The onward march of T20

[BACCS]

It's a pretty big difference between the games though. I grew up in the 90s, absolutely part of the ODI generation. I still knew test cricket was the far more skilled game, even as a kid. Even as a sugar filled kid, you could see the strategy of test cricket was so much more interesting.

T20 is fine, I watch it casually, but there's no pretending that it's a game of strategy. It's absolute wheely bin from a strategy perspective. I know India (and to a lesser extent, the world) is in love with it right now, and its great for the broadcasters, but it's already at a saturation point that I think will come back to haunt them. The IPL T10 planned for later in the year (not this year) might be the tipping point. ODI's werent saturated like T20 is now, particularly in the streaming era where you can watch all the international domestic leagues.

Maybe it's the AFL childhood in me, but I just don't understand how anyone can get attached to these plastic brands in the t20 domestic leagues. There's no heart, there's no local vibe, it's just plastic to its core. That players just jump ship constantly makes it so much worse. The AFL plastic clubs are cultural icons compared to t20. I've watched the BBL since day dot and can honestly say I feel absolutely zero attachment to a single club, and I've genuinely tried to get into it.

Test cricket is still absolute number one for me, but I love the Strikers and will always support them (and the crowds this Summer would indicate that too). I know many in India follow their IPL franchises very closely, which as the biggest cricketing nation is all that matters for the format to survive.

There is also a lot of strategy in T20 games, but a casual observer is never going to see that.

 

[icyflakes]

Test cricket is still absolute number one for me, but I love the Strikers and will always support them (and the crowds this Summer would indicate that too). I know many in India follow their IPL franchises very closely, which as the biggest cricketing nation is all that matters for the format to survive.

There is also a lot of strategy in T20 games, but a casual observer is never going to see that.

I watch it casually in the sense I have no heart in the game, but I've probably watched a good thousand hours of the game minimum in the last several years. So many interesting parts of the longer form games come from the batters needing to stick around, which also in turn gives bowlers way more interesting options to play with.

The game can be exciting and can have some great plans come to fruition but it's so incredibly limited by its inherent formet that the strategic options are very sparse.

 

[1989]

Test cricket is still absolute number one for me, but I love the Strikers and will always support them (and the crowds this Summer would indicate that too). I know many in India follow their IPL franchises very closely, which as the biggest cricketing nation is all that matters for the format to survive.

There is also a lot of strategy in T20 games, but a casual observer is never going to see that.

I've stopped following the Big Bash and I think a small part of the reason is that there are two Victorian teams and I have no real reason to support one over the other. I think it works better for the states / cities with one team.

 

[happy_eagle]

I've stopped following the Big Bash and I think a small part of the reason is that there are two Victorian teams and I have no real reason to support one over the other. I think it works better for the states / cities with one team.

Do you think it would have been a better move to make one team Melbourne (Stars) and the other team based in Geelong (Renegades) from the start ?

 

[1989]

Do you think it would have been a better move to make one team Melbourne (Stars) and the other team based in Geelong (Renegades) from the start ?

Possibly, although I couldn't never see myself supporting a team based in Geelong, even though I live in regional Victoria, so the support for the respective teams would potentially be a bit lopsided towards the Melbourne team. I was disappointed to see T20 change from a state based competition all those years ago, but I can obviously see the reasons for it.

 

[akkaps]

This is a good read, regarding overlapping leagues and the pursuit of players by franchises and interests and offers some solutions

'A broken sport': Franchise free-for-all compromises players' incentives

Unrestricted movement between overlapping tournaments risks calling integrity into question

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[swingdog]

Good piece - not sure how they're going to enforce the solutions. Play for match fees and bonuses?

Can't see players accepting that - much better to be like Joe Root, have a few months off in the IPL on full pay while not playing. There's way too much money sloshing around in cricket now for the administrators to try and regain control.

 

[big_e]

Good piece - not sure how they're going to enforce the solutions. Play for match fees and bonuses?

Can't see players accepting that - much better to be like Joe Root, have a few months off in the IPL on full pay while not playing. There's way too much money sloshing around in cricket now for the administrators to try and regain control.

The easiest solution is for year-round contracts with businesses that own franchises all around the world. You'd play for Mumbai Indians, MI New York, MI Cape Town, etc, and get time off to play in windows which ensure that everyone is available for international cricket. But everyone hates that idea for some reason.

 

[swingdog]

The easiest solution is for year-round contracts with businesses that own franchises all around the world. You'd play for Mumbai Indians, MI New York, MI Cape Town, etc, and get time off to play in windows which ensure that everyone is available for international cricket. But everyone hates that idea for some reason.

