PDA

View Full Version : 20/20 cricket should not be used for globalisation


bd_fan_from_india
July 2, 2007, 02:34 AM
i cant understand y 20/20 cricket is being used for globalisation in the non-test playing countries. the level of batting is very low in most of the non-test countries and in odis, they usually struggle to bat out their full 50 overs. 20/20 is not going to improve the level of batting in cricket. most non-test teams would struggle to make 100+ scores in 20/20 against the test-playing teams or even domestic teams of test-playing nations. 20/20 was initially launched to spread cricket in canada & usa, where the game does not have a chance to take off. its just like showing the penalty corners package of a football match instead of showing the whole football match itself.

for globalisation, FC cricket should be used and the non-test playing teams should be encouraged to play more 4-day matches among themselves and even have a domestic 4-day competition. this will help improve the level of batting in the non-test teams & it will show in the odis as they will start to make 250+ scores regularly playing out full 50 overs. and eventually some non-test teams would get test status.

also, icc should make a list of non-test teams where cricket can take off like ireland, scotland, holland(maybe), nepal, afghanistan, malaysia(maybe), kenya, uganda as they have a bit of a cricketing culture. in canada, usa, uae there r expat based teams and the locals dont care for cricket. to make cricket a 3 hour slam-boom-bang affair to spread cricket in places where it cant take off is useless.

20/20 cricket should be kept limited only to non-asian test playing nations like aus,eng,sa,nz,wi. even asian teams have struggled in 20/20 and 20/20 can kill cricket in places like bangladesh where batsmen r too flashy.

sandpiper
July 2, 2007, 02:40 AM
20-20 is an excellent idea and it will replace the current version of oneday cricket. this is necessary to save cricket. otherwise cricket will never be globalized, it will be limited to those few areas.

period

Foozy
July 2, 2007, 04:13 AM
i dont really agree on this... i think 20/20 is the one way to attract and motivate the other countries... as it looks more flashy to the eye...
and even for weaker teams who dont last much in normal cricket, 20/20 might be more of a chance as they dont have to use too much gramatical shots, but rather slogs might end up working on few occasions...
and teams like bangladesh have a much higher chance of winning in 20/20s, than winning tests or even odis, infact i suspect bangladesh will be really good at 20/20 once they get used to it... but i know that bd always takes longer than others to get used to somethin for some weird reason...
so ya... i really cant agree with you im afraid...

bd_fan_from_india
July 2, 2007, 05:01 AM
20/20 is not going to attract people. its test cricket which is real cricket and so FC cricket is the thing which should be used for globalisation. there should be more efforts made by the icc to spread cricket in those countries where test cricket has a chance of taking off like ireland, scotland, kenya, nepal than canada, usa where people wont have the time to follow their team for 5 days in a row. also, cricket should be spread like it is in its true form(test & fc cricket), it shouldnt be changed to be spread. if thats the case, y not reduce football to a game of just penalty strokes where the other 10 people besides the goalkeeper have a shoot at the goal.

u can c in stanford 20/20 where teams like bermuda, cayman islands, argentina were included and they struggled to make even 80 against domestic teams of west indies. now what help can that do in spreading the game there. it looks like doing more harm than good for the game in the associate countries. also, in nepal, where teams struggle to make even 150 in 50 overs, 20/20 will kill cricket completely over there.

israr
July 2, 2007, 07:21 AM
I am disappointed that people are losing enthusiasm in the 'real' beauty of the game.

Sohel
July 2, 2007, 07:31 AM
I am disappointed that people are losing enthusiasm in the 'real' beauty of the game.

It's instant gratification and glitz they're after bro ... the attention span fluctuates too much to behold anything as beautiful. Besides, why think when it's easier to sheepishly follow those who do the thinking for you?

Shafin
July 2, 2007, 09:41 AM
I am disappointed that people are losing enthusiasm in the 'real' beauty of the game.
Its the fast world,people value their time,and show me another popular sport where one match runs for more than two days.

battye
July 2, 2007, 09:52 AM
I have different thoughts about this, and I am looking at it from a different angle to.

