September 25, 2007

Toast the success, beware of excess

The first world Twenty20 was an unqualified success but there is a danger of it being milked too much by too many

The ticket prices were more than reasonable and the spectators got their value © AFP

At the last press conference of the ICC World Twenty20, Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, was asked if the lessons from the last World Cup, a gigantic failure, had been handy in organising this event. Speed sidestepped the question and launched a long spiel on the success of this tournament. You would grant him that. This was a tournament that did ICC, and cricket, credit. And yes, the organisers had learnt from their mistakes, and they must be applauded for it.

The ticket prices were more than reasonable and the spectators got their value, the security - a necessary aspect of major sports event - was not overbearing, the atmosphere was relaxed and the duration was just right, even though three matches a day sometimes tested us journalists. To top it all, the cricket was of high quality. The second semi-final and the final were perhaps the best we have seen in a tournament of this dimension. Perhaps it helped that Australia didn't dominate because it broke the monotony and a final between India and Pakistan provided that best possible drama.

Twenty20 is here to stay. Possibly it is even the future. Its capacity to draw new audiences is undeniable. The semi-finals and final were sold out long before the home team crashed out but the locals didn't stay away. That's because Twenty20 is seen as entertainment, a good way to spend three hours outdoors with a few friends and a drink, as much as it is seen as sport. It's a mild source of worry to you as a cricket lover but, on balance, it can't be but healthy. It would be naïve and stubborn to ignore the feel-good vibes the tournament created for the game in a country where cricket is not the sport of the majority, and where Test cricket suffers from audience indifference. It's perhaps pertinent to ask if the Twenty20 viewers can be migrated to the higher form of the game, but that's not the only question, not even the central one.

However, while cricket must celebrate the success of its third-generation tournament, it should be accompanied by a statutory warning. Inevitably, there will be a temptation to cash in and there is a danger of Twenty20 overplaying itself

I began the tournament with a mild sense of cynicism, which, I will now confess, was due partly to my reservations about Twenty20 as a form of cricket and partly to my personal experience of the last World Cup, which left me drained and dispirited. There was nothing to take from it barring Australia's overwhelming excellence and the occasional spark the Sri Lankans provided. Two good matches in a 47-day tournament, already turned sterile by overbearing officiousness, was going to test even the devout.

Of course it helped that the tournament didn't turn out be the graveyard for bowlers as had been anticipated. The first match felt ominous. Chris Gayle scored a sensational hundred, yet his team lost. But it turned out to be the only hundred of the tournament and there were only five scores of 200 and more, one of which was against Kenya. Bowlers had a far greater say than was feared, and that made the games absorbing.

India won the tournament because of their bowling and fielding. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who impressed everyone with his leadership on and off the field, said his bowlers and fielders made their score of 157 feel like 170. Just as well because India won three matches defending what would be considered sub-par scores in Twenty20. It wasn't that their bowlers were gifted wickets; RP Singh earned top-order wickets with swing and pace, Sreesanth bowled some scorching yorkers, Harbhajan Singh was canny and Irfan Pathan, who was last seen being carted around by all and sundry, varied his pace with a great degree of skill.

It helped that the tournament didn't turn out be the graveyard for bowlers as had been anticipated © AFP

Fittingly, Irfan was named Man of Match in the final for his bowling. If it hadn't been him, it would have been Umar Gul. Shahid Afridi, too, won the corresponding tournament award for his bowling. Daniel Vettori was the tournament's most economical bowler and third-highest wicket taker.

However, while cricket must celebrate the success of its third-generation tournament, it should be accompanied by a statutory warning. Inevitably, there will be a temptation to cash in and there is a danger of Twenty20 overplaying itself. Already, the world is abuzz with new initiatives. The Indian Cricket League might be stillborn but the International Premier League, mooted by the Indian cricket board and supported by the most powerful cricket bodies in the world, including the ICC, promises to be serious business and the Stanford 20/20 has been now granted legitimacy by the West Indian Cricket Board, bringing it to the mainstream. Allen Stanford has already announced a US$ 5million winners-take-all match between the Twenty20 champions and a Stanford XI. Speed says the ICC might dump one edition of the Champions Trophy to accommodate another World Twenty20 tournament between 2009 and 2011.

