The onward march of T20

[swingdog]

I'm more worried about what happens in five years when a LIV equivalent comes along and says 'stuff your international window, we will just buy the best 120 players in the world and put them on a 9 month circuit'. Money talks. Lots of money talks loudly.

This is where each nation's cricket administrators have been found wanting. They have each continued to act in their own interest and as long as s**t was happening to someone else, well, that was their problem.

Australia never cared about the problems of NZ, Pakistan, Windies etc. and didn't worry about the IPL because it didn't encroach on our summer window. But wait, suddenly South Africa has an IPL lite comp running at the same time as the BBL. Okay, now T20 is a problem!

Same for England. Blessed with a northern summer window and thought nothing could touch them. God, it has been glorious to listen to their fanboys (especially the teenagers running Wisden now) waking up to the threat of the North American league as well as talk of the IPL extending into their season.

And India. The BCCI has always acted in its own interests with a view that being the biggest and with the IPL, they'd be fine. But, they've underpaid their players - total salary cap across the 10 teams for 2024 is just under $190 million. That's the sort of stuff the Saudis can find down the back of the couch. Seriously, if the Saudis three $30 billion at the IPL franchise owners, do you really think they're going to say no for the good of the game?

As the BCCI has undermined the international game and become beholden to the IPL franchise owners, it's losing its one real threat over players: that if you go off to a private league somewhere else, you'll miss out on national selection. In a few years, that won't matter.

T20 league cricket isn't like soccer with its strong traditional geographical roots (i.e. Barcelona isn't going to up sticks and move to Jeddah, no matter what the price). T20 is more like F1 which has always been happy to whore itself out to the highest bidder. A Saudi backed T10 competition that runs from January to November? That's the likely future.

 

[PhatBoy]

Can I just say - and people who have read any of what I have posted in here over the last 8-9 months will know that I have generally been a supporter of it and will roll their eyes perhaps but I will say it again - that this is another reason why I don’t understand why McCullum and the English have copped as much criticism as they have for the way they have tried to play test cricket?

Yes I understand how sanctimonious it comes across when someone effectively tells the world he and his team are ‘trying to save test cricket.’ I DO understand why that part turns people off.

But can people not at least appreciate the fact that at least one team has recognised the fact that the way the cricketing landscape has turned, means that spectators NEED a reason to watch tests? I personally don’t: I would watch Kraigg Brathwaite block out a session for 10 off 120 if I had to. But not all people are like me.

I realise that the ECB themselves are part of the problem, but McCullum and his players aren’t the ECB. They are a team and if it wasn’t for the English being such a pack of dicks I would actually really like them as a team because they play cavalier cricket that at the very least is incredibly spectator friendly if a little stupid and one dimensional and they are one team that is trying to do things a little differently.

In some of the other teams there are snippets of it: marsh and head (and Warner for one more test) with the bat for Australia, and Cummins with the ball, the SA bowlers at home, Kohli is still exquisite to watch, but by and large England are the one team that is really trying something and they’ve been ridiculed for it

 

[swingdog]

Can I just say - and people who have read any of what I have posted in here over the last 8-9 months will know that I have generally been a supporter of it and will roll their eyes perhaps but I will say it again - that this is another reason why I don’t understand why McCullum and the English have copped as much criticism as they have for the way they have tried to play test cricket?

Yes I understand how sanctimonious it comes across when someone effectively tells the world he and his team are ‘trying to save test cricket.’ I DO understand why that part turns people off.

But can people not at least appreciate the fact that at least one team has recognised the fact that the way the cricketing landscape has turned, means that spectators NEED a reason to watch tests? I personally don’t: I would watch Kraigg Brathwaite block out a session for 10 off 120 if I had to. But not all people are like me.

I realise that the ECB themselves are part of the problem, but McCullum and his players aren’t the ECB. They are a team and if it wasn’t for the English being such a pack of dicks I would actually really like them as a team because they play cavalier cricket that at the very least is incredibly spectator friendly if a little stupid and one dimensional and they are one team that is trying to do things a little differently.

In some of the other teams there are snippets of it: marsh and head (and Warner for one more test) with the bat for Australia, and Cummins with the ball, the SA bowlers at home, Kohli is still exquisite to watch, but by and large England are the one team that is really trying something and they’ve been ridiculed for it

Fair, the sanctimony is one thing and certainly not the first time a team has done that (Australia in the 90s and early 2000s were just as insufferable).