As far as players skill (out of the top 12 or so cricket nations) goes, yes I agree, Twenty20 isn't going to make it better. Having said that, outside the top 12 (Australia all the way down to Zimbabwe, Kenya & Ireland) countries, I'd say spectator interest in cricket is pretty low.

Twenty20 WILL DRAW IN CROWDS in these non-cricketing countries. Four day matches will not, as to someone who has never watched cricket and can't appreciate it, it is simply too slow. Twenty20 only takes 3 hours, like most other sports, therefore people will (or should not) lose interest.

My thoughts, are that Twenty20 SHOULD be used for globalisation. How? Have a Twenty20 World Cup. But don't include the top nations. Include the, say, nations numbers 10 to 20.

When interest in these countries rises, they then move on to playing ODI's, and maybe even Test's down the track.

But Twenty20 must be used to promote cricket. Once there is a strong supporter base, then perhaps you can start refining the skills and moving on to First Class cricket.

Tigers_eye
July 2, 2007, 09:59 AM
Cricket can not be globalized. Only those who have ties with the main cricket playing nations will have interest. This is more like concentrating on your niche. They should ban 20/20 for global entertainment. For money making purposes "yeah" why not. But not for globalization. One can't compete against Football, or Basketball (world wide). It is the Rugby, Hockey that we are competing against. The sooner ICC officials understand the better it is.

In US, it matters very little. One can not penetrate in this market. American Football and baseball (both Pro and ameture) are multi billion dollar industries. Even soccer is having a hard time here. Although the pro-mexican or Latino group and sponsors like Coca-cola (age group) is fighting hard for market.

battye
July 2, 2007, 10:13 AM
Cricket can not be globalized. Only those who have ties with the main cricket playing nations will have interest.


I agree with that to an extent. I think it is 4 day cricket which cannot. Twenty20 cricket has a high degree of excitement to it... perhaps more sixes in an innings than home runs in baseball (although I don't know for sure, I don't watch baseball).

If Twenty20 was to take off in a market, say the USA, then a supporter base will be built around it. Of these people, you will get some who find a deep interest in the game, and these are the people who will continue to support it once more first class cricket is played.

Suppose a series of Twenty20 games were played in the USA, between them and Canada. There should be a bit of a rivalry there.

5 matches, each game to a capacity crowd. Say 90,000.

That's 450,000 over 5 matches. If only 20% took an interest, that is 90,000 people.

Not a lot when you look at cricket mad countries like India, with over a billion people. But for a country like the USA, you have to start somewhere, and 90,000 isn't a bad start. Especially if that is 90,000 American-born people, not expats who follow the game.

Twenty20 does have the potential to globalize the game.

israr
July 2, 2007, 11:28 AM
Its the fast world,people value their time,and show me another popular sport where one match runs for more than two days.

Shafin bhai, I was only talking about the subject relating to the liking for test cricket. Not about watching it.

Surfer
July 2, 2007, 11:54 AM
When I was a small kid, I used to have a tough time getting on a bus as even the first step used to be too high for me. My mom or dad would invariably help me get in and I would feel embarrassed. I used to think why the hell they cant make one more step so that small kids like me could get in on my own. 20-20 will provide that step in cricket. I dont like the format, but its useful anyways.

Tigers_eye
July 2, 2007, 12:54 PM
I agree with that to an extent. I think it is 4 day cricket which cannot. Twenty20 cricket has a high degree of excitement to it... perhaps more sixes in an innings than home runs in baseball (although I don't know for sure, I don't watch baseball).

If Twenty20 was to take off in a market, say the USA, then a supporter base will be built around it. Of these people, you will get some who find a deep interest in the game, and these are the people who will continue to support it once more first class cricket is played.

Suppose a series of Twenty20 games were played in the USA, between them and Canada. There should be a bit of a rivalry there.

5 matches, each game to a capacity crowd. Say 90,000.

That's 450,000 over 5 matches. If only 20% took an interest, that is 90,000 people.