The challenge for the cricket world is to retain a sense of proportion. The basic principles don't change in light of the success of this tournament: Twenty20 is perhaps cricket's most entertaining format - the word 'sportainment' was used liberally during the tournament - but Test cricket remains the game's most supreme form. It provides the stage and scope for the game's highest skills and the 50-over game remains the game's financial driver (it's that simple, a game lasting 100 overs with four drinks breaks provides far more opportunity for television advertising). While the administrators seek to find space for the new baby in the already packed fixtures calendar, they must ensure that it is not at the cost of the five-day game, because the marginalisation of Test cricket would be tantamount to destroying the soul of the sport.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • panduk on September 28, 2007, 12:11 GMT

    i hear so many commentators specially indians boast about success of T20 ranging from financial success to yuvaraj 6 6s.but truth is it's just mere words of complacency to cover icc s weaknesses @ last 50 over world cup n indian shame which was hardly acceptable to them.any way t20s more fulfilling to people living hectic lives in fast paced world , who expect nothing more than a short bliss from fast food outlet ,even applcable to cricket. anyway if we use simple maths we 'll know what went wrong last world cup,it was scheduled @wi just a handful of islands n one island's people not amount to fill a ground,n it's the part of world who r alien to cricket(americas), lost more than7/8 of crowd from sub continent who amass 1/6 + of world population all big companies sponsorships turned out to be capitlist nightmare,so much indian boast put into test,lucky 4 both icc n indian commentators t20 reversed the shame.

  • Tinashe on September 27, 2007, 18:55 GMT

    Twenty20 should not be played at a national level as it does not truly show the essence of cricket in itself which is derived from the longer format of the game. It will become a threat as it will obviously become the most watched and supported format whilst not showing forth what cricket should be all about. On the contrary it is excitng to watch and it should maybe just be played on a first class level.

  • Robby on September 26, 2007, 14:34 GMT

    I sincerely hope that the game's administrators pause before climbing on the bandwagon/gravy train provided by Twenty20....I am sure that I am not alone in having enjoyed the spectacle and the great matches, but surely we do not need more 'best of 7' series in Twenty20 format to rival ODI's? There is just SO much cricket being produced that it was the uniqueness of the format and the event that contributed significantly to my own enjoyment of it. Once every 4 years? Spot on. And more 'strength vs strength' in the 50 over World Cup please - then we may see more matches of a similar quality as well.

  • Nigel on September 26, 2007, 10:44 GMT

    I'm all for T20 cricket, and I desperately hope that there is more of it on the calendar every year. Why increase the number of Tests (Australia will be playing 20 in the next calendar year) if there is a strong chance of rain-ruined games, shifting pitch conditions that favour the toss, and generally indifferent crowds by the end of the third session of the fourth day's play??? Cricket has come into the 21st Century with T20, and there is now a lot more excitement on and off the field, incidentally without any sledging. The greatest bore in the game was removed as well - an Australian team that bestrode the world like a Colossus was beaten three times!!!

  • Sajish on September 26, 2007, 9:05 GMT

    Yes T20 is good for spectators..I am afraid if 100 overs a day game will survive or not?? However, Test Cricket is the real cricket..Neither ODI nor T20 can challenge its stability..For quick money...T20 will be good for Advertisers and Big companies..India are now the first champions of this version of game...Then it has already become bigger in the sub continent...A Patch up between BCCI and ICL would have been good to cricket so that we can see good matches all around...Last but not least ...TEST CRICKET IS ALWAYS THE BEST..

  • Samin on September 26, 2007, 8:51 GMT


    I reckn dat about 12 games a season in the international cricket calendar would be good coz it would get people longing for more and more.

  • yeshu on September 26, 2007, 6:06 GMT

    Hi, I feel T20 should be encouraged. Life is too busy and a true cricket fan struggles to find time to watch one day matches, nevertheless they encounter on week ends. When situation is like this who can get interest in test matches? I agree that Test cricket is the pure form of cricket but it should be played occasionally. We have seen the response to T20 inaugural tournament. It was an excellent thriller and and entertainer.

  • Ahmed on September 26, 2007, 5:49 GMT

    in reply to srivatsan, who cares if zimbabwe beat australia 10-20 times a year. its not our fault the aussie cant turn up on the day. 20/20 is good for the game, its quicker and more exciting and quite frankly, its the platform that smaller teams can build on.

  • SAI on September 26, 2007, 2:18 GMT

    All said and done! Lets talk some sense!

    Who wants to watch test cricket in this ever-getting-busy lifestyle? Who will sponsor the test cricket when the die hard fans of cricket are dying hard with break neck speeds of their lives? who will play test cricket when there are no sponsorships?

    Consumer is the king! everything else is just good for talking and this case writing and reading!

    This view is solely based on me as a cricket fan and as well as marketing manager.

  • Srivatsan on September 26, 2007, 2:10 GMT

    There should be a limit on the 20-20 matches played, say might be 1/4 of the total ODIs and not more. Test is still the purest form of cricket and should be encouraged.

    It'd nice to see Australia beaten a few times an year and some one other than them winning a tournament, but if this carries on like Zimbabwe beating them 10-20 times a year it is farcical.

  • No featured comments at the moment.