I'm happy to see them try it but all we have seen so far is based on the same things that makes T20 boring: small grounds, flat pitches and nothing for the bowler. I get that for the modern fan, it's all about how many sixes are hit, but as someone who grew up watching the great Windies sides of the 80s, I struggle to enjoy what's essentially a batter's game now.

 

[PhatBoy]

Fair, the sanctimony is one thing and certainly not the first time a team has done that (Australia in the 90s and early 2000s were just as insufferable).

I'm happy to see them try it but all we have seen so far is based on the same things that makes T20 boring: small grounds, flat pitches and nothing for the bowler. I get that for the modern fan, it's all about how many sixes are hit, but as someone who grew up watching the great Windies sides of the 80s, I struggle to enjoy what's essentially a batter's game now.

I like that they are doing it in games that have been dominated at various stages by bowlers. No doubt the majority of their success has probably come in conditions more favourable to batsmen but 3-4 of their very best wins playing that way have been when they have been all but out of the contest when the ball has actually come out mostly on top and they’ve just smashed their way out of it. The NZ matches and from memory the win over India in the delayed match(?) come to mind.
I would like to see more bowler dominated games or at the very least more bowler CONDITION dominated games: the Centurion test was great to watch. Seeing India just having no respite from Rabada, Burger, Jansen and Coetzee was a throwback to SA attacks and Aus attacks on spicy pitches of the past and it was great

 

[happy_eagle]

Can I just say - and people who have read any of what I have posted in here over the last 8-9 months will know that I have generally been a supporter of it and will roll their eyes perhaps but I will say it again - that this is another reason why I don’t understand why McCullum and the English have copped as much criticism as they have for the way they have tried to play test cricket?

Yes I understand how sanctimonious it comes across when someone effectively tells the world he and his team are ‘trying to save test cricket.’ I DO understand why that part turns people off.

But can people not at least appreciate the fact that at least one team has recognised the fact that the way the cricketing landscape has turned, means that spectators NEED a reason to watch tests? I personally don’t: I would watch Kraigg Brathwaite block out a session for 10 off 120 if I had to. But not all people are like me.

I realise that the ECB themselves are part of the problem, but McCullum and his players aren’t the ECB. They are a team and if it wasn’t for the English being such a pack of dicks I would actually really like them as a team because they play cavalier cricket that at the very least is incredibly spectator friendly if a little stupid and one dimensional and they are one team that is trying to do things a little differently.

In some of the other teams there are snippets of it: marsh and head (and Warner for one more test) with the bat for Australia, and Cummins with the ball, the SA bowlers at home, Kohli is still exquisite to watch, but by and large England are the one team that is really trying something and they’ve been ridiculed for it

Most of the criticism I have seen isn't about Bazball, but more about England needing to pat themselves on the back for saving test cricket with Bazball and over-hyping its success.

 

[Demons09]

Most of the criticism I have seen isn't about Bazball, but more about England needing to pat themselves on the back for saving test cricket with Bazball and over-hyping its success.

It’s not like it wasn’t going to be a sell out in England anyway they are saving * all.

 

[PhatBoy]

Most of the criticism I have seen isn't about Bazball, but more about England needing to pat themselves on the back for saving test cricket with Bazball and over-hyping its success.

This isn’t a patented Phat Boy ‘well actually if you slice and dice the numbers this way’ rant but that latter part to me is simply people not wanting to make an effort to actually see whether it has worked, as far as results go. Because the answer is simple: it has worked.

They had won twice in 18 tests before doing it, they’ve won 12 times in 17 since doing it. My brain isn’t powerful enough to work out the percentage turnaround that works out to be but it’s obviously significant so whether a more humble approach would be welcomed - which it obviously would - or not, the back slapping is based on tangible results.

Now the other part.

They haven’t saved anything yet. For starters, at the moment they are still attracting more criticism than plaudits so results or not, you can’t save something if the majority of the people you are trying to convince don’t believe in what you are doing.

They need a scalp.
I dislike both them and India a lot and if forced to choose I would probably like them to get their arse handed to them when they go to India because quite frankly I believe that in general, not always, India have produced better, tougher, and more likeable cricketers in the last 20 years than England and they have stood up when it counts more often. I have more respect, for more Indian players, than I do for the English.
But for the good of the game I think England taking their method to India and somehow winning would actually be a win.