Not a lot when you look at cricket mad countries like India, with over a billion people. But for a country like the USA, you have to start somewhere, and 90,000 isn't a bad start. Especially if that is 90,000 American-born people, not expats who follow the game.

Twenty20 does have the potential to globalize the game.
This is all wishful thinking my friend and next to impossible to implement even in next 25 years.

Reason 1:
The Americans must change their culture which is next to impossible. There is no sense of nationality here. The NBA champions are recognized as world champs, they call World series for baseball championship, for Football they call super bowl champs as world champs. Even for formula 1 they have a thing called NASCAR. There is no need of rivalry between two nations for these folks. Their thought process is centered here and care less about the World. Just see how Football is having a hard time with mighty sponsors backing it even.

Reason 2:
Money. How many Cricket coaches (national, county, regional) gets paid 2Mill a year? There are several College Football (American football) and college basketball coaches gets paid over 3 mill a year. Imagine these are coaches of ameture teams. In professional ranks 10 mill a year is what a good coach gets. How do you think the multimill industry will compete with multibill industries? That is all cut-throat business for getting audiences to watch. Any prominent professional can buy the whole ICC if they want and make it private. ICC is that much helpless when competing against other sports in US.

There are several other reasons but just the above two can be enough to stop ICCs madness of trying to globalize this sport (penetrate US market).

One World
July 2, 2007, 12:56 PM
Thats a good point. But in that case Kenya will not survive in cricket let alone other associates. Think what if ICC pressed Kenya to play longer version first and then come through ODI. Very few nation (I doubt if any) in today's light speed civilization would like to take that royale century old route.

bd_fan_from_india
July 9, 2007, 11:05 AM
the old route of longer matches to start with & then moving on to 1-day matches should be restarted. all teams which took this route have done well in cricket & r established test-playing nations now. 20/20 is not going to do anything for cricket other than kill batting abilities of players in the non-test teams. already most of them cant even survive full 50 overs in matches even against other non-test teams and with 20/20, they will struggle to bat even 30 overs. if the longer-version route is taken & implemented for all non-test teams, they will eventually do well in even odis.

also, instead of icc focussing on countries like usa & canada, more focus should be on countries which already have a cricketing culture like ireland, scotland, nepal, uganda

Ahg984
July 9, 2007, 12:53 PM
20-20 is an excellent idea and it will replace the current version of oneday cricket. this is necessary to save cricket. otherwise cricket will never be globalized, it will be limited to those few areas.

period

20/20 gives too much advantage to batsmen. If it is to become mainstay then more changes, which reduce this advantage, need to be made. Currently, batting 20 overs with 11 wickets is a joke. There is no need to build partnerships, pace innings, save wickets for last 10-15 overs etc. Its slam bam from over 1. A wicket lost hardly matters.

I don't see this form of cricket becoming mainstream unless big changes are made.

Dhruvo
July 11, 2007, 07:03 AM
us.
20/20 can kill cricket in places like bangladesh where batsmen r too flashy.
Cricket in Bangladesh can never be killed the people love all forms of cricket like test,odi even 20/20.

Puck
July 16, 2007, 08:25 PM
does it really matter if we don't have any more test playing nations? i am quite happy that there isn't test cricket in usa or canada.

20/20 has had huge success in england where cricket is the national summer sport. i think the general populace need to be interested in cricket in the first place before looking for format wars.

cricketboy
July 17, 2007, 02:06 AM
20-20 will be a huge hit in the future probably in the same league as 50-over cricket matches or even more.

Puck
August 3, 2007, 06:50 PM
yes, i agree with you

Hatebreed
August 3, 2007, 08:08 PM
I think 20/20 can help rejuvenate cricket and change the mindset that cricket is "boring". It's a good idea as long as there fans who can appreaciate it as a form of entertainment. Who knows, may be it will become as competitive as regular cricket someday.

AsifTheManRahman
August 3, 2007, 09:49 PM
Well, the game of cricket will get shortened, whether we like it or not. It has before, and I don't see why the same won't happen in the future. It's only a matter of time.