try to change at the beginning of a cricket tour when if he was going to be making that sort of change he should be doing it some other time.

"So I think the difficulty of having all these people around the dressing room, all of whom have got to do something, or be seen to do something, and for a captain and coach to manage that lot as well as the team seems to me a great difficulty.

"Cricket is much the same in the main central ways … but the emphasis on computer information could turn people from a certain sort of spontaneity into something that becomes cut off and rather external. I heard the story of a young English bowler in a 50-over match who had no idea whatever about the tactical state of the game when they were fielding, he was only worried about that the right wrist was at exactly the right angle."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on October 23, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    The proposal though interesting will not work. What about players who are not good enough for tests or the longer formats but are ideally suited for T20s? Why should they wait till 30? What will they do till then? Moreover, in countries like India, any youngster( this has been happening even before the advent of T20s) first plays 10-15 over matches. They then graduate on to league matches of 30-40 overs duration. It is only when someone reaches the first class level that they actually play 3-5 day games. This is the way the Tendulkars and Dravids came about. Did it impact their playing style??No. What has happened is that in today's professional world, the proliferation of T20 leagues have meant that specially adapted techniques have arrived and these are being followed by youngsters. But don't worry , the formats themselves will take care of the players. Someone who adapts to tests will play them. If not he will play T20 or ODIs. Whats wrong with that?

  • on October 24, 2013, 23:28 GMT

    Is this guy serious? T20s for cricketers aged above 30? Sorry to say this, but this is the last thing I'd like to hear from an experienced cricketer. T20s are for entertainment value - athletic fielding, exciting bowling and batting, crunch situations to test the nerves.

  • on October 24, 2013, 20:01 GMT

    Can the ICC and all the boards from all over the world decide that they will just play tests and some ODI's in the months of october through january 15th and other time of the year play T20s and some ODIs? If some players does not like then too bad. The boards like it and also I was really disappointed to see Transformers. That does not matter because that movies made like 1 billion dollars. Test cricket should be played in winter and most of world have winter around december. Also, anticipation makes people to actually wait for any product to buy even if the have the exact same.

  • zohair02 on October 24, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    Split the sport into Test Cricket and T20. Test Cricket may not survive as the financials will not attract players. Most of us do not care much about Test Cricket - don't blame me, the proof is in the attendance numbers. As youngsters, we were forced to watch this sport in India as there was nothing else to take its place. Now I do not have time to spare to watch 5 days of any game, and to boot it may or may not result in a winner. And I also don't mind one bit that T20 players do not have Test Cricket techniques. Give me a scoop shot over the over-rated "classic" cover drive any day.

  • on October 24, 2013, 14:35 GMT

    Oh, my God! We don't need more rules, more varieties of formats, more field restrictions. Rules! Rules!! And, more rules!!! Let the talents, competencies and efforts to improve flow freely, and settle down naturally, wherever the players wish, whatever may be their age.

    Open market competitive spirit will guide the process naturally. Rule-makers & administrators, please, just back off!

    We all want just better QUALITY; not more restrictions and guidelines; which may turn counter-productive.

  • cricindia4life on October 24, 2013, 11:26 GMT

    @Prabhakar Muthukrishnan and others who think that the formats will take care of themselves and those who adapt to tests will play tests... If fewer young players are interested in test cricket each year, one of two things will happen: fewer players will adapt to the test format or the quality required to become a test player will drop to qualify more players. That's just the nature of supply/demand. So maybe instead of age as a qualifier for T20, I propose that it should be the number of first class and list A matches. You cannot sign up for a T20 franchise anywhere around the world until you have met the minimum requirements of 3-5 day and 50-overs cricket. But if you are playing your natural game at the age of 20 and decide that you want to be a specialist T20 player, then you sign an affidavit saying so, thus removing yourself from selection into any national or domestic squads. Essentially, you will be declaring yourself as a specialist t20 franchise cricketer.

  • on October 24, 2013, 11:25 GMT

    Players tend to peak between the ages of 28-33. I don't think it'd be a good idea to let them start playing a different format of cricket all of sudden. It could possibly ruin techniques and whatever whilst players are in the peak. This one isn't gonna work.

  • Rahul_78 on October 24, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    There are some solutions which sounds sensible but are impossible to be implemented in practical. This is one of it.

  • vswami on October 24, 2013, 8:49 GMT

    Its a free market. Who are some individuals to determine what others should play or watch ?

  • SaifS on October 24, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    Disagree! In fact this is soooo funny. Twenty20 is yet another format of cricket and his its own place, only some cricketers would be able to play all the 3 forms so let them do that and let them the only ones to decide on what form they what to play and for how long. Today's world has given variety to people. 20 years ago you could only think about becoming a doctor, engineer, lawyer or a teacher but ask a youngster and he'll have so many choices. Similar is the case with sports as of today. Have fun, what's wrong in having a shorter career when you've achieved everything within it, there are others to follow, cricket will always be played and that the beauty of life!

  • on October 23, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    The proposal though interesting will not work. What about players who are not good enough for tests or the longer formats but are ideally suited for T20s? Why should they wait till 30? What will they do till then? Moreover, in countries like India, any youngster( this has been happening even before the advent of T20s) first plays 10-15 over matches. They then graduate on to league matches of 30-40 overs duration. It is only when someone reaches the first class level that they actually play 3-5 day games. This is the way the Tendulkars and Dravids came about. Did it impact their playing style??No. What has happened is that in today's professional world, the proliferation of T20 leagues have meant that specially adapted techniques have arrived and these are being followed by youngsters. But don't worry , the formats themselves will take care of the players. Someone who adapts to tests will play them. If not he will play T20 or ODIs. Whats wrong with that?

