20 - Twenty Game (India vs Australia)

[SJS]

Why do we need fifty countries playing cricket ?

 

[SJS]

The MCC made many mistakes in trying to keep cricket shackled but the advent of the Dalmia-culture in ICC, though it brought great financial benefits to the ICC, the boards and the players, also brought about a change in thinking that can not see beyond the greenbacks in their coffers.

 

[pup11]

SJS in top form

 

[thirdumpire]

Where are we? in an ostrich farm ? Sports has entered the business and entertainment age long time ago. Cricket has got to catch up sooner or later because someone called it a sport .

Ok granted that in Test Cricket you need superior talent, endurance and be a keen exponent of the mind game, but its not easy to market the version to todays generation . I even went to the extent of disclosing a bit of my personal life to emphasize the point

Its all about selling with presentation. "You don't sell the Steak, you sell the Sizzle" so they say .

The co-existence of the 3 variations with 3 generations of fans is where we stand now. Will be interesting to see which one dies first.....

 

[jeevan]

The relative comparison between Tests and T20s is misplaced.
The comparison should be between 50 over ODI and T20 and if there is a need for 3 formats (based on exhausting the players already complaining about workload, and also overstuffing the viewers).

Tests are, and will always remain the thing that singularly differentiates cricket as a team sport.

Perhaps though we can change the limited overs game into T20 and have a 2 week world tournament instead of a 6 week tournament, perhaps even leaving more time for tests. Eg:

A typical bilateral tour today packs 3 tests in three weeks and 7 ODIs in three more.
Consider a similar bilateral tour of 7 T20I's whacked out in a week (possible) and
then five tests over five weeks. (clearly oversimplifying to make a point).

If a T20I has somewhat roughly similar merit as an ODI, this could be better for almost all concerned including those who want the thrills and those who want sterner examinations of cricketing skill.

 

[Richard]

I can't remember anyone on this forum saying anything else? No matter the reason it was good for cricket

The reason does matter, but either way many people have talked as if Packer was some sort of knight in white satin or something, which is such crap it beggars belief.

 

[archie mac]

The reason does matter, but either way many people have talked as if Packer was some sort of knight in white satin or something, which is such crap it beggars belief.

Why?

 

[Richard]

Because if someone was trying to be a nuscience I don't really care even if he ended-up being the best thing in cricket history (which Packer categorically wasn't, the game would be far better had he never inherited Nine IMO), he's still a douche.

 

[archie mac]

Because if someone was trying to be a nuscience I don't really care even if he ended-up being the best thing in cricket history (which Packer categorically wasn't, the game would be far better had he never inherited Nine IMO), he's still a douche.

He was a business man, ACB would not give him the TV rights, the players were not being paid enough, and in Aust were retiring at 30, if that!

Good on him, what ever his reasons

 

[Richard]

He was a business man, ACB would not give him the TV rights

That may make his actions forgiveable in a business sense, but it's still deplorable in a cricketing one.

the players were not being paid enough, and in Aust were retiring at 30, if that!

Enough for what? If they were retiring at 30, then that's the way it was - it wasn't exactly causing problems was it?

Good on him, what ever his reasons

No. The reasons are everything. Regardless of the fact that Nine has served Australian cricket well in the post-WSC era, Packer and WSC was a stain on World cricket for a time and had any number of things happened which could have done that meant the ACB of the time ended-up beating Packer it's very likely cricket would not have experienced many of the problems it has since.

 

[honestbharani]

The relative comparison between Tests and T20s is misplaced.
The comparison should be between 50 over ODI and T20 and if there is a need for 3 formats (based on exhausting the players already complaining about workload, and also overstuffing the viewers).

Tests are, and will always remain the thing that singularly differentiates cricket as a team sport.

