Martin Crowe
Martin Crowe Martin CroweRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former New Zealand batsman and captain

How T20 is hurting Australia

The pressure of needing to populate three international teams with players from only six first-class ones is beginning to tell on them

Martin Crowe

July 4, 2013

Comments: 117 | Text size: A | A

Xavier Doherty and George Bailey discuss their plans, Australia v West Indies, 2nd semi-final, World Twenty20 2012, Colombo, October 5, 2012
What if Australia gave up Twenty20s internationally? © ICC/Getty
Related Links

In the saturated landscape of multiple cricket formats and intense scheduling Australia have fallen the most. As arguably the most successful cricket nation of all time, going back 136 years, the country has taken a hit that it will probably never recover from.

When two formats, Tests and ODIs, were the focus, from the Packer days on, Australia had the ideal nursery to ensure they were preparing for global domination, and to be ready for it when the opportunity arose. When the mighty West Indies ran out of gas in the mid '90s, after more than a decade and a half of complete rule, Australia pounced and took the crown. And they did not let it go for another decade and a half, until a greedy little sod turned up.

That little sod was Twenty20. When T20 became an addiction the world over, Australia had no choice but to run with the hounds. Consequently the need for three teams to represent themselves successfully in each of the international formats has left Australia short on supply and confidence.

Their previous strength, the Sheffield Shield, and its high-quality six-team first-class competition has in truth now become its weakness. Six teams from which to choose three different teams doesn't wash anymore. New Zealand are in the same predicament.

England, on the other hand, have 18 teams to choose three international teams from, and they do it fairly well. They are ranked respectably in all three formats: second in Tests, second in ODIs, and fifth in T20. Australia are fourth in Tests, third in ODIs, and seventh in T20. It might not seem much grounds for comparison but when you look at the last two Ashes, each team's last tour of India, and the recent Champions Trophy result and Australia's off- field disintegration during it, England are way out in front and looking strong for the future.

India and South Africa also have large pools of domestic sides and competitions to choose their three teams from. They are strutting along nicely, with India third in Tests, first in ODIs, and third in T20. South Africa are first in Tests, fourth in ODIs, and sixth in T20. India have recovered somewhat from a difficult year in Tests, entering a transition with a new batting line-up.

If you can select teams with minimal overlap between them, with individuals specialising in each format, you will maximise the opportunity of winning. But if you have to play individuals across all three teams, then body and mind will be compromised.

Michael Clarke has settled on playing the two longer formats due to his injury woes, and he is better suited to doing so anyway, while Shane Watson, also vulnerable to injury, needs to settle on a game plan for Tests. He must make up his mind about where he might properly perform in two forms, as it would appear unlikely he can cut it in three - as has been the case lately. As for David Warner, the highly resourceful yet hugely ill-disciplined rogue, the more T20 he plays, the less effective he will be in Tests. Already he has lost his place to his erratic form in the long game. By and large Tests and T20 don't go together.

That players get injured due to the brutal demands of the international calendar, and can't play regularly only exposes those who aren't properly prepared at domestic level, and so Australia have suffered significantly in confidence across the board. They simply don't have the numbers to compete across all forms.

Not enough cream will rise to the top when you have only a limited number of cows producing quality milk. In the good old days of the roaring eighties, a settled squad of 16 or so could comfortably cover both Tests and the one-day game over the course of a year or two. However, times have changed drastically and for ever.

The nations with larger player bases will ultimately win out, now that the format numbers have increased permanently. England, India and South Arica will from here on always have the edge over Australia, and certainly over the rest

Of those playing Sheffield Shield cricket at present, Australia have selected 56 players out of the six state teams to play in an international fixture at some stage. The number itself isn't unusually high, but for Australia it represents a large percentage of those playing domestic cricket. That is not sustainable when you're looking to win across all forms.

As a fantasy, if Australasia were selecting from both New Zealand and Australia's 12 domestic teams combined, then you might have an even playing field against England and Co.

In short, the vast majority of the cream of Australia's players are trying to play all forms at once. The same model for the national team is being applied to the six state sides: we must pick our best players at all times in all formats. The burnout effect on that 80% is one thing, but the lack of fierce focus on a given job is becoming catastrophic for them. England and India are able to dig deep into their reserves and can comfortably find enough players who are specialising competently to do a job in any of the three formats.

The very finest players, of course, will transfer their skills to more than one format. For example, Clarke, Warner and Watson; Alastair Cook, Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen; Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis and AB de Villiers; Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels; Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum; Tillakaratne Dilshan, Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, all feature among their country's most important top batsmen in the two longer formats.

Where it gets tougher is when they have to play in all three. India manage it the best, with about half the team featuring in all forms currently, but Australia, West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka do it out of compulsion: they have no choice but to play their best men in all three. Does it bring the best out in them in all three? No, and it starts to affect their cricket when they are most needed. In essence, T20 should not be a priority against the other two.

Most of the higher-ranked countries are consistently selecting players for two formats, with rare exceptions who play all three. MS Dhoni, Virat Kohli, R Ashwin and AB de Villiers come to mind, but even they struggle to pull it off day after day, and they must be careful their Test form doesn't drop. How long can Dhoni keep it up?

England played a completely new T20 team against New Zealand recently, and while losing a close match they protected certain individuals for the more important formats, as well as preparing the new blood to play better T20 in the future. Overall and long-term, England are investing well. India need to work on their Test team, but by and large they have the numbers and will always stay in the top bracket.

Australia have tried rotating their best players. Alas, that only upsets the fans and broadcasters big time. England don't get that criticism, because they have a greater pool of competent cricketers. They have also clearly stated their intention, so there are very few last-minute changes to upset the marketing and promotion of the contest. Criticism is kept at bay.