  • on October 24, 2013, 23:28 GMT

    Is this guy serious? T20s for cricketers aged above 30? Sorry to say this, but this is the last thing I'd like to hear from an experienced cricketer. T20s are for entertainment value - athletic fielding, exciting bowling and batting, crunch situations to test the nerves.

  • on October 24, 2013, 20:01 GMT

    Can the ICC and all the boards from all over the world decide that they will just play tests and some ODI's in the months of october through january 15th and other time of the year play T20s and some ODIs? If some players does not like then too bad. The boards like it and also I was really disappointed to see Transformers. That does not matter because that movies made like 1 billion dollars. Test cricket should be played in winter and most of world have winter around december. Also, anticipation makes people to actually wait for any product to buy even if the have the exact same.

  • zohair02 on October 24, 2013, 14:57 GMT

    Split the sport into Test Cricket and T20. Test Cricket may not survive as the financials will not attract players. Most of us do not care much about Test Cricket - don't blame me, the proof is in the attendance numbers. As youngsters, we were forced to watch this sport in India as there was nothing else to take its place. Now I do not have time to spare to watch 5 days of any game, and to boot it may or may not result in a winner. And I also don't mind one bit that T20 players do not have Test Cricket techniques. Give me a scoop shot over the over-rated "classic" cover drive any day.

  • on October 24, 2013, 14:35 GMT

    Oh, my God! We don't need more rules, more varieties of formats, more field restrictions. Rules! Rules!! And, more rules!!! Let the talents, competencies and efforts to improve flow freely, and settle down naturally, wherever the players wish, whatever may be their age.

    Open market competitive spirit will guide the process naturally. Rule-makers & administrators, please, just back off!

    We all want just better QUALITY; not more restrictions and guidelines; which may turn counter-productive.

  • cricindia4life on October 24, 2013, 11:26 GMT

    @Prabhakar Muthukrishnan and others who think that the formats will take care of themselves and those who adapt to tests will play tests... If fewer young players are interested in test cricket each year, one of two things will happen: fewer players will adapt to the test format or the quality required to become a test player will drop to qualify more players. That's just the nature of supply/demand. So maybe instead of age as a qualifier for T20, I propose that it should be the number of first class and list A matches. You cannot sign up for a T20 franchise anywhere around the world until you have met the minimum requirements of 3-5 day and 50-overs cricket. But if you are playing your natural game at the age of 20 and decide that you want to be a specialist T20 player, then you sign an affidavit saying so, thus removing yourself from selection into any national or domestic squads. Essentially, you will be declaring yourself as a specialist t20 franchise cricketer.

  • on October 24, 2013, 11:25 GMT

    Players tend to peak between the ages of 28-33. I don't think it'd be a good idea to let them start playing a different format of cricket all of sudden. It could possibly ruin techniques and whatever whilst players are in the peak. This one isn't gonna work.

  • Rahul_78 on October 24, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    There are some solutions which sounds sensible but are impossible to be implemented in practical. This is one of it.

  • vswami on October 24, 2013, 8:49 GMT

    Its a free market. Who are some individuals to determine what others should play or watch ?

  • SaifS on October 24, 2013, 8:33 GMT

    Disagree! In fact this is soooo funny. Twenty20 is yet another format of cricket and his its own place, only some cricketers would be able to play all the 3 forms so let them do that and let them the only ones to decide on what form they what to play and for how long. Today's world has given variety to people. 20 years ago you could only think about becoming a doctor, engineer, lawyer or a teacher but ask a youngster and he'll have so many choices. Similar is the case with sports as of today. Have fun, what's wrong in having a shorter career when you've achieved everything within it, there are others to follow, cricket will always be played and that the beauty of life!

  • on October 24, 2013, 8:31 GMT

    @satishchandar on (October 24, 2013, 6:49 GMT):

    You are right on the mark!

    I will also add, the far-better-than-expected performance in India, by the current Australian ODI team, is partly (if not to significant account) attributable to the vast experience of all the members of the OZ team (except one) over many IPL seasons, often with multiple franchises, all over India in a large assortment of pitches, over very many competitive games.

    I am also expecting a superior performance from the WI team, when they visit India soon, for similar reasons.

  • on October 24, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    Like the idea, sounds good. On a lighter note, some Asian countries say a player is 17 when in fact he is 30. With Marsh's idea, they may have start doing it the other way! Ha ha ha! I am so funny.

  • Governor on October 24, 2013, 8:07 GMT

    I totally agree with Rod Marsh. Young cricketers from the age of 14 through to 30 must devote their energies to the 4 day and 5 day game. The basic technical correct concepts must become 2nd nature to all cricketers so they can succeed at the long forms of the game. Aaron Finch and Glenn Maxwell are one day specialists. Their techniques and mental application skills are not good enough for the 4 to 5 day game.

  • tickcric on October 24, 2013, 7:55 GMT

    T20 is the future. It might be a difficult pill to swallow for some but there is no running away from it now. I think rather than considering T20 a guilty pleasure, cricket administrators should consider it as a format which breeds innovation in all aspects related to the game- be it cricketing skills, rules or broadcasting. T20 is the most lively and vibrant fotmat, you can not throttle it with ideas like the one Marsh is suggesting... What international cricket needs today the most are, context and contest. Dravid recently suggested the importance of having context for each match played. And I think cricket should again become a fair contest between batting and bowling, irrespective of the form of the game. All formats of the game are great, especially I think Test cricket & T20 are two amazing extremes that only cricket can offer.

  • Arun_Prasad on October 24, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    This idea should be considered seriously, for it gives the money for the older players which they deserve after trying for years to perfect their skills. But it should be implemented for the players only in the international arena. The so called T20 specialists who aim for quick money can limit themselves to club cricket, but the international young players should not be left to wander among the three formats and the selection should also be not on the basis of T20 performance.