Perhaps though we can change the limited overs game into T20 and have a 2 week world tournament instead of a 6 week tournament, perhaps even leaving more time for tests. Eg:

A typical bilateral tour today packs 3 tests in three weeks and 7 ODIs in three more.
Consider a similar bilateral tour of 7 T20I's whacked out in a week (possible) and
then five tests over five weeks. (clearly oversimplifying to make a point).

If a T20I has somewhat roughly similar merit as an ODI, this could be better for almost all concerned including those who want the thrills and those who want sterner examinations of cricketing skill.

Agree with that.



btw, thirdumpire, this is the first time I m coming across your posts, mate, but keep up the good work.

 

[Bracken]

Because if someone was trying to be a nuscience I don't really care even if he ended-up being the best thing in cricket history (which Packer categorically wasn't, the game would be far better had he never inherited Nine IMO), he's still a douche.

That should probably be "he was still a douche". The only thing he still is would be compost.

I disagree that the game would be in a better place without Packer's intervention. Without question, the quality of the game in Australia, as well as the quality of the administration of the game in Australia, improved out of sight after the WSC split and the eventual reunion. Granted, that administration has again deteriorated (as it has around the world over the past decade or so) but the immediate increase in administrative accountability was a massive positive.

Before Packer, players were treated like indentured servants rather than a major part of the custodianship of the game. Packer exposed the badly kept secret that the game could support full professionalism (much to the chagrin of the administration at the time, who continually cried poor whenever player renumeration was brought up) and, while it took a couple of generations to realise, gave Australia the opportunity to put into place systems and methods to increase the quality and depth of cricketers- initially at first class level, and then at the international level. Australia's recent dominance, in my view, is a direct result of the change of thinking that resulted from the Packer schism.

The notion that these sort of changes would have occurred naturally under the existing management is misguided. Very few major changes in the course of human history happened by themselves, most positive major organisational change is brought about by the creation of a flashpoint, and the middle ground that results from the fallout.

It is a fact of life that those in power tend to want to keep power. Without some real motivation, those people in power tend to insist that their way is the only way, as it is what they think has worked before. Evolution only really works when it follows a revolution.

(Incidentally, this is why I predict a split in the ICC is the medium term. The administrative worship of money has again gone to the point where it is overshadowing the interests of the game, and sooner or later someone will push back against the money. Like in the Packer example, the furore will result in short term pain for the game, but after the initial consternation the game will be stronger for it, and those that currently wield the power will find themselves forced to learn that preschool lesson- that nice boys share.)

Packer's motives were undoubtedly self-serving, as were those of the players involved. The result of that self-interest spread the cause of professionalism and accountability that produced some positives, and they far outweighed the short term negatives.

Enough for what? If they were retiring at 30, then that's the way it was - it wasn't exactly causing problems was it?

The problem was that it was holding back the progression of the game. Test cricket is supposed to be the best against the best, not just the best that could afford to put enough time into the game to play. Players retiring either at or before their prime was a huge disservice to the game.

I am much more comfortable with players retiring when they are no longer capable of being selected in the best 11, rather than when they can no longer afford to make the game their priority over providing for their families. The game, as well is better for it, as are literally ALL of the stakeholders.

Why do we need fifty countries playing cricket ?

I would add that test cricket is played by teams representing something like a fifth of the world's population- it is hardly some niche market that needs to be grown to be viable.

 

[The Sean]

Bracken a locked in Hussey and Afridi for when the awards return IMO.

 

[Richard]

That should probably be "he was still a douche". The only thing he still is would be compost.

I disagree that the game would be in a better place without Packer's intervention. Without question, the quality of the game in Australia, as well as the quality of the administration of the game in Australia, improved out of sight after the WSC split and the eventual reunion. Granted, that administration has again deteriorated (as it has around the world over the past decade or so) but the immediate increase in administrative accountability was a massive positive.