Probably because it's near impossible to maintain a fan base. Soccer works because teams play in one place for 9 months and because the same players take to the pitch each time. With the franchises in different cities, fans would have to re-learn their team every few months.

 

[big_e]

Probably because it's near impossible to maintain a fan base. Soccer works because teams play in one place for 9 months and because the same players take to the pitch each time. With the franchises in different cities, fans would have to re-learn their team every few months.

I don't think fans don't particularly care about what happens in domestic cricket leagues in other countries. But anyway, the thinking is this:

Imagine if the WACA bought a team in the PSL, a team in the SA20 and another in the CPL. They're restricted to a certain number of internationals in any league, so they sign 12 Australians to play for the Scorchers, 12 Pakistanis for the PSL, 12 South Africans for the SA 20 and 12 West Indians for the CPL. When they are playing BBL, their international players come from the 36 non-Australians on their list. When the PSL is on, their internationals come from the 36 non-Pakistanis, and so on.

It makes the issue of players jumping from league to league drastically reduce because now they are employed year-round, rather than going from one short-term contract to another short-term contract. They're no longer freelancing, so they have the WACA covering their physios and medical care, etc. It means they can plan their lives better because they are more secure about where they'll be at any given moment. None of the "Hey mate, can you get on the next plane to Cape Town because we need you for ten days" stuff that goes on. It actually helps the fans, as they get a better idea of who the internationals will be from year to year - you'll know it's going to be from one of the other teams within the group.

And if there were enough of these arrangements, the franchise owners would put pressure on the leagues to fix the scheduling issues so there wasn't any crossover between seasons. Which would actually be in the leagues' best interests, as they'll be guaranteed the best available players for the whole season, not just for bits of it.

People hate it because they are still of the mindset that T20 players are mercenaries and a contract with a franchise would be somehow less honourable than a contract with a first-class team (state, county, etc).

 

[happy_eagle]

I don't think fans don't particularly care about what happens in domestic cricket leagues in other countries. But anyway, the thinking is this:

Imagine if the WACA bought a team in the PSL, a team in the SA20 and another in the CPL. They're restricted to a certain number of internationals in any league, so they sign 12 Australians to play for the Scorchers, 12 Pakistanis for the PSL, 12 South Africans for the SA 20 and 12 West Indians for the CPL. When they are playing BBL, their international players come from the 36 non-Australians on their list. When the PSL is on, their internationals come from the 36 non-Pakistanis, and so on.

It makes the issue of players jumping from league to league drastically reduce because now they are employed year-round, rather than going from one short-term contract to another short-term contract. They're no longer freelancing, so they have the WACA covering their physios and medical care, etc. It means they can plan their lives better because they are more secure about where they'll be at any given moment. None of the "Hey mate, can you get on the next plane to Cape Town because we need you for ten days" stuff that goes on. It actually helps the fans, as they get a better idea of who the internationals will be from year to year - you'll know it's going to be from one of the other teams within the group.

And if there were enough of these arrangements, the franchise owners would put pressure on the leagues to fix the scheduling issues so there wasn't any crossover between seasons. Which would actually be in the leagues' best interests, as they'll be guaranteed the best available players for the whole season, not just for bits of it.

People hate it because they are still of the mindset that T20 players are mercenaries and a contract with a franchise would be somehow less honourable than a contract with a first-class team (state, county, etc).

I think also the fans desire consistency more so with the marquee players more than anything else.

If you are an Adelaide fan, you don't want to see Rashid Khan play anywhere else.

If local players switch allegiances its less of a big deal, its more the rolling rotation of internationals which makes following teams a bit harder. Which a centralised ownership model does solve.

 

[akkaps]

The central contact solution also means that if one franchise does not other teams else where around the world, players like Maxwell (RCB), and Wade (GT) don't have access to play in other places. Also the BPL, PSL and LPL have no overlapping franchise owners with other leagues, leaving players from these countries stuck without a "annual" central contact

Imagine if the WACA bought a team in the PSL, a team in the SA20 and another in the CPL. They're restricted to a certain number of internationals in any league, so they sign 12 Australians to play for the Scorchers, 12 Pakistanis for the PSL, 12 South Africans for the SA 20 and 12 West Indians for the CPL. When they are playing BBL, their international players come from the 36 non-Australians on their list. When the PSL is on, their internationals come from the 36 non-Pakistanis, and so on.

This is an issue, if you are not within the best 4-8 internationals out of the 36, you won't be selected to play overseas. Hence why you cannot keep players for franchises year round. The Knight Riders always make room for Sunil Narine and Andre Russell in their other teams.
Unless something else is provided for these players that aren't selected for their franchise teams


The writer of the article makes note of Nicholas Pooran filling his Super Giants obligations in the SA20, but it's superseded by his Indians contract to play in the ILT20. It's a no win situation for Pooran. The same would have gone to Trent Boult if he tried to play for the Paarl Royals (fulfilling his Rajasthan Royals obligations), but then the Indians requesting him to play for them in the SA20

 

[The King!]