THAT, would actually start to turn heads, and take a step towards maybe getting other countries to take notice and for a while, get people interested in test cricket again.

I’m not saying I ALWAYS want test cricket to be played the way they are playing it at the moment but if it got people interested in it again, that would be a good thing

 

[PhatBoy]

It’s not like it wasn’t going to be a sell out in England anyway they are saving * all.

I don’t think games in England are the point and I doubt they are claiming that

 

[PhatBoy]

Another aspect of t20 that is starting to get rather dispiriting is the fact that the players I DID enjoy watching - they’re getting rarer and rarer, and most of the good ones had some form of longer format pedigree.

Gayle was the Bradman of T20: he played 100 tests and had two triple centuries.
ABDV was perhaps the most versatile test batsman I’ve ever seen and I think I’m correct in saying boasts the highest test average of anyone to play as a permanent keeper for any length of time
McCullum was not THAT good a test batsman but had a triple century and was at least test quality.
Virat Kohli is still playing test cricket regularly and is a delight to watch.
Shahid Afridi was a 50-over wizard before he was anything else.
Dwayne Bravo has test centuries and six-fors.

I don’t know who I’m watching 99 per cent of the time now

 

[Santana]

BBL does not hold my interest in the slightest. I find the SuperSmash a little more interesting

If you prioritise the Test team, you’re gonna get the quality of the BBL.

LMAO we get it already, you don't like the Big Bash

Maybe if you didn't prioritize the IPL so much, you'd have won a World Cup the last decade

 

[PhatBoy]

LMAO we get it already, you don't like the Big Bash

Maybe if you didn't prioritize the IPL so much, you'd have won a World Cup the last decade

I don’t think it’s actually his fault

 

[akkaps]

LMAO we get it already, you don't like the Big Bash

Maybe if you didn't prioritize the IPL so much, you'd have won a World Cup the last decade

1. The second quoted post states nothing about my interest in the BBL.

2. I agree with the second point

 

[Redline]

I'm more worried about what happens in five years when a LIV equivalent comes along and says 'stuff your international window, we will just buy the best 120 players in the world and put them on a 9 month circuit'. Money talks. Lots of money talks loudly.

That's bassically what they want to do with the IPL. I think a LIV equivalent is unlikely as nothing will happen in Cricket without India. Some kind of joint venture is what is being talked about.

There will always be international windows for tournaments, maybe not for Test Cricket. India will still want an International team to play short formats.

 

[t_94]

I can see both sides.

I think outside the time it takes to play a test the main problem is how predictable results of so many test matches are. It feels like a good test series are to few and far between.

A large issue for that is the lack of preparation time. You need to prepare properly to compete overseas.

 

[swingdog]

That's bassically what they want to do with the IPL. I think a LIV equivalent is unlikely as nothing will happen in Cricket without India. Some kind of joint venture is what is being talked about.

There will always be international windows for tournaments, maybe not for Test Cricket. India will still want an International team to play short formats.

I think India would be equally happy with a 'World Series' that an Indian team wins every time.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

That's bassically what they want to do with the IPL. I think a LIV equivalent is unlikely as nothing will happen in Cricket without India. Some kind of joint venture is what is being talked about.

There will always be international windows for tournaments, maybe not for Test Cricket. India will still want an International team to play short formats.

I understand that is what India would like/want. But it's going to be a 'leopards eating faces' scenario for them. I can't figure out how to multi-quote, but someone up thread pointed out that the threat of not being able to play in sanctioned ICC tournaments or for a national team has been able to be used as the stick to stop players kitting around for some rebel league.

If playing for a national team is limited to, say, 10 fixtures a year crammed into a window, why wouldn't you just take the $50m a year to play for the Sydney Sheiks for a 9 month 'league' then take three months off?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I understand that is what India would like/want. But it's going to be a 'leopards eating faces' scenario for them. I can't figure out how to multi-quote, but someone up thread pointed out that the threat of not being able to play in sanctioned ICC tournaments or for a national team has been able to be used as the stick to stop players kitting around for some rebel league.

If playing for a national team is limited to, say, 10 fixtures a year crammed into a window, why wouldn't you just take the $50m a year to play for the Sydney Sheiks for a 9 month 'league' then take three months off?

