May 14, 2014

Dear cricket snobs...

It doesn't matter if T20 is "real cricket" or not. What matters it that it pays the bills
16

A committee comprising former players and experts has been appointed to decide if this is
A committee comprising former players and experts has been appointed to decide if this is "real cricket" © AFP

When cricketers write down their thoughts, we should all pay attention. Obviously this doesn't include their Twitter dribblings. Perhaps somewhere out there among the bat-waving, ball-flinging fraternity there lurks a potential Twitter Shakespeare, a part-time legspinner, pinch-hitter or reserve wicketkeeper, who may one day open our eyes to the glorious and profound possibilities inherent in the 140-character form.

Thus far, alas, such a hero has yet to emerge and the collective literary efforts of the planet's cricketers seem to be an experiment set up to test the infinite-monkey theorem.

So I should qualify that opening statement. When former world-class cricketers possessing the wisdom derived from spending half a lifetime learning how to do something, and who have, along the way, picked up the ability to string a couple of sentences together, write down their thoughts, we should all pay attention.

Naturally I read Martin Crowe's ESPNcricinfo piece about T20 cricket with interest. When I was young, Crowe was a colossus, an immovable piece of furniture in the living room of my cricket imagination. Other New Zealand names came and went, but Crowe, M, along with Hadlee, R arrived on my scorecard without my even having realised I'd written down their names. When a man like Martin Crowe opines, we take note:

"T20 is a game initially derived from real cricket... "

"It's not really cricket and it never will be."

I was inclined to take Martin Crowe's word for it, but still, this "real cricket" business had me puzzled. What is real cricket, exactly? Is it timeless cricket? Five-day cricket? Four-day cricket? Three-day cricket? Fifty-five overs? Forty overs? Single-wicket? Was the three-day County Championship less "real" than the four-day County Championship? When thousands turned up to watch a one-day game between Kent and All-England at the Artillery Ground in 1744, were they watching real cricket?

Over the last 300 years, everything about our game has changed: rules, equipment, format, length, hairstyles, but the one thing that hasn't changed is the contest between a person with a bat and a person with a ball. That is cricket. The rest is mere detail.

Martin Crowe isn't the first to trot out this line about real cricket. I know many people who agree. Some of them are apparently rational, pleasant citizens, able to wander at large in the community, manage their own affairs, vote in elections and so on, without causing a danger to themselves or others. Yet on the subject of cricket they remain adamant. They know what they like and they know proper cricket when they see it.

But if T20 is not real cricket, what exactly is it? And why do so many people want to watch it, if it isn't "real"? Martin Crowe has the answer:

"T20 is the place to try new stuff, with entertainment in mind."

Ah, that dirty word: "entertainment". Entertainment is what the poor plebs who buy their tickets to IPL games are after, the fools. They part with their hard-earned money in exchange for the temporary fix of entertainment. Connoisseurs of real cricket wouldn't fall for anything so tawdry. Real cricket fans know that "real cricket" is about handing over large sums of money with no promise of any entertainment whatsoever.

The problem for the real cricket enthusiasts is that entertainment is more than just the gaudy icing on the cricket cupcake. Entertainment now pays the bills. Why do thousands of people worldwide attend cricket matches? For the good of their souls? Because they can't get a good nap at home? I suggest they come in the hope of entertainment.

No entertainment means no crowd. No crowd means no sponsors, no television coverage, and no money. No money means no more big, fat central contracts. How many current and former cricketers would be prepared to play for free, in front of near-deserted stands, in matches ignored by the media, in order to preserve and support real cricket?

In many Test-playing nations, real cricket is not financially viable. So instead of being sniffy about the IPL, perhaps cricket snobs should be asking how they can make real cricket more entertaining, and sooner rather than later, lest real cricket go the way of Real Tennis.

Andrew Hughes is a writer currently based in England. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • KerneelsMerkII on May 14, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    (cont)

    For cricket, Real Cricket as described in your piece, one requires a balanced contest between bat and ball. In my humble little opinion I do not believe that T20 always get this balance right. If guys like Mitch and Dale turn into nothing but cannon fodder for provincial players you have to wonder. Is Real Cricket producing a pitch where 180 is difficult to defend? Or is Real Cricket a match in which 140 is a tricky chase? Does a pitch which takes some seam or turn make a T20 game less or more entertaining? I know which I prefer. If the contest between bat and ball is even the format doesn't matter. That is real cricket.