  • lesley95 on October 24, 2013, 7:39 GMT

    This will leave the door open for a certain SRT to make a comeback.

  • harishk19812007 on October 24, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    what a great idea to kill the game of cricket in other countries except for England.....this article will only amuse those who like test cricket.......cricket will die at the international level with in no time with these sort of ideas......NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY CRICKET WAS PLAYED ONLY BETWEEN 5-6 COUNTRIES TILL THE 1980'S AND CRICKET DIED IN WEST-INDIES SOON AFTER. These kind of single dimensional ideas will ruin and kill any game or community faster than the speed of cars running in autobahns in Germany!!

  • Mr.PotatoesTomatoes on October 24, 2013, 7:11 GMT

    It just doesn't work...for the simple reason that if cricket is going to be financially unattractive,kids will take up other sports. And it does not need reminding that its the shorter formats that are cricket's mint at the moment.Test cricket is sheer joy,and will always be the favorite of many,but let's not assume an air of superiority and look down upon the other formats.They have made cricket richer,which at the end of the day isn't such a dreadful thing and what's more they have brought in more crowds.Despite what test fanatics say,cricket stands a better chance of becoming a global sport with games that are played over shorter periods and offer a whole lot of fun.Over a period of time,its our best bet to promote cricket beyond the cosy club of 'test playing nations' and a few associate countries.

  • on October 24, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    In a post a few minutes ago, I suggested to reserve 20-20 for those who are 70+. My grand-son saw it, before I posted, and tells me condescendingly that for 70+, it should just ONE super over (he used the word "super-annuation" over); or at the most 5-5 matches! I protest against such anti-geriatric comments! :-)

  • on October 24, 2013, 7:03 GMT

    @Rod Marsh: Please suggest it only for those above 70; so that i may also get a chance to play for my country! Thank you Rod, in advance, hoping that you would pursue my request seriously :-)

  • on October 24, 2013, 6:49 GMT

    Consider a few scenarios: 1. an average player who has no real chance of making it to test cricket 2. a promising player gets injured at 29 and has no chance of playing cricket again 3. some cultures expect men to be financially sound by 30 4. a reasonably good player from 22 till 26 suddenly losing touch (it can happen) and being rejected by the country 5. a player who starts playing cricket at 28/29 6. a player who is best suited to T20 only and who is wasting his skills in test cricket

    These imply that T20 should be allowed for any age. Those who are good will definitely play test cricket. Age should not be a factor.

    So if a promising player is identified as a potential test cricketer, then the board should ensure that he gets adequately compensated for the years that is lost out on not playing T20. Say 6 to 7 years of potential T20 income should be given to that player who plays T20 only after 30. Who knows - that player may not be good after 30 to play T20.

  • satishchandar on October 24, 2013, 6:49 GMT

    Rather funny to see people bashing BCCI everywhere.. IPL teams are often not including 19 year kids in their teams and you gotta prove IPL teams by playing well in local domestic tournaments to get into the big league.. Listen people.. IPL is not the ONLY T20 competition running around in the global cricket leage.. If you want to show your hatred towards BCCI and IPL, please continue to pour your frustrations out.. If you want to be sensible, name it as T20 and not IPL alone..

    For people saying India has shorter boundaries, no.. they are not the only team that plays wit short boundaries.. Almost every nation plays limited overs formats in short boundaries and flat tracks only.. Have seen many county matches where the boundaries were 60 m long straight.. Organisers know how to pull the crowd.. 80 all out and chased in 15th over wouldn't do good for a T20 game.. You need to0 have atleast 150 to make a thriller in most games.. 100-120 wouldn't give you thrilling chase often in T20 game

  • Captain_Tuk_Tuk on October 24, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    England don't like 50 overs cricket as they are not good at it and never won a 50 overs ICC event, same goes for Australia who are not good at shorter format but still they are the 50 overs king.

    Its just an opinion from author we all are not bound to agree with him and I disagree. 20 overs, 50 overs and Test matches they all have there own charm, but our country Pakistan badly need 10 overs cricket as most of the time we don't play 20 overs ;)

  • on October 24, 2013, 6:29 GMT

    Why is this seen as radical?? It makes so much sense. Let the young batsmen learn to bat properly before learning to slog and let bowlers learn how to take wickets, before learning to defend runs. The game would be so much better for it. And it will also teach them about the struggle before you make it big. If any player never gets selected to the national side until he's 30 or plays only a couple of matches, he would still be rewarded after 30 with big bucks on offer for a good 10 years. The best example is Brad Hodge. He was selected for Aus a couple of times, but mostly played domestic and excelled there. He would have been rewarded through this method.

  • Plumduff on October 24, 2013, 6:16 GMT

    I don't watch the tests any more, far prefer 20 over game. Ignore 50 overs completely. Why do cricketers drum on and on about tests. BORING.

  • on October 24, 2013, 5:40 GMT

    misbah ul haq will be the million dollar player in ipl in that situation

  • MinusZero on October 24, 2013, 5:38 GMT

    Just get rid of T20 altogether. I wouldnt miss it

  • sharidas on October 24, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    Not a bad idea, if one wants to benefit the players who played for the country only. Looking at domestic cricket in cricket playing countries, there is a huge majority of young fringe players, who do not make it to the country team. Twenty 20 affords them an income, which they would otherwise lose. While it is true that the idea floated was to benefit the standard of the game, the other side of the coins says it differently. A sad truth.

  • satishchandar on October 24, 2013, 5:11 GMT

    True from cricketing perspective.. Really true.. But with the kind of money T20 generates, would be very tempted to play young guns there who can do it with flamboyance rather than class and finesse of experienced pro's.. More than any other thing, it is upto the individual to decide his priorities.. If any youngster decides to be a freelancer concentrating only on t20's and global tournaments, leave him alone.. It is his life rather than the commenting like Holding about Pollard.. After all, it is aPollard's life and it is HE who need to decide what comes best to him and what is best to him..