Before Packer, players were treated like indentured servants rather than a major part of the custodianship of the game. Packer exposed the badly kept secret that the game could support full professionalism (much to the chagrin of the administration at the time, who continually cried poor whenever player renumeration was brought up) and, while it took a couple of generations to realise, gave Australia the opportunity to put into place systems and methods to increase the quality and depth of cricketers- initially at first class level, and then at the international level. Australia's recent dominance, in my view, is a direct result of the change of thinking that resulted from the Packer schism.

The notion that these sort of changes would have occurred naturally under the existing management is misguided. Very few major changes in the course of human history happened by themselves, most positive major organisational change is brought about by the creation of a flashpoint, and the middle ground that results from the fallout.

It is a fact of life that those in power tend to want to keep power. Without some real motivation, those people in power tend to insist that their way is the only way, as it is what they think has worked before. Evolution only really works when it follows a revolution.

(Incidentally, this is why I predict a split in the ICC is the medium term. The administrative worship of money has again gone to the point where it is overshadowing the interests of the game, and sooner or later someone will push back against the money. Like in the Packer example, the furore will result in short term pain for the game, but after the initial consternation the game will be stronger for it, and those that currently wield the power will find themselves forced to learn that preschool lesson- that nice boys share.)

Packer's motives were undoubtedly self-serving, as were those of the players involved. The result of that self-interest spread the cause of professionalism and accountability that produced some positives, and they far outweighed the short term negatives.

See, for me there's too much anti-establishment feeling anywhere. Not everyone in power are bad people. There's this supposition that everyone at the ACB in the early 1970s was an old-croney-trying-to-keep-every-penny-available type. As far as I'm concerned, that's stereotypes coming out and nothing more.

I also disagree that revolution is neccessary for evolution. It's possible, really, to view pretty much any major change as a revolution, as that's the very nature of a substantial change. All change is better when it comes gradually, without destruction. I have no doubt whatsoever that had the ACB beaten Packer - or, heck, better still, realised that he was actually offering them a decent deal to cover Tests - then the changes which have been wrought would have happened eventually, and without potentially one of the best times in Test history being stunted.

I also think it's opportunism to claim that the Packer schism has resulted in Australia's recent dominance. Extreme opportunism. Was there something similar in West Indies' dominance between 1976 and 1986? No. It just so happened that several crops of excellent players emerged in succession. The same has happened with Australia since 1989.

The problem was that it was holding back the progression of the game. Test cricket is supposed to be the best against the best, not just the best that could afford to put enough time into the game to play. Players retiring either at or before their prime was a huge disservice to the game.

I am much more comfortable with players retiring when they are no longer capable of being selected in the best 11, rather than when they can no longer afford to make the game their priority over providing for their families. The game, as well is better for it, as are literally ALL of the stakeholders.

I prefer it that way too, but the point is Australia were still managing - quite perfectly well - even despite this.

 

[pasag]

That should probably be "he was still a douche". The only thing he still is would be compost.

I disagree that the game would be in a better place without Packer's intervention. Without question, the quality of the game in Australia, as well as the quality of the administration of the game in Australia, improved out of sight after the WSC split and the eventual reunion. Granted, that administration has again deteriorated (as it has around the world over the past decade or so) but the immediate increase in administrative accountability was a massive positive.

Before Packer, players were treated like indentured servants rather than a major part of the custodianship of the game. Packer exposed the badly kept secret that the game could support full professionalism (much to the chagrin of the administration at the time, who continually cried poor whenever player renumeration was brought up) and, while it took a couple of generations to realise, gave Australia the opportunity to put into place systems and methods to increase the quality and depth of cricketers- initially at first class level, and then at the international level. Australia's recent dominance, in my view, is a direct result of the change of thinking that resulted from the Packer schism.

The notion that these sort of changes would have occurred naturally under the existing management is misguided. Very few major changes in the course of human history happened by themselves, most positive major organisational change is brought about by the creation of a flashpoint, and the middle ground that results from the fallout.

It is a fact of life that those in power tend to want to keep power. Without some real motivation, those people in power tend to insist that their way is the only way, as it is what they think has worked before. Evolution only really works when it follows a revolution.