  • KerneelsMerkII on May 14, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    Hi Andrew, love your work and as usual I agree with your view - albeit with caveats. I do not consider myself a cricket snob and I love every form of the game, yes, even the boring overs in the middle of an ODI. I watch provincial/county first class games; love the IPL, BBL and RamSlam T20. Hell, I even watch schoolboy cricket (and dare I say it, women's cricket!) if it is on TV. Despite all of this, I still prefer Test cricket and I can never really put my finger on why.

    I have a theory (which I am not certain is anything more than mad ramblings by a cricket tragic) but here goes: I agree with you and have often myself stated that cricket is, in essence, nothing more than a guy with a ball and a guy with a bat. The rest is garnish to the main meal (the 'rest' including everything from format to dancing girls to dogs in the stands).

    (cont)

  • Speng on May 16, 2014, 20:05 GMT

    Real cricket is County Cricket where there are more in the two teams and their entourages than in the stands. Real cricket has no actual fans - go to England and ask 10 random people if they follow cricket... In the West Indies Real Cricket can't get on the radio much less TV, most people couldn't tell you where the nearest Real Cricket ground is but they know which WI players play on which IPL franchise. Real Cricket players don't make enough to be professionals but funny enough those guys playing that thing that's not real cricket fill up our test teams...

    If they stopped playing Real Cricket tomorrow who'd know? i guess nobody since Real Cricket obviously isn't about entertainment.

    How many of us have ever played this Real Cricket? I never touched a real cricket ball until I was eleven never played on a pitch. We played ketchy-shubby with boards and tennis balls, tennis court cricket, table tennis ball cricket in parking lots... but I guess it wasn't real.

  • KapilsDevils1983 on May 15, 2014, 15:46 GMT

    Balanced pitches make for a good contest between bat and ball - not the format. Also each to his own, if people are entertained by watching paint dry, then let them watch test cricket - why should I stop their fun. On the other hand, the self righteous who believe test cricket is superior - it's not! Lots of test cricketers are rubbish at t20 - Clarke, Rogers, Smith, Dravid, Laxman - unsurprisingly, and lots of t20 cricketers are no good at tests as they require different skill sets! Some players like Devilliers, Warne, KP and Kohli have the game across all formats! The most superior cricket is BALANCED cricket.

  • ramli on May 15, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    @Inswinging toecrusher ... you got your name right boss ... nice take on pseudo Aussies ...

  • on May 15, 2014, 6:19 GMT

    It's ridiculous to think that all t20 matches are played on flat pitches and have scores over 180. How many times have we seen a t20 side defending 140-150 score?Citing an example SunRisers defended many matches in which they only scored under 150.We regularly see KKR spinners choking the opposite batsmen. That t20 is full of sixes and 200 plus scores is a stereotype. Even in the last World T20 the "flat" pitches in Bangladesh threw in many 150-160 scores.

  • on May 15, 2014, 2:57 GMT

    Real tennis is far better than lawn tennis. Case closed.

  • on May 15, 2014, 0:44 GMT

    I grew up in Australia during the early 1980s and it's unfashionable to mention this nowadays but we stank. The highpoint of my childhood ambitions was Tony Mann and Andrew Hilditch batting three days to lend the scorecard at least a veneer of respectability against the West Indies second XI. And that's one aspect of cricket that I prize, clinging on with grim determination when the only hope is survival not victory.

    T20 and ODIs don't have that. Win, Lose, they're you're only options, the hard-fought draw is not an option. And while some people don't treasure it or miss it, I do. In that sense T20 does lack some of the context and nuance that can create some really striking drama (admittedly only occasionally delivering but that's another matter). If that's the sort of drama you like then T20 is in some sense inferior, though there are many other ways in which it is superior. If you view cricket as purely a test of technical skills then what's not to like?

  • InswingingToeCrusher on May 14, 2014, 18:43 GMT

    @Biggus - All your big guns play IPL. And then they play BBL. Why do you guys play so much 20 - 20 if you love your test cricket more than any one else in the world. And how do you assume India has only 1 opinion? That would be profiling. Not too good an idea in modern times. Also, can you tell by what statistics, you say test cricket is dying in india. Last I checked we even went to India Australia matches where your team performed so poorly. If we can go and watch such a substandard team, what does it say about our love for tests.