  • JohnnyRook on October 24, 2013, 5:09 GMT

    @Vidyut Jain...I wonder how much England/Australia spread cricket when they were the major players...As far as global bats/shorter boundaries, better gear goes, you should check top 10 highest chases so far in ODIs. 2 are in subcontinent. Rest are in the countries you are favouring....

  • venkatesh018 on October 24, 2013, 4:56 GMT

    I have made this suggestion on these comments pages earlier too. ICC must take steps to restrict players from appearing in lucrative T20 leagues at least until the age of 23. This will enable/compel the youngsters to get the basics right in four-day first class cricket before they take a tilt at Twenty 20. This is the only way to safeguard the future of the game.

  • cricketisagame on October 24, 2013, 4:20 GMT

    We are not talking about burnout here but the cricket skills of test cricket as someone pointed out here. Its not just swinging the bat like in T20. This comment is coimg from an Indian as we could not produce a world class fast bowler and we worship batsmen and BCCI endorse it by making good batting pitches with short boundaries. If the youngsters get that skill and temperament by playing long format, they can succeed in T20. Inspite the compitition from yougsters (who cant bat for long) the seniors did well in T20 including IPL. Sachin, Dravid, Tambe, Gilly, Kallis, Warnie, Hayden, Hussey(2), Hodge and Hoggy and many more showed us that T20 can be a game for experienced ones too. There are others who are in their 30s likie Watson, Gayle, Dhoni, Shehwag, Mahela, Sanga, Dilshan, KP, Styne, Smith, Gambhir, RTD, A. Mishra, Bravo, Malinga, Yuvraj, M. Johnson, Mccullam and many more who are better t20 players. Rodney did not say T20 for the retired cricketers.

  • AjberPukkaattupady on October 24, 2013, 4:10 GMT

    If international teams will be given the permission to make this choice of setting 30 age barrier, all team except india will be playing with senior players. But BCCI won't follow it i'm sure

  • maddy20 on October 24, 2013, 3:59 GMT

    A ridiculous idea that would be discarded by the international cricket community. If anything, only England would support these guys, but that too is doubtful

  • smartrah on October 24, 2013, 3:57 GMT

    I find the idea outrageous. T20, as of now, is saving the game. Short version, more money, its what the world wants. The game is not made only for the puritans. Even a puritan does not watch half a test match. Having said that, the article is more about the challenge of managing the formats. In this regard, I am of the idea that ODI's have to be done away with as soon as possible (at best 2 more world cups, give a last chance to SA and Eng to win one). Tests and T20's will be the right mixture of skill and sleaze.

  • CrICkeeet on October 24, 2013, 3:34 GMT

    This Idea is better than Tv show Mr. Bean if anybody wants entertainment or i can say, wanna laugh...

  • on October 24, 2013, 3:27 GMT

    Get rid of T20 and the 50 over game and have T30.

  • Barnesy4444 on October 24, 2013, 3:23 GMT

    As a practical idea it's probably unworkable. But, that's not what Marsh is trying to do. He's highlighting the problem facing Australian cricket, a problem that will not go away.

    This comes 1 day after Australia's second best batsman harshly criticised the CEO for placing t20 and profit ahead of developing the game as a whole.

    Punter and Marsh are on the same page, Sutherland has some answering to do.

  • on October 24, 2013, 2:59 GMT

    That's a ridiculous idea. Just get rid of it altogether.

  • inthebag on October 24, 2013, 2:20 GMT

    Great idea but it would require the administrators putting the interest of the game ahead of their own, and that's not going to happen.

  • on October 24, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    A better idea would be to limit T20 to 4 or 5 wickets per side. An important appeal of T20 that always seems to be overlooked is the length - it doesn't take all day so you can fit it around other commitments. If only 4 or 5 wickets were allowed the play would be much more like normal cricket, but it would retain the appeal of a shorter game length.

  • on October 24, 2013, 2:04 GMT

    See the logic, but I don't see how pragmatic it is. For one thing it'll deprive T20 of some incredible young batting talent in the form of Kolhi, et al. How about instead of using age as a qualifier we use number of games played? i.e. if you've played 25 Test Matches then you are eligible for playing T20?

  • SRAM20 on October 24, 2013, 0:46 GMT

    Crazy nonsense of a idea! T20 is a young man's game. And to have 30+ people playing it will make it so boring and stupid. And T20 is not that great a format that you use as the "icing on the cake" for a player.

    Its time people start accepting the death of tests. Its a waste of time. Whats the advantage of testing one's skills? At the end of the day, its all about money, commercial interests, survival, etc.

  • chechong0114 on October 24, 2013, 0:07 GMT

    I think people who support this thinking should be made to pay for all the empty seats that show up at test matches all the time, so all the empty seats at the Pakistan, SA series currently going on and the Bangladesh New Zealand series pay for all those empty seats I bet they will shut up.

  • RobTay14 on October 24, 2013, 0:02 GMT

    In some way I agree with him, Tests should be protected as they are without a doubt the best format of the game, but this idea would never work. Unfortunately T20's are taking over. I don't mind the format, but it should never overshadow Test matches.

  • silly_mid_on on October 23, 2013, 23:42 GMT

    Best idea I've heard all year. T20 over 30.

  • Chris_Howard on October 23, 2013, 23:30 GMT

    I don't think it even needs to be 30. 25 should be enough for a player to have developed sufficiently.

  • Chris_Howard on October 23, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    congrats to Alex being on that panel. Would love to hear what she had to say though. Anyone know if there's a transcript of the night? Or if someone has reported her comments?