(Incidentally, this is why I predict a split in the ICC is the medium term. The administrative worship of money has again gone to the point where it is overshadowing the interests of the game, and sooner or later someone will push back against the money. Like in the Packer example, the furore will result in short term pain for the game, but after the initial consternation the game will be stronger for it, and those that currently wield the power will find themselves forced to learn that preschool lesson- that nice boys share.)

Packer's motives were undoubtedly self-serving, as were those of the players involved. The result of that self-interest spread the cause of professionalism and accountability that produced some positives, and they far outweighed the short term negatives.



The problem was that it was holding back the progression of the game. Test cricket is supposed to be the best against the best, not just the best that could afford to put enough time into the game to play. Players retiring either at or before their prime was a huge disservice to the game.

I am much more comfortable with players retiring when they are no longer capable of being selected in the best 11, rather than when they can no longer afford to make the game their priority over providing for their families. The game, as well is better for it, as are literally ALL of the stakeholders.



I would add that test cricket is played by teams representing something like a fifth of the world's population- it is hardly some niche market that needs to be grown to be viable.

 

[Bracken]

See, for me there's too much anti-establishment feeling anywhere. Not everyone in power are bad people. There's this supposition that everyone at the ACB in the early 1970s was an old-croney-trying-to-keep-every-penny-available type. As far as I'm concerned, that's stereotypes coming out and nothing more.

It is far more than stereotyping, it is a fact. The players weren't sharing in the profits of the game, and were told that they couldn't expect more because the game couldn't support it. When someone came along with a proposal which would solve this (falsely stated) problem, the ACB refused it.

There has been plenty written about the excesses of the board members at the time (for example, having their wives flown around the world to accompany them at the board's expense, while refusing to pay for upgraded flights and decent accommodation for the players on tour), and even more written about the board's refusal to cede to any of the financial requests of the players, and the manner in which those requests were rejected.

I also disagree that revolution is neccessary for evolution. It's possible, really, to view pretty much any major change as a revolution, as that's the very nature of a substantial change. All change is better when it comes gradually, without destruction.

No, not absolutely necessary, but it is very often the case. The ACB had given absolutely no indication that they were anything but dismissive of the need to change the way that they operated, particularly in regards to the treatment and earnings of the players. They were rooted in the view that they weren't paid well in their day, so there was no reason to pay the latest generation.

That would indicate to me that the choice wasn't between orderly, gradual change versus damaging immediate change, but rather the choice between drastic intervention or keeping the status quo indefinitely. I know which one I would have chosen in the same situation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that had the ACB beaten Packer - or, heck, better still, realised that he was actually offering them a decent deal to cover Tests - then the changes which have been wrought would have happened eventually, and without potentially one of the best times in Test history being stunted.

I haven't seen a single thing that suggests to me that the ACB had even a slight intention to change anything. Everything I have read since was that rather than expressing a desire for gradual change, their position was that change was completely unnecessary in any form, and that the players were selfish and greedy for expecting otherwise.

I also think it's opportunism to claim that the Packer schism has resulted in Australia's recent dominance. Extreme opportunism. Was there something similar in West Indies' dominance between 1976 and 1986? No. It just so happened that several crops of excellent players emerged in succession. The same has happened with Australia since 1989.

And the West Indian experience demonstrates the difference. The West Indies had a string of naturally gifted players that brought them to the top, but when the extraordinarily talented players stopped coming through the pipeline, there was no plan to groom and develop the next generation. Their sudden fall speaks volumes.

Contrast that with Australia. Their dominance has already spanned a greater period of time than that of the West Indies, and frankly there is no end in sight. The depth of talent that has been produced by the assembly line of talent identification, junior development, the Academy, and a system that rewards international and first class players adequately has created the situation where the talent pool is constantly regenerating.

