kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
The theory behind T20 cricket is simple. Wickets and boundaries are exciting, therefore manipulating the laws of cricket to produce more of them will create a package that is more exciting per minute of game time watched. Some have predicted that the advent of T20 cricket is the death knell of the 50 over game. This article argues otherwise.
The major problem with T20 cricket is that this approach has devalued not only the scoring of boundaries, but also the taking of wickets.
The devaluing of boundaries is obvious enough. When more fours and sixes are scored, each individual one becomes less remarkable, less interesting, less exciting. But the devaluing of wickets is perhaps the largest single problem with the format of T20.'
In 50 over cricket, like Tests, wickets are gold. Taking a wicket in the first over will change the entire strategy of the batting side, who have to become more defensive lest they risk running out of wickets. In T20, the chance of a team being bowled out is very low, no matter how many risks they take. This has meant that taking a wicket in the first over is no longer as exciting. It simply means another hitter will come to the crease and start hitting.
Even three or four wickets do not change this basic equation. There are still plenty of wickets in hand, perhaps sixteen or seventeen overs left, so keep hitting. Three or four wickets at the top of a 50 over match and the game is very different.
The overall effect of this is to create a form of cricket in which both the peaks and lows of excitement are predictably reduced for a short time into a smart, neat, McDonalds-like package.
One of the reasons why soccer inspires such tremendous passions is that scoring occasions, while rare, are extremely exciting. A team might only score one goal in a game so when a goal happens it is cause for rapture. If this aspect of human psychology can be applied to cricket, it suggests that the longer formats of the game will be followed with more enthusiasm and joy because the events will create better memories.
A related reason to all of this is the question of balance between bat and ball. In Test match cricket the balance is titled towards the bowlers, who are essential for taking the twenty wickets necessary to win. In T20 cricket the balance is titled towards the batsmen, who only have to throw the bat. 50 over cricket arguably provides the finest balance between bat and ball of all the formats.
None of this is to say that T20 has no or even little value as a format. The application of T20 tactics has revolutionised both 50 over and Test batting, and the many boundaries have meant that a dot ball is something to cheer for the fielding team. Also, the massive pay packets of IPL players has raised the profile of cricket as a sport, helping to facilitate the entry of the best sporting talents into the game and not others.
But there will always remain a place for 50 over cricket, and it is probable that the two major limited overs formats will co-exist for a while yet.
Original here.
The major problem with T20 cricket is that this approach has devalued not only the scoring of boundaries, but also the taking of wickets.
The devaluing of boundaries is obvious enough. When more fours and sixes are scored, each individual one becomes less remarkable, less interesting, less exciting. But the devaluing of wickets is perhaps the largest single problem with the format of T20.'
In 50 over cricket, like Tests, wickets are gold. Taking a wicket in the first over will change the entire strategy of the batting side, who have to become more defensive lest they risk running out of wickets. In T20, the chance of a team being bowled out is very low, no matter how many risks they take. This has meant that taking a wicket in the first over is no longer as exciting. It simply means another hitter will come to the crease and start hitting.
Even three or four wickets do not change this basic equation. There are still plenty of wickets in hand, perhaps sixteen or seventeen overs left, so keep hitting. Three or four wickets at the top of a 50 over match and the game is very different.
The overall effect of this is to create a form of cricket in which both the peaks and lows of excitement are predictably reduced for a short time into a smart, neat, McDonalds-like package.
One of the reasons why soccer inspires such tremendous passions is that scoring occasions, while rare, are extremely exciting. A team might only score one goal in a game so when a goal happens it is cause for rapture. If this aspect of human psychology can be applied to cricket, it suggests that the longer formats of the game will be followed with more enthusiasm and joy because the events will create better memories.
A related reason to all of this is the question of balance between bat and ball. In Test match cricket the balance is titled towards the bowlers, who are essential for taking the twenty wickets necessary to win. In T20 cricket the balance is titled towards the batsmen, who only have to throw the bat. 50 over cricket arguably provides the finest balance between bat and ball of all the formats.
None of this is to say that T20 has no or even little value as a format. The application of T20 tactics has revolutionised both 50 over and Test batting, and the many boundaries have meant that a dot ball is something to cheer for the fielding team. Also, the massive pay packets of IPL players has raised the profile of cricket as a sport, helping to facilitate the entry of the best sporting talents into the game and not others.
But there will always remain a place for 50 over cricket, and it is probable that the two major limited overs formats will co-exist for a while yet.
Original here.