  • Ranwick on October 23, 2013, 23:06 GMT

    The idea is laughable in so many ways. Rod Marsh is clearly going senile.

  • HansonKoch on October 23, 2013, 23:04 GMT

    The solution is to get rid of both 20 over and 50 over, and replace it with 30 over. That's a no brainer.

    Tests are more controversial. We need to reduce the number of draws, especially due to rain. One way would be to only schedule 1 or 2 full five day tests within a series, with a spare day pencilled in to make up for lost time.

    The rest of the series would be single innings tests, again, with the necessary number of days allotted to make up for rain.

    The point of the short term is to score runs quickly. The point of the tests is to score as many runs as possible.

    Then we can look back fondly, but move on.

  • on October 23, 2013, 22:48 GMT

    Hahaha. This is classic classifying players for T20 ! LMAOF...why not restrict the Test Matches to 30+ age group instead and there can be merit in that! Once the players become expert on the nuances of the T20s and then ODIs , they will become much wiser and play the Test Matches better.Dont we train the kids to run a mile first then 10 miles and then the marathon, just to build up stamina ? It is more testing to play T20 then to play a Test Match so youngsters are more suited to T20 then to Test matches since they have more stamina. Very few Test players are able to adapt to T20s as we see around the world, may be they can play one or two matches well but not 40 or 50 consistently.

  • Mr_Anonymous on October 23, 2013, 22:06 GMT

    It does not make too much sense to me personally although I will admit that it is an interesting suggestion. I would like to see if being Australian and having this idea whether he is able to convince the Australian cricketers and Board to accept this idea first. If they accept it and we see that this improves their cricket across formats, maybe other boards will look into it. I don't think an administrator can enforce or make a blanket suggestion like this and have it be accepted across the board by all countries because they thought it was the right thing to do.

    Also, I don't understand the big deal about Test Cricket dying. Yes, it is still my favorite format of the game of cricket. However, it has flaws and the length of the game (upto 5 days) is definitely amongst the biggest reason(s) its popularity has declined. Proposing artificial concept(s) to keep this format alive at the expense of other formats is not very productive in my opinion.

  • TylerLennox on October 23, 2013, 22:05 GMT

    ...no, that's stupid. Just find a version where you can showcase your talent, and have fun.

  • Gaswell on October 23, 2013, 21:56 GMT

    Bloody good idea. Could be a workable solution and very good for the game. Which, of course, would mean that the BCCI won`t back it. It would certainly assist greatly with the development of young players in that they could focus on genuine cricket skills as opposed to being stunt men.

  • on October 23, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    I agree with Andre Colling, put all other ideas aside and end the undue bad influence of BCCI on cricket, it is killing the great game and its growth, it is killing the chances of cricket to become a global game, it will just make indians happy but for how long? who will play cricket other than India and few asian sidekicks if this goes on. A lot of indian fans won't like it but thats the reality and itis coming from an indian. Flat pitches, heavy big bats, short boundaries can win matches for India and rise the batting averages of indian batsmen but the greatest joy of cricket is to watch a fast bowler testing the batsman, cricket is a game of men, you gotta hit like a man to cross the boundaries, you don't need boundaries to come to you, you gotta take hits from a bowler, you don't need to make dead pitches to kill the great art of bowling.

  • TheUltimateTruth on October 23, 2013, 21:50 GMT

    What happened to individual responsibility? If T20 is making me a bad test player don't pick me for the test team. Why restrict me from earning a living in any legal way I want? Next you will tell me how to play -- bat and pad must be close together otherwise I will be banned from playing! Players should be free to choose what they want and only actual performance should dictate selection.

  • Tyrion-and-Tywin on October 23, 2013, 21:31 GMT

    "A wise man said to me not that long ago that you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car >1000 cc capacity until you're 30,". "And if you just stop and think about that, I don't think that's a bad solution. Maybe it should be the topping on the cake after your young driving life is over, after you've fought your guts out driving a Toyota Starlet, after you've given all your patience driving uphill in a Maruti Alto, then you get your rewards by driving bigger cars. I'm not saying I agree with it necessarily, but I'm not saying I disagree with it. In fact I'm sitting on the fender."

  • cheesemethod on October 23, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    I see where hes coming from but it wouldn't work in practice. Theres not enough legends of the game over 30 to cover the successful domestic comps around the world let alone t20is

  • on October 23, 2013, 21:03 GMT

    I would suggest that there should be separate teams for test cricket and t20s.. Odi is a mix of both temperament and aggression.. Test cricket yes experience matters in test because you have ample time to analyze situations and strategies according to it.. Which i believe about 39s will do world of goods.. It's rubbish from marsh shouldn't change the structure.. T20s provides a great platform for youngs to give them taste of international cricket

  • ygkd on October 23, 2013, 21:03 GMT

    It's a novel thought, but of course it'd never work. There are two areas where T20 is an advantage - in bringing youngsters to playing the game and watching it. For that reason, T20 for grass-roots juniors is fine. The Big Bash will stay because kids watch it, although it does need rescheduling. The real nettle that needs to be grasped is pulling the excessive reliance on limited-overs out of the cricket in between - in the representative programs where the young talent hones their skill and shows their wares. There T20 and even OD stuff has far too much sway and, I think, skews the programs badly both in batting and bowling. Between the ages of 14 and 22, for those with long-term potential, T20 needs to be put in its place and long-form and specialist skills placed at the fore-front instead. That won't kill T20. However, the way it's going at the moment, I have little doubt that T20 will continue to have a negative effect on the development of our future Test & First Class cricketers.