It's simple mathematics. The nations with larger player bases will ultimately win out, now that the format numbers have increased permanently. England, India and South Arica will from here on always have the edge over Australia, and certainly over the rest.

The only way Australia will bounce back is if T20 is dropped from the international schedule completely, and rightfully sent back to the domestic scene. Going back to just Tests and ODIs in the international schedule will also assist the weaker nations and will allow world cricket to find a proper balance of power, enabling the game to grow globally and sustain its integrity.

Martin Crowe, one of the leading batsmen of the late '80s, played 77 Tests for New Zealand

RSS Feeds: Martin Crowe

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Meety on (July 6, 2013, 1:28 GMT)

@dunger.bob on (July 4, 2013, 8:42 GMT) - there hasn't been 6 Shield teams for 100 years. So whilst the Shield has been played over 100yrs - it was originally only SA, Vic & NSw that competed. Tassie has not been in it for 40yrs yet, QLD about 80yrs, - WA about 60yrs (can't remember the exact entry dates & can't be bothered looking them up). I was keen about 3yrs ago to have an extra Shield side, with an emphasis on playing on spinning decks out of Canberra or NT (even with the monsoon) - but IMO now, I just think that will spread the talent pool too thinly. SA & Tasmania are net importers of talent, until they have cricketing nurseries that almost completely homegrown (meaning nowhere for 2nd XI NSW players to go) - then we will have hit saturation point. You say NSW can definately support 2 teams - yet the Sydney Thunder has won 2 matches in 2 yrs despite imports. If we are worried about lack of exposure, beef up the Futures League & play it thru the BBL!

Posted by rick333 on (July 6, 2013, 0:15 GMT)

Good insightful article!......

Posted by Thandiwe on (July 5, 2013, 23:16 GMT)

Crowe's perspectives makes interesting reading but is way short of any logical bases. When you are winning all is well but once your are losing all is wrong. Right now Australia's first-class cricket is short on runs. If their domestic players can't score runs at that level, they are not going to become greta test players. That will apply to a six or sixty team format. The nest fallacy is selection. If you have a lot of mediocre players, mostly falling at the international level, then selectors then to play lots of these individuals hoping that one will come off. That has happened in all countries. Finally, cricketers play the format mostly that would do two things: Maximise earnings and optimise success. Once the money is at T20, the player will gravitate towards it unless then are not successful in that format. Mediocre players can go "unnoticed" a lot longer in the T20 format, than in OD's and FC cricket. Afterall, a "good" 20 is still 20 but suffices in T20. MDC take another guard.

Posted by yorkshire-86 on (July 5, 2013, 20:44 GMT)

Anyone mentioned the fact that australia actually have 8 teams in their premier t20 league as it is different teams to the Shield teams that compete - same as India

Posted by   on (July 5, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

Just because one team cannot find resources doesnt mean that you have to drop one format completely. It is all a question of adaptability. You need to have a pool of maximum 90 players for three formats together. Should we beleive that the six domstic teams combined dont have that much players?. I hope all test playing nations have much more than 90 quality players in their pool. Australia's issues are similar to that of England's in 1990s when legends like Graham Gooch and Ian Botham retired all together and they were left in wilderness with a pack of youngsters. . This is a natural cycle that every team goes through and it will take time to rebuild .

Posted by analyseabhishek on (July 5, 2013, 10:44 GMT)

I somehow believe that Australia dominated the cricket scene so much and for so long that the next generation of youngsters simply did not pay their attention to cricket or just did not have enough fire in the belly. Having said that, having more team could encourage more players but could also dilute the standards of Australian domestic cricket. In any case, a correct balance must be sought.

Posted by guptahitesh4u on (July 5, 2013, 10:40 GMT)

Rather than relying on ICC to remove T20 from the international calendar, Australia should think on improving the domestic structure. While six teams worked good for them so far, I think they should increase the number of teams to eight and gradually can take it to somewhere close to 12. Anyways, its just matter of the time. India and England had high number of domestic teams in the past too but they never were as successful teams as they are right now. So the analysis is not completely correct too.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Martin CroweClose

    Big-hearted, broad-shouldered Davo

Alan Davidson was a fine allrounder, who has spent his life serving Australian sport in various capacities. By Ashley Mallett


Rob Steen: Who knew the Middle East would one day become the centre of a cricket-lover's universe?

    Dhawan's bouncer problem

Aakash Chopra: Why the Indian opener would be well advised to shelve the hook and pull in Australia

    The last cricket bookseller

The home of Australia's first, and possibly last, full-time dealer of his kind is a treasure trove of cricket literature amassed over 45 years. By Russell Jackson

England's problem with attacking batsmanship

Jon Hotten: It has taken the country ages to get over its obsession with defensive batting

News | Features Last 7 days

Pakistan should not welcome Amir back

The serene team culture cultivated by Misbah and his men shouldn't be allowed to be disrupted by a player with a tainted past

November games need November prices

An early start to the international season, coupled with costly tickets, have kept the Australian public away from the cricket

'I'm a bit disappointed not to get that Test average up to 50'

Mahela Jayawardene reflects on his Test career, and the need to bridge the gap between international and club cricket in Sri Lanka

A two-decade long dream

In 2011, MS Dhoni helped end a 28-year wait for India and gifted Sachin Tendulkar something he had craved throughout his career - to be called a World Cup champion

The wow and the sheesh

Coloured clothes, black sightscreens, two white balls: the game of cricket looked so different in 1992. But writing about it now seems more fun than watching it then

News | Features Last 7 days