India makes more money than the rest of the world combined. They don't need ICC sanctioned tournaments any more than Packer needed the Australian Cricket Board. In fact, a lot less.
If the BCCI goes down that path, and its looking very likely, they will decide which (if any) internationals happen.

 

[Redline]

I understand that is what India would like/want. But it's going to be a 'leopards eating faces' scenario for them. I can't figure out how to multi-quote, but someone up thread pointed out that the threat of not being able to play in sanctioned ICC tournaments or for a national team has been able to be used as the stick to stop players kitting around for some rebel league.

If playing for a national team is limited to, say, 10 fixtures a year crammed into a window, why wouldn't you just take the $50m a year to play for the Sydney Sheiks for a 9 month 'league' then take three months off?

I think that's all likely but I still think your example of the Sydney Sheiks is not happening without the tick off from India.

One other point and its hard for Australians to get their head around because of our dominant football codes and that we host a major tennis tournament but I think we need to accept the best players will not always play when we want them to in Australian Cricket. That's not uncommon in world sport, it doesn't make it a bad product.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

India makes more money than the rest of the world combined. They don't need ICC sanctioned tournaments any more than Packer needed the Australian Cricket Board. In fact, a lot less.
If the BCCI goes down that path, and its looking very likely, they will decide which (if any) internationals happen.

yeah but I'm saying that someone with more money than them will come over the top and start their own league. Without the stick of 'you can't play international cricket anymore' why would you play IPL when you can play the World Super League for 10 times as much money?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

yeah but I'm saying that someone with more money than them will come over the top and start their own league. Without the stick of 'you can't play international cricket anymore' why would you play IPL when you can play the World Super League for 10 times as much money?

If someone with more money came over the top it would be much the same thing. They would come in and focus on India and T20, where the money is. They aren't going to put the sport ahead of money any more than boards do now; maybe even less in the few cases where that is possible.

 

[The Passenger]

Who on earth agreed for South Africa to have a test tour whilst their home T20 competition is running?

If they (Cricket South Africa) agreed that themselves then they are bloody idiots (which they do seem to be anyway)...

Or was it dictated by the ICC and their future tours program? Same thing happened last year when they cancelled ODIs vs Australia.

I think it's fair enough for boards to request no international series for their national team scheduled whilst their home T20 tournament is being played. Obviously can still play internationals if desired, as Australia does.

But as has been touched upon the Saudi's are looking to get involved with cricket - The BCCI might be pretty ambivalent to test cricket but this lot will have literally zero reason to ensure its viability.

 

[Gough]

Who on earth agreed for South Africa to have a test tour whilst their home T20 competition is running?

If they (Cricket South Africa) agreed that themselves then they are bloody idiots (which they do seem to be anyway)...

Or was it dictated by the ICC and their future tours program? Same thing happened last year when they cancelled ODIs vs Australia.

I think it's fair enough for boards to request no international series for their national team scheduled whilst their home T20 tournament is being played. Obviously can still play internationals if desired, as Australia does.

But as has been touched upon the Saudi's are looking to get involved with cricket - The BCCI might be pretty ambivalent to test cricket but this lot will have literally zero reason to ensure its viability.

The invasion of Gaza may at least briefly put a hold on Saudi sports washing which as it stands is the only good thing to come from this.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Who on earth agreed for South Africa to have a test tour whilst their home T20 competition is running?

If they (Cricket South Africa) agreed that themselves then they are bloody idiots (which they do seem to be anyway)...

Or was it dictated by the ICC and their future tours program? Same thing happened last year when they cancelled ODIs vs Australia.

I think it's fair enough for boards to request no international series for their national team scheduled whilst their home T20 tournament is being played. Obviously can still play internationals if desired, as Australia does.

But as has been touched upon the Saudi's are looking to get involved with cricket - The BCCI might be pretty ambivalent to test cricket but this lot will have literally zero reason to ensure its viability.

The FTP was drawn up before IPL franchises bought into South Africa.

 

[Some Idiot]

The disconnect to the rest of the world is jarring, with the BBL being a joke of a competition compared to test cricket while other nations prioritise their domestic T20 comp.

 

[happy_eagle]

The disconnect to the rest of the world is jarring, with the BBL being a joke of a competition compared to test cricket while other nations prioritise their domestic T20 comp.

By what metric do you claim this ?

Attendance seems to be doing okay, and I assume TV ratings are good as well.