  • on October 23, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Shut up you lot, Rodney Marsh, a respected Aussie makes a lot of sense in this article. In fact, the T20 format have a huge negative impact on those young players who struggle to adapt to Test cricket. TEST CRICKET IS ALWAYS THE PINNACLE OF ALL CRICKET AND MUST BE PROTECTED AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES.

  • on October 23, 2013, 20:44 GMT

    ideas keep getting dumber. what other pro sport has age criteria? if they are worried about player burnout then stop all the pointless bilateral ODI series

  • on October 23, 2013, 20:37 GMT

    Dumb idea. Go float somewhere else. True solution is limiting the undue influence the BCCI Empire has on the game.

  • francoscot on October 23, 2013, 20:29 GMT

    As an elderly female follower of cricket I watch all 3 formats from Countries all over the world and I think that T20 is exciting. However I agree with those who think T20 is affecting the batting and bowling techniques of anyone who has not already had good coaching.I must confess Test Match Cricket is the only format I go to watch at the venue and was glad I hadn't payed to go to the Ashes this year. It was very obvious that short format techniques are affecting test match players on all sides, except in the fielding.

  • perl57 on October 23, 2013, 20:05 GMT

    No one has time to waste 5 days to watch a test cricket that tests a talent which one wants these days. Hence get rid of tests completely. Then change the ODIs as per Sachin's idea. Split the 100 overs or reduce to 80 overs and split by 4 innings. That evens out a game thoroughly. T20s for the age of 30 and over looks very amateur thinking. Most of them would struggle to get good scores. Problem with cricket is, Asia wants batting tracks and Eng, Oz and NZ want Bowling tracks. All others just play cricket with others. We do not have a tracks that offers good bounce, variable movement, swinging deliveries and good batting all put together in one. sO BETTER LEAVE the game as it is.

  • on October 23, 2013, 20:00 GMT

    wat a stupid n dumb idea.t20 here to stay.why dont we make test cricket for 40 ppl.bcuz its boring and no one wants to watch it.bcuz u old ppl didnt get to play t20.doesnt mean uz can force it on us.

  • on October 23, 2013, 19:48 GMT

    I'd get rid of the 50 overs game..that started the rot

  • BRUTALANALYST on October 23, 2013, 19:36 GMT

    Here's an idea, how about everyone over 30 stops talking about T20 !

  • Masking_Tape on October 23, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Yeah, that's the most dumbest and discriminating thing I've ever heard. Also, 80% of best T20 players are under 30.

  • on October 23, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    Short answer: no. Of course not. More rubbish from Marsh.

  • Chris_P on October 23, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    @Simon Sternberg. Considering only Watson & Haddin (and both arguably lucky to keep their spots) are the only Ashes contenders for the Gabba playing, not really sure what your point is? They sent a team over there who mostly will not be a hope to be selected for the tests.

  • RodStark on October 23, 2013, 19:13 GMT

    I predict that 20 years from now there will be no overlap at all between 20-over and "proper" cricket players. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the ICC split into two separate bodies running two completely separate games.

  • pestonji on October 23, 2013, 19:05 GMT

    Unfortunately, cricket continues to be plagued by absurd thinking. Is there any other sport with age restrictions. NO. if you want to preserve Test cricket make it viable. reduce the numbers of Tests played and have a World Cup every four years. Focus on marketing the Tests to ensure maximum attendance.

  • on October 23, 2013, 18:31 GMT

    Stuff playing 7 ODIs in India as preparation for the upcoming ashes series. The Aussies can't have their cake (???) and eat it....

  • Paul_Murdock on October 23, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    Simply wouldn't be legal, and for good reason. For so many cricketers now T20 has become their financial bread and butter - lesser known cricketers all around the world make much of their money from domestic T20 revenue. It wouldn't be fair to take that away from them for such a large part of their careers.

    Not all players get offered million dollar contracts in the IPL; many first class cricketers never get 100k contracts. Other domestic competitions are economically dwarfed by the population and widespread support for cricket seen in India. Aside from all the other issues, this would cut a lot of the financial benefit out of playing the game; many players, especially those on the fringes of sides, would pursue another sport professionally. Bad for the game

  • common9 on October 23, 2013, 18:28 GMT

    And cricinfo, please tone down the attitude. The section in which I found this article is under the heading 'Future of cricket'. The three sections above it are: 1) Pakistan v SA, 2nd Test, Dubai, 1st day 2) Bangladesh v NZ, 2nd Test, Mirpur, 3rd day 3) India v Australia, 4th ODI, Ranchi If this is about an opinion given in a lecture by a former cricketer in Aus, there are better ways to describe it.

  • common9 on October 23, 2013, 18:19 GMT

    @ jimbond, excellent points. I don't mean to be rude but most of the things mentioned in the article make me wonder if this is supposed to be in Page 2. If some player cannot develop good technique because he plays T20, he should not be playing Tests. Simple. Looks for better players. Don't lower the bar. As to what Chappell said, "I think it will be very hard for most cricketers to play all three formats": precisely why we have only 11 players from a country competing at the highest level. Those who struggle may stay home, like I do. Lets encourage the players to excel themselves, not be mediocre.

  • on October 23, 2013, 17:58 GMT

    I do not agree with any age barrier, what do I believe in is that ICC should calculate match fees base on the format a player can manage to play. Take for example a player plays Test Cricket and ODI, then his/her T20 match fee should probably double. This will encourage young blood to play test and ODi cricket and not just T20.

  • whatawicket on October 23, 2013, 17:57 GMT

    makes sense to me but 30 is just slightly to old maybe 28 could be the correct age, as most of the young aussie batters are looking for 20/20 mode when playing tests

  • VPSrivastava on October 23, 2013, 17:53 GMT

    Make pitches bowlers' friendly, don't play to the gallery of slam bank cricket, then you'll definitely see the result. Only the players with strongest defense and high batting skills and technique will be able to survive rest all bang bang cricketers will disappear. Now you'll be free to choose your T20 eleven from among these quality cricketers.