None of that would have occurred without the drastic increase in revenue that the board enjoyed since Packer. After the turmoil suffered by the game and the players of that era, the players identified by the management as the future found themselves able to devote themselves to the game, and it wasn't that long until the results started reflecting this. The better standard of play and the results (as well as the enormous improvement of the presentation of the telecast) attracted more people to the game, expanding the future talent pool. This led to MORE money being generated for the administration, which enabled them to fund initiatives like the Academy.

Giving the players a bigger cut of the bigger pie, meant that first class players were able to earn enough to support themselves while they developed into test contenders- and enough to provide a healthy income for those who were not quite test standard (or former test players), but were experienced and had knowledge to impart to the next group. This led to the situation that Australia currently enjoyed- whenever an international player retires or loses form, there is a conga line that forms of high quality players vying for their place.

The combination of development and player renumeration directly caused the current Australian success, and the money to fund both were created from the fallout of the Packer split.

I certainly don't think that this formed any part of Packer's (or the rebel players') rationale for forming WSC, but the current dominance is, in my opinion, unquestionably the end result of a lengthy chain of events. Without the first domino falling, the rest wouldn't have been able to happen.

I prefer it that way too, but the point is Australia were still managing - quite perfectly well - even despite this.

But when most of the test team left to be a part of the Packer organisation, what happened to Australian cricket? It was in the toilet. If most of the current test side all left at once, the replacement side would at least be competitive- and that is the difference.

The future is assured as well as the present. THAT is the point.

 

[Richard]

It is far more than stereotyping, it is a fact. The players weren't sharing in the profits of the game, and were told that they couldn't expect more because the game couldn't support it. When someone came along with a proposal which would solve this (falsely stated) problem, the ACB refused it.

There has been plenty written about the excesses of the board members at the time (for example, having their wives flown around the world to accompany them at the board's expense, while refusing to pay for upgraded flights and decent accommodation for the players on tour), and even more written about the board's refusal to cede to any of the financial requests of the players, and the manner in which those requests were rejected.

No, not absolutely necessary, but it is very often the case. The ACB had given absolutely no indication that they were anything but dismissive of the need to change the way that they operated, particularly in regards to the treatment and earnings of the players. They were rooted in the view that they weren't paid well in their day, so there was no reason to pay the latest generation.

That would indicate to me that the choice wasn't between orderly, gradual change versus damaging immediate change, but rather the choice between drastic intervention or keeping the status quo indefinitely. I know which one I would have chosen in the same situation.

You seem to have extensive knowledge on this subject, most of this stuff is stuff I've not read before, so I'll happily cede that there may have been wrongs at the ACB back in t' day.

I haven't seen a single thing that suggests to me that the ACB had even a slight intention to change anything. Everything I have read since was that rather than expressing a desire for gradual change, their position was that change was completely unnecessary in any form, and that the players were selfish and greedy for expecting otherwise.

But those in the organisation don't stay the same. Eventually, someone else would have taken over, and eventually someone with some amount of serious moral awareness would have changed the pattern of cricketers not being paid their fair share. Once this was done, it'd be there to stay. Had Packer's initial offer been accepted by the ACB (or had Nev Wran not decided to help him, or had Clyde Packer never fallen-out with Sir Frank and inherited Nine), WSC would never have happened and the only way things would have changed would have been something like this.

And the West Indian experience demonstrates the difference. The West Indies had a string of naturally gifted players that brought them to the top, but when the extraordinarily talented players stopped coming through the pipeline, there was no plan to groom and develop the next generation. Their sudden fall speaks volumes.

Contrast that with Australia. Their dominance has already spanned a greater period of time than that of the West Indies, and frankly there is no end in sight. The depth of talent that has been produced by the assembly line of talent identification, junior development, the Academy, and a system that rewards international and first class players adequately has created the situation where the talent pool is constantly regenerating.