  • DustyBin on May 14, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    T20 is probably what the 1960s marketeers in England should have created when 1st class cricket was (or at least its attendances were), waning. My personal prejudice is that we've spent an unwelcome 50 years (40, in international cricket) embracing the 1 day format. I like the short explosive form of 20/20. I love slow developing, hard fought test Matches. yet 50 overs per side still requires me as a punter to give up a whole day without that being part of a greater. more gripping narrative. It's not as dramatic as 20/20 nor requiring the players' massive concentration of the long form. So if I were world cricket's dictator I'd kill 1 day cricket tomorrow & embrace the other 2 forms-1 to make money & excite, & the other to enthrall & provide real "tests"

  • KerneelsMerkII on May 14, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    (cont)

    For cricket, Real Cricket as described in your piece, one requires a balanced contest between bat and ball. In my humble little opinion I do not believe that T20 always get this balance right. If guys like Mitch and Dale turn into nothing but cannon fodder for provincial players you have to wonder. Is Real Cricket producing a pitch where 180 is difficult to defend? Or is Real Cricket a match in which 140 is a tricky chase? Does a pitch which takes some seam or turn make a T20 game less or more entertaining? I know which I prefer. If the contest between bat and ball is even the format doesn't matter. That is real cricket.

  • KerneelsMerkII on May 14, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    Hi Andrew, love your work and as usual I agree with your view - albeit with caveats. I do not consider myself a cricket snob and I love every form of the game, yes, even the boring overs in the middle of an ODI. I watch provincial/county first class games; love the IPL, BBL and RamSlam T20. Hell, I even watch schoolboy cricket (and dare I say it, women's cricket!) if it is on TV. Despite all of this, I still prefer Test cricket and I can never really put my finger on why.

    I have a theory (which I am not certain is anything more than mad ramblings by a cricket tragic) but here goes: I agree with you and have often myself stated that cricket is, in essence, nothing more than a guy with a ball and a guy with a bat. The rest is garnish to the main meal (the 'rest' including everything from format to dancing girls to dogs in the stands).

    (cont)

  • Speng on May 16, 2014, 20:05 GMT

    Real cricket is County Cricket where there are more in the two teams and their entourages than in the stands. Real cricket has no actual fans - go to England and ask 10 random people if they follow cricket... In the West Indies Real Cricket can't get on the radio much less TV, most people couldn't tell you where the nearest Real Cricket ground is but they know which WI players play on which IPL franchise. Real Cricket players don't make enough to be professionals but funny enough those guys playing that thing that's not real cricket fill up our test teams...

    If they stopped playing Real Cricket tomorrow who'd know? i guess nobody since Real Cricket obviously isn't about entertainment.

    How many of us have ever played this Real Cricket? I never touched a real cricket ball until I was eleven never played on a pitch. We played ketchy-shubby with boards and tennis balls, tennis court cricket, table tennis ball cricket in parking lots... but I guess it wasn't real.

  • KapilsDevils1983 on May 15, 2014, 15:46 GMT

    Balanced pitches make for a good contest between bat and ball - not the format. Also each to his own, if people are entertained by watching paint dry, then let them watch test cricket - why should I stop their fun. On the other hand, the self righteous who believe test cricket is superior - it's not! Lots of test cricketers are rubbish at t20 - Clarke, Rogers, Smith, Dravid, Laxman - unsurprisingly, and lots of t20 cricketers are no good at tests as they require different skill sets! Some players like Devilliers, Warne, KP and Kohli have the game across all formats! The most superior cricket is BALANCED cricket.

  • ramli on May 15, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    @Inswinging toecrusher ... you got your name right boss ... nice take on pseudo Aussies ...

  • on May 15, 2014, 6:19 GMT

    It's ridiculous to think that all t20 matches are played on flat pitches and have scores over 180. How many times have we seen a t20 side defending 140-150 score?Citing an example SunRisers defended many matches in which they only scored under 150.We regularly see KKR spinners choking the opposite batsmen. That t20 is full of sixes and 200 plus scores is a stereotype. Even in the last World T20 the "flat" pitches in Bangladesh threw in many 150-160 scores.

  • on May 15, 2014, 2:57 GMT

    Real tennis is far better than lawn tennis. Case closed.

  • on May 15, 2014, 0:44 GMT

    I grew up in Australia during the early 1980s and it's unfashionable to mention this nowadays but we stank. The highpoint of my childhood ambitions was Tony Mann and Andrew Hilditch batting three days to lend the scorecard at least a veneer of respectability against the West Indies second XI. And that's one aspect of cricket that I prize, clinging on with grim determination when the only hope is survival not victory.

    T20 and ODIs don't have that. Win, Lose, they're you're only options, the hard-fought draw is not an option. And while some people don't treasure it or miss it, I do. In that sense T20 does lack some of the context and nuance that can create some really striking drama (admittedly only occasionally delivering but that's another matter). If that's the sort of drama you like then T20 is in some sense inferior, though there are many other ways in which it is superior. If you view cricket as purely a test of technical skills then what's not to like?