  • on October 23, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    I have an even better idea : get rid of the T20 game altogether. Its a fast-food alternative of the game that cheapens it, defiles it, makes it into an unsightly slogfest, and is to me simply a disgraceful blight on the game I have followed and loved for 40 years. I hate it and wish I had never been here to see it beginning to tear apart the fabric of the game.

  • PACERONE on October 23, 2013, 17:35 GMT

    Young cricketers need to be taught about the fundamentals of the game.Bat close to pad,getting behind the line of the ball,try to bowl on a good length etc.These player need to learn math.You need six to win from 8 balls and two players get out caught on the boundary trying to hit sixes.learn to hit the ball in the gaps and not hit it as hard as you can straight to a fielder.Most bowled outs are from them edging or chopping onto their stumps.Learning to play straight would help.

  • on October 23, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    The idea is ridiculous...Age barrier to play a game? I dont think in some countries its even legal!! Besides , the advent of 1 day cricket gave great impetus to Test Match Results... Look at the number of games producing results now. The root cause of the issue of Test Cricket is : They Dont Get to Play enough test cricket...No time in the Calender for it. Develop separate teams and have tours of Test Cricket & 20 -20 at the same time. Let the selectors decide whom to send...Irrespective of 20-20 and 1 day schedule, there should be a fixed Test Cricket Schedule well in advance with each nation playing approx. 9-10 test matches per year minimum...

  • Cpt.Meanster on October 23, 2013, 17:20 GMT

    Seriously, this is simply one of the MOST ridiculous articles I have ever read on a cricket site. The BCCI will NEVER allow for this. Cricket or sport in general, no matter the format, should be played by youth or players in their prime. T20 cricket of all needs a brisk mindset, top fitness, top strength, top everything to succeed. Players above 30 simply DO NOT possess these qualities, well a vast majority of them don't. They usually mellow down in their 30s and become support acts more than anything. We saw that with players like Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, and Sachin Tendulkar in the IPL. On the other hand, you have young dynamos like Virat Kohli, Glen Maxwell, James Faulkner, Ajinkya Rahane, Sanju Samson to name a few who bring energy and fearlessness to the game. Rodney Marsh and Mike Brearley must have been in dreamland when they discussed this topic. They need to realize cricket is played differently now compared to say 10-20 years ago.

  • Cpt.Meanster on October 23, 2013, 17:13 GMT

    Who cares what a bunch of old cricketers think ?! The BCCI has the final word in MOST things cricket and they will simply not let this happen. Get realistic Rodney Marsh and Mike Brearley.

  • StarHawk on October 23, 2013, 17:12 GMT

    I don't think its a great idea. T20 is already more popular than any other format. The main reason for its popularity is the amount of athleticism, power and quick action that is on display. People want to watch youngsters dive around and save runs. People want to watch young quickies run in and uproot the stumps. People want to watch the young superstars hit huge sixes. The idea of making it an over-30 tournament will mean most teams will consist of washed up veteran players that no one wants to watch. Also, what are you going to do about the associate nations who don't have many players over 30? If they don't have 11 players over 30 years old in their squad, they shouldn't play?? T20 at the moment is the saving grace for cricket, and trying to tinker with it will only hurt the growth and popularity of cricket. You want youngsters to take up cricket, no matter what format it is. Cricket is cricket. Anyone playing any format of cricket is good. Lets not look at T20 cricket as an enemy.

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:59 GMT

    Best Idea i've heard of in a long long time. The Youngsters should learn toplay the game the Proper way first. Cover drive before Dilscoop and Reverse Sweep.

  • Dushgarg on October 23, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    A very though provocative idea though it seems ridiculous at first instance. T20 is eroding cricketing basics of youngsters mind, who are playing T20 leagues right in their formative years. Not to mention many good test batsman like M Vijay, had to change their game to adopt for IPL. However, older players like Dravid, Warne etc have not only been able to put good show in T20s, but did so after rendering their services for over 15 years. The way they were able to adopt to either format of the game, supports the proposal.

  • mrmonty on October 23, 2013, 16:53 GMT

    @jimbond, completely agree with you mate. This is a total arbitrary number. By this logic, somebody aged 16 debuting at Test level will have to wait 14 years (looking at you, Tendulkar). Why do players become such control freaks by the time they become administrators!

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    How about limiting it to players who have played at least 25 test matches. If the intent is the protect Tests and techniques required for Tests, why not pursue a more logical approach? You loose the aspect of fielding (or learning the finer points of fielding), athleticism, etc. I think 25 Tests (or any another number of Tests that is commonly accepted to all boards) should be a more feasible approach.

  • the_blue_android on October 23, 2013, 16:35 GMT

    Yep. Change the format because our batsmen aren't good enough.

  • WalkingWicket11 on October 23, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    The young players bring in energy in the field and the power-hitting, which makes T20 exciting. This doesn't imply that over-30 players are not capable of doing it. Why not do the opposite? Let players play T20 and F50 till they turn 30, and then represent their country in the more "mature" form of the game?

  • Prasanna_310 on October 23, 2013, 16:25 GMT

    What an idea! But of course, roots of T20 has gone far deeper. It is a source of money for boards not only players. They will never jeopardize their monetary gain by excluding young stars. If one club or state or country legalize the rule, cricketers will simply move away from the club/state/ or even country. And making sure every cricket fraternity agrees to the notion is the idea is far too weak to be considered 'the panacea'.

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:24 GMT

    Pakistani cricketers would simply carry different birth certificates for different formats then.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on October 23, 2013, 16:21 GMT

    i can only laugh this over 30 idea. U cant find that 20 odd youthness in mid 30 odd men.