None of that would have occurred without the drastic increase in revenue that the board enjoyed since Packer. After the turmoil suffered by the game and the players of that era, the players identified by the management as the future found themselves able to devote themselves to the game, and it wasn't that long until the results started reflecting this. The better standard of play and the results (as well as the enormous improvement of the presentation of the telecast) attracted more people to the game, expanding the future talent pool. This led to MORE money being generated for the administration, which enabled them to fund initiatives like the Academy.

Giving the players a bigger cut of the bigger pie, meant that first class players were able to earn enough to support themselves while they developed into test contenders- and enough to provide a healthy income for those who were not quite test standard (or former test players), but were experienced and had knowledge to impart to the next group. This led to the situation that Australia currently enjoyed- whenever an international player retires or loses form, there is a conga line that forms of high quality players vying for their place.

The combination of development and player renumeration directly caused the current Australian success, and the money to fund both were created from the fallout of the Packer split.

I certainly don't think that this formed any part of Packer's (or the rebel players') rationale for forming WSC, but the current dominance is, in my opinion, unquestionably the end result of a lengthy chain of events. Without the first domino falling, the rest wouldn't have been able to happen.

But when most of the test team left to be a part of the Packer organisation, what happened to Australian cricket? It was in the toilet. If most of the current test side all left at once, the replacement side would at least be competitive- and that is the difference.

The future is assured as well as the present. THAT is the point.

I reckon if Ponting, Clark, Hussey, Gillespie and Clarke aped Hughes, Alderman, Yallop, Hogg and Wessels in the mid-1980s (following Langer, McGrath and Warne's Chappell, Marsh and Lillee) the situation would be markedly the same as it was then. And as it was when most of the first-team took to WSC in the late-1970s.

Let's not forget, though, that even at this time Australia were still nowhere near as bad as, for instance, Bangladesh. They remained competetive. But any side will suffer, regardless of anything, if they lose 6 or 7 top players.

I think, very often, meanwhile, that the "Australia are well-organised, West Indies aren't" thing is over-pedalled. The blueprint for success is outstanding players: no amount of good organisation can create or manufacture this, it's simply down to good fortune. West Indies have fallen as badly as they have since 1997 because of the fact that there haven't been many good players in that time. Yes, the WICB is a shambles, but even if it wasn't, there's still a substantial chance West Indies would be not that much better than they currently are. Equally, CA's sensibility helps Australia, but it didn't create the Stephen Waughs, Warnes, McGraths, Gilchrists and Gillespies. That was just good fortune that they all happened at the same time. We're unlikely to see players of this calibre any time in the immediate future; never mind 5 or 6 of them at the same time.

The WICB being a shambles won't turn Laras and Chanderpauls into Mortons and Josephs. Nor will CA being well-organised turn O'Donnells and Gilberts into McDermotts and Reids.

 

[Bracken]

You seem to have extensive knowledge on this subject, most of this stuff is stuff I've not read before, so I'll happily cede that there may have been wrongs at the ACB back in t' day.

But those in the organisation don't stay the same. Eventually, someone else would have taken over, and eventually someone with some amount of serious moral awareness would have changed the pattern of cricketers not being paid their fair share. Once this was done, it'd be there to stay.

The general attitude at the top often remains, even through changes in personnel, often due to the way that the head grooms a protege to take over. The same attitude had existed in the ACB for years, through various changes in leadership- there was nothing to suggest that anything would be done differently without some sort of external motivation.

Had Packer's initial offer been accepted by the ACB (or had Nev Wran not decided to help him, or had Clyde Packer never fallen-out with Sir Frank and inherited Nine), WSC would never have happened and the only way things would have changed would have been something like this.

It is equally as likely that nothing would have changed, or that someone else would have come along in the Packer role and actually wanted to change the entire administration of the game, rather than just getting the rights to broadcast it. Had this happened, the split would have never concluded, and the damage to the game would be much, much worse.

Kerry was a skilled businessman, and had a remarkable intuition for the mood of a television audience, but his ability was hardly unique. If he identified the market, someone else with the means and the motivation likely would have in time as well.