  • InswingingToeCrusher on May 14, 2014, 18:43 GMT

    @Biggus - All your big guns play IPL. And then they play BBL. Why do you guys play so much 20 - 20 if you love your test cricket more than any one else in the world. And how do you assume India has only 1 opinion? That would be profiling. Not too good an idea in modern times. Also, can you tell by what statistics, you say test cricket is dying in india. Last I checked we even went to India Australia matches where your team performed so poorly. If we can go and watch such a substandard team, what does it say about our love for tests.

  • DustyBin on May 14, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    T20 is probably what the 1960s marketeers in England should have created when 1st class cricket was (or at least its attendances were), waning. My personal prejudice is that we've spent an unwelcome 50 years (40, in international cricket) embracing the 1 day format. I like the short explosive form of 20/20. I love slow developing, hard fought test Matches. yet 50 overs per side still requires me as a punter to give up a whole day without that being part of a greater. more gripping narrative. It's not as dramatic as 20/20 nor requiring the players' massive concentration of the long form. So if I were world cricket's dictator I'd kill 1 day cricket tomorrow & embrace the other 2 forms-1 to make money & excite, & the other to enthrall & provide real "tests"

  • flickspin on May 14, 2014, 11:01 GMT

    alot of ex cricketers complain about the modern game

    the bats are too big

    the pitches are flat

    thiers too many 4's & 6's

    the boundaries are too short

    players have too much protection

    modern players wear helmets

    batsmen play off the front foot because of helmets

    batsmen pull off the front foot because of helmets

    modern players have no defence

    modern fast bowlers are not of the quality as they used to be

    there are no normal swing or reverse swing bowlers

    the standard of test cricket is weak

    there are not any express bowlers like the past

    bangladesh, zimbabwe, west indies and new zealand should not play test

    i love modern cricket, i love the run rate, i love the 4's & 6's

    before the gilchrist hayden era you were lucky to see one 6 per game

    whilst i like test cricket the most

    i enjoy 20/20 cricket especially when a player scores 50-60 runs off 25-30 balls with a strike rate of 200 its great entertainment

    test match hundreds have become alot faster in the past 15 years

  • Praxis on May 14, 2014, 8:50 GMT

    @DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement, that happens everywhere, Formula 1 fans always take a dig at NASCAR fans & I think that's justified :) Don't fret over it. Intelligence doesn't have much to do with following sports, at least in this era.

  • Biggus on May 14, 2014, 7:24 GMT

    @DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement:- Yep, just like people who listen to Thelonius Monk and John Coltrane are inclined to think themselves smarter than Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber fans (why wouldn't they?) And how unfair are those who would rate Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' higher than those four frame cartoons in the daily paper? Sorry but there's still a market for Novels, Jazz, Classical music and all manner of unfashionable things that young folk deem to have no place in today's society, whatever that is. Test cricket may be dying in India and that's India's choice but it's alive and kicking here in Australia and that's OUR choice. We played test cricket well before India joined that club and we'll continue to play it if and when they leave. We're terribly sorry you've become bored with test cricket but if you want to jump ship that's up to you.

  • rakaiaroyal on May 14, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    @DRS. Geez, if you're the representation of intelligence then I think you've just proved a very good point

  • AjitRaje on May 14, 2014, 6:12 GMT

    You're on the dot Andrew. Sport is about entertainment and entertainment will evolve over time. It's like reading a Tolstoy novel where nothing happens in the first 387 pages as against a Sidney Sheldon which has crime, sex, adventure all in the first 20 pages; and 9 out of 10 people will pick up a Sheldon. So what's wrong about a format which compensates the players handsomely, satisfies the paying public, employs large teams of former players as commentators, experts, coaches? In any case, I would only glance at the 'TEST DRAWN' headline in the morning paper, but will not mind staying up till midnight watching Maxwell score 90 off 35.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on May 14, 2014, 5:54 GMT

    this is the perfect time to let the test cricket. With few tens of spectators and pair of dogs in stadium test cricket doesnot place in current century. What actually more annoying is test fans think they are more intelligent than other form of cricket fans.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on May 14, 2014, 5:54 GMT

    this is the perfect time to let the test cricket. With few tens of spectators and pair of dogs in stadium test cricket doesnot place in current century. What actually more annoying is test fans think they are more intelligent than other form of cricket fans.