  • bbnn on October 23, 2013, 16:06 GMT

    Good suggestion ... It will be exciting to watch when youngsters play this format

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:03 GMT

    There is no chance of this happening, as the BCCI makes money on the IPL due to the presence of all the Indian stars....I think Dravid's suggestion of making T20 only a franchise / club-based format is a better one...so that international teams can focus on tests and ODIs, and replace the T20 world cup with a T20 style cricket competition in the Olympics...this will free up a lot of time on the FTP, allow for better scheduling and hopefully spread the sport globally through the Olympics.

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    good idea but i will never happen for the simple reason ratings wont be as high and the t20 format is a big money maker

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:58 GMT

    It is not possible. T20 Cricket will be finished if it happens. Too impractical. Rather it is better to restrict under 21s to play domestic t20 so that they focus on basics.

  • VipinGangwar on October 23, 2013, 15:57 GMT

    May be it is true for Australians. What about players like Kohli and jRoot. And then again what will you say for Yuvraj. Age is not a factor and I think its never been a factor. You will not let these players play t20 cricket because they are not 30. Its all about maturity and understanding one's own game. May be board's need to distinguish which player is made to play t20 and which one to test and who can play all the formats. I think people have forgotten Sehwag, Gambhir, Gilchrist, Gibbs Andrew Symmonds. They all have played in the same mode in every formats. Importantly Domestic cricket is declining

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    what if someone starts there career at 16 years old like afridi or tendulkar do they have to wait 14 years to play T20 ? not a good idea waste of space

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:49 GMT

    Lets leave this as a recommendation by ICC than any sort of restriction. Players who really want to play long enough and depart from the struggle of moving between formats can chose by themselves. I never follow any T20 league and only catch up WC T20 matches. Test cricket is the BEST. However to me any sort of restriction is not Good for the game.

  • Fan1969 on October 23, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    Brilliant idea. Fully support that all IPL etc. must be for above 30 only. I hope BCCI follows through soon. If not 30 make it 27-28 so that techniques are not spoilt for T20.

    In a T20 Dwayne Smith looks better than Tendulkar. Ridiculous. Anyone can win. Yes it is edge of the seat excitement but T20 is not cricket.

    Finally a great idea to save TEST, ODI cricket from this family entertainment called T20.

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:36 GMT

    I don't think it should I mean Twenty20 is often a way for younger players to be integrated into the international side and later test and ODI sides. Also there are a lot of hard hitting under 30 year olds who specialise it T20s and so it would be unfair on them

  • jimbond on October 23, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    What about restricting liquor to those between the ages 20 to 30. How about raising the age of marriage to 25. If someone feels that test cricket needs to be saved by restricting the other forms of the game, they are being naive. Test cricket will only survive if people want to watch and play it- despite ODIs and T 20s.

  • CRIC_FAN94 on October 23, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    Good idea to allow only players above 30 yrs but the people want to watch the youngsters hitting some sixes ,diving on the field and taking spectacular catches and also provide energy to the game

  • xtrafalgarx on October 23, 2013, 15:30 GMT

    T20's shouldn't be international for a start.

  • xtrafalgarx on October 23, 2013, 15:30 GMT

    T20's shouldn't be international for a start.

  • CRIC_FAN94 on October 23, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    Good idea to allow only players above 30 yrs but the people want to watch the youngsters hitting some sixes ,diving on the field and taking spectacular catches and also provide energy to the game

  • jimbond on October 23, 2013, 15:31 GMT

    What about restricting liquor to those between the ages 20 to 30. How about raising the age of marriage to 25. If someone feels that test cricket needs to be saved by restricting the other forms of the game, they are being naive. Test cricket will only survive if people want to watch and play it- despite ODIs and T 20s.

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:36 GMT

    I don't think it should I mean Twenty20 is often a way for younger players to be integrated into the international side and later test and ODI sides. Also there are a lot of hard hitting under 30 year olds who specialise it T20s and so it would be unfair on them

  • Fan1969 on October 23, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    Brilliant idea. Fully support that all IPL etc. must be for above 30 only. I hope BCCI follows through soon. If not 30 make it 27-28 so that techniques are not spoilt for T20.

    In a T20 Dwayne Smith looks better than Tendulkar. Ridiculous. Anyone can win. Yes it is edge of the seat excitement but T20 is not cricket.

    Finally a great idea to save TEST, ODI cricket from this family entertainment called T20.

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:49 GMT

    Lets leave this as a recommendation by ICC than any sort of restriction. Players who really want to play long enough and depart from the struggle of moving between formats can chose by themselves. I never follow any T20 league and only catch up WC T20 matches. Test cricket is the BEST. However to me any sort of restriction is not Good for the game.

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    what if someone starts there career at 16 years old like afridi or tendulkar do they have to wait 14 years to play T20 ? not a good idea waste of space

  • VipinGangwar on October 23, 2013, 15:57 GMT

    May be it is true for Australians. What about players like Kohli and jRoot. And then again what will you say for Yuvraj. Age is not a factor and I think its never been a factor. You will not let these players play t20 cricket because they are not 30. Its all about maturity and understanding one's own game. May be board's need to distinguish which player is made to play t20 and which one to test and who can play all the formats. I think people have forgotten Sehwag, Gambhir, Gilchrist, Gibbs Andrew Symmonds. They all have played in the same mode in every formats. Importantly Domestic cricket is declining

  • on October 23, 2013, 15:58 GMT

    It is not possible. T20 Cricket will be finished if it happens. Too impractical. Rather it is better to restrict under 21s to play domestic t20 so that they focus on basics.

  • on October 23, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    good idea but i will never happen for the simple reason ratings wont be as high and the t20 format is a big money maker