I reckon if Ponting, Clark, Hussey, Gillespie and Clarke aped Hughes, Alderman, Yallop, Hogg and Wessels in the mid-1980s (following Langer, McGrath and Warne's Chappell, Marsh and Lillee) the situation would be markedly the same as it was then. And as it was when most of the first-team took to WSC in the late-1970s.

Well, the South African rebel tours are a different matter.

That said, there is MUCH more depth in Australian cricket these days than either during the South African tours or WSC. From the five current names you mentioned, Australia would have to find three batsmen and one quick for the test team- assuming that Macgill, Johnson and Jaques replace Warne, McGrath and Langer.

You could raffle the fast bowler's spot between a half a dozen guys, you could pick from any three of David Hussey, Voges, Rogers, Hodge, Cosgrove, North, Katich, Love or a few others. Hell, you could even bring Lehmann back if a lack of experience is an issue.

I doubt that such a team would lose more series than it wins, and would still probably be one of the top couple of teams going around. After WSC, and after the South African tours, Australia fell much more sharply than that.

Let's not forget, though, that even at this time Australia were still nowhere near as bad as, for instance, Bangladesh. They remained competetive. But any side will suffer, regardless of anything, if they lose 6 or 7 top players.

Probably not, but they fell away significantly. When you have to pull a 42 year old out of retirement to give the team some experience, it would suggest a serious lack of depth. Also, guys got chances in the Australian team during WSC that were either far too green, or weren't close to the standard, or both. That is unlikely the case today.

I think, very often, meanwhile, that the "Australia are well-organised, West Indies aren't" thing is over-pedalled. The blueprint for success is outstanding players: no amount of good organisation can create or manufacture this, it's simply down to good fortune. West Indies have fallen as badly as they have since 1997 because of the fact that there haven't been many good players in that time. Yes, the WICB is a shambles, but even if it wasn't, there's still a substantial chance West Indies would be not that much better than they currently are. Equally, CA's sensibility helps Australia, but it didn't create the Stephen Waughs, Warnes, McGraths, Gilchrists and Gillespies. That was just good fortune that they all happened at the same time. We're unlikely to see players of this calibre any time in the immediate future; never mind 5 or 6 of them at the same time.

The WICB being a shambles won't turn Laras and Chanderpauls into Mortons and Josephs. Nor will CA being well-organised turn O'Donnells and Gilberts into McDermotts and Reids.

Players with outstanding natural talent who aren't identified, nurtured and developed turn into excellent insurance salesmen and council workers. A massive part of the Australian system is refining that raw skill into a finished product. Granted, you'll never turn an average player into a great, but it is certainly possible to have that natural talent waste away to the point where a potential great is lost. Fortunately for the romantic cricket fan in us, we'll never know what greats were lost to the game- could you imagine knowing how good a Lara or a Tendulkar or a McGrath could have been and not seeing their talents fulfilled? The Australian system minimises that chance.

 

[Sanz]

Because it is a bastardisation of the greatest of all games, because it takes all of the aesthetically beautiful strokes, and turns them into a 'six and out' slogathon, because it fundamentally changes the basic contest between bat and ball and reduces the bowler into a mere 'Merlin'

Not Correct, IMO. In 20/20 it is very hard to get away with a poor ball or bowling, there is not much marging for bowling crap. On the other hand in tests and to some extent in ODIs you do get away with lot of crap in the name of building innings.

I am not against Tests or saying that 20/20 is the best format, but after watching some games in last few months, I have started to recognize its potential and appreciate what it brings to the fans. It is not as bad as one thought and if you bowl well there is a good chance that you will succeed, as Harbhajan showed the other day.

Cricket shouldn't be treated like a property of the purists, if the majority of the fans want to see 20/20 then why not. I couldn't care less for the globalization though.

 

[silentstriker]

I think the problem is that it redefines crap. Bowling on a good length six inches outside off stump is great in Tests, but becomes crap in 20/20.