  • AjitRaje on May 14, 2014, 6:12 GMT

    You're on the dot Andrew. Sport is about entertainment and entertainment will evolve over time. It's like reading a Tolstoy novel where nothing happens in the first 387 pages as against a Sidney Sheldon which has crime, sex, adventure all in the first 20 pages; and 9 out of 10 people will pick up a Sheldon. So what's wrong about a format which compensates the players handsomely, satisfies the paying public, employs large teams of former players as commentators, experts, coaches? In any case, I would only glance at the 'TEST DRAWN' headline in the morning paper, but will not mind staying up till midnight watching Maxwell score 90 off 35.

  • rakaiaroyal on May 14, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    @DRS. Geez, if you're the representation of intelligence then I think you've just proved a very good point

  • Biggus on May 14, 2014, 7:24 GMT

    @DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement:- Yep, just like people who listen to Thelonius Monk and John Coltrane are inclined to think themselves smarter than Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber fans (why wouldn't they?) And how unfair are those who would rate Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' higher than those four frame cartoons in the daily paper? Sorry but there's still a market for Novels, Jazz, Classical music and all manner of unfashionable things that young folk deem to have no place in today's society, whatever that is. Test cricket may be dying in India and that's India's choice but it's alive and kicking here in Australia and that's OUR choice. We played test cricket well before India joined that club and we'll continue to play it if and when they leave. We're terribly sorry you've become bored with test cricket but if you want to jump ship that's up to you.

  • Praxis on May 14, 2014, 8:50 GMT

    @DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement, that happens everywhere, Formula 1 fans always take a dig at NASCAR fans & I think that's justified :) Don't fret over it. Intelligence doesn't have much to do with following sports, at least in this era.

  • flickspin on May 14, 2014, 11:01 GMT

    alot of ex cricketers complain about the modern game

    the bats are too big

    the pitches are flat

    thiers too many 4's & 6's

    the boundaries are too short

    players have too much protection

    modern players wear helmets

    batsmen play off the front foot because of helmets

    batsmen pull off the front foot because of helmets

    modern players have no defence

    modern fast bowlers are not of the quality as they used to be

    there are no normal swing or reverse swing bowlers

    the standard of test cricket is weak

    there are not any express bowlers like the past

    bangladesh, zimbabwe, west indies and new zealand should not play test

    i love modern cricket, i love the run rate, i love the 4's & 6's

    before the gilchrist hayden era you were lucky to see one 6 per game

    whilst i like test cricket the most

    i enjoy 20/20 cricket especially when a player scores 50-60 runs off 25-30 balls with a strike rate of 200 its great entertainment

    test match hundreds have become alot faster in the past 15 years

  • DustyBin on May 14, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    T20 is probably what the 1960s marketeers in England should have created when 1st class cricket was (or at least its attendances were), waning. My personal prejudice is that we've spent an unwelcome 50 years (40, in international cricket) embracing the 1 day format. I like the short explosive form of 20/20. I love slow developing, hard fought test Matches. yet 50 overs per side still requires me as a punter to give up a whole day without that being part of a greater. more gripping narrative. It's not as dramatic as 20/20 nor requiring the players' massive concentration of the long form. So if I were world cricket's dictator I'd kill 1 day cricket tomorrow & embrace the other 2 forms-1 to make money & excite, & the other to enthrall & provide real "tests"

  • InswingingToeCrusher on May 14, 2014, 18:43 GMT

    @Biggus - All your big guns play IPL. And then they play BBL. Why do you guys play so much 20 - 20 if you love your test cricket more than any one else in the world. And how do you assume India has only 1 opinion? That would be profiling. Not too good an idea in modern times. Also, can you tell by what statistics, you say test cricket is dying in india. Last I checked we even went to India Australia matches where your team performed so poorly. If we can go and watch such a substandard team, what does it say about our love for tests.

  • on May 15, 2014, 0:44 GMT

    I grew up in Australia during the early 1980s and it's unfashionable to mention this nowadays but we stank. The highpoint of my childhood ambitions was Tony Mann and Andrew Hilditch batting three days to lend the scorecard at least a veneer of respectability against the West Indies second XI. And that's one aspect of cricket that I prize, clinging on with grim determination when the only hope is survival not victory.

    T20 and ODIs don't have that. Win, Lose, they're you're only options, the hard-fought draw is not an option. And while some people don't treasure it or miss it, I do. In that sense T20 does lack some of the context and nuance that can create some really striking drama (admittedly only occasionally delivering but that's another matter). If that's the sort of drama you like then T20 is in some sense inferior, though there are many other ways in which it is superior. If you view cricket as purely a test of technical skills then what's not to like?

  • on May 15, 2014, 2:57 GMT

    Real tennis is far better than lawn tennis. Case closed.