20/20 Just makes me feel like the old man yelling at cloud.

It's just dreadful , australia play tonight and I dgaf.

 

[010203]

This is a good read, regarding overlapping leagues and the pursuit of players by franchises and interests and offers some solutions

'A broken sport': Franchise free-for-all compromises players' incentives

Unrestricted movement between overlapping tournaments risks calling integrity into question

www.espncricinfo.com

That article crystallised why it's hard to give a rats about T20 franchise comps.

 

[corbies]

Rovman Powell and Akeal Hosein both played the ILT20 final in Dubai on the 17th which finished about 10pm and then played their teams opening match of the PSL in Karachi on the 18th which started at 2pm.

That just seems mental.

 

[NYRB]

Rovman Powell and Akeal Hosein both played the ILT20 final in Dubai on the 17th which finished about 10pm and then played their teams opening match of the PSL in Karachi on the 18th which started at 2pm.

That just seems mental.

Both of them played in 3 countries, with 2 of those on a back-to-back within the last week.

Tuesday and Wednesday - Australia and UAE


Saturday and Sunday- UAE and Pakistan.

 

[Cleavy]

‘They basically rolled their eyes’: Cricket’s superpowers ignored a blueprint to save Tests

Australia, England and India were given a blueprint to save Test cricket last year. They left it on the shelf.

www.theage.com.au

ruled by self-interest (and more T20s), no doubt...

 

[akkaps]

‘They basically rolled their eyes’: Cricket’s superpowers ignored a blueprint to save Tests

Australia, England and India were given a blueprint to save Test cricket last year. They left it on the shelf.

www.theage.com.au

ruled by self-interest (and more T20s), no doubt...

Is there a version of this article for those that are too cheap to pay?

 

[010203]

Is there a version of this article for those that are too cheap to pay?

Loading…

archive.md

 

[big_e]

Interesting comment piece from Dan Brettig,. following on from the article a few posts back.

Basically, Australia has gone all-in on tests, even though it's a much lesser priority elsewhere. (Nothing that NZ gets bigger crowds for T20Is than we do, in much smaller cities.) So if tests die out, Australia has the most to lose.

Highlighting the huge pressure on Mike Baird to convince the BCCI to take on some of the ideas that come out of the Snedden review.

Why the fall of Test cricket would hurt Australia the most

Australian cricket has bet most of its chips on the health of Tests. Cricket Australia chair Mike Baird must lead the way to save them.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Santana]

But I thought Australia did very little for Test Cricket according to some of the top minds around here? /s

Can't read the article, but CA going all in is a bit risky for the sport here. Considering how little a lot of other boards make Tests a priority. They'd want a solid plan B. But I am also not sure I buy it considering how little effort CA has put into first class batting development for god knows how long now.

Given that Australia is playing just two test matches in NZ having not played a test match in NZ for 10 years, actions do not follow words. Australia is very loath to travel compared with England and like Winx prefers to play at home where it can win most of its matches with ease.

Saw this doozy comment under the article. It never occurs to these kinds of people that maybe it was NZC who were the ones who wanted it to be 2 tests? or that England being in a different hemisphere is why they get more opportunities to travel?

 

[Gough]

Nice to see, it would be very easy for a guy like him to be lost to Zim.

 

[Cmarsh]

BCCI announce financial incentives for Indian players to play test cricket.

We Need Powerful Leaders....: Kevin Pietersen Reacts After Jay Shah Announces New Incentives For Test Players

Former England captain Kevin Pietersen reacted after Jay Shah announced new incentives for Test players. The BCCI announced a new scheme for players under which they will receive three times their present salaries should they play a minimum number of Test matches in a season., Cricket News...

www.timesnownews.com

 

[Cleavy]

CA postpones T20I series against Afghanistan due to 'human rights' issues

CA says they did so because "conditions for women and girls in Afghanistan are getting worse"

www.espncricinfo.com

unsurprisingly we're not going/playing

 

[010203]

CA postpones T20I series against Afghanistan due to 'human rights' issues

CA says they did so because "conditions for women and girls in Afghanistan are getting worse"

www.espncricinfo.com

unsurprisingly we're not going/playing

CA's stance would be so much more meaningful if they opted out of playing Afghanistan in ICC events as opposed to forgettable, meaningless bilateral T20 series. Of course CA would never cancel/postpone a series against India or England on human rights grounds.