Now a 9 Run Hit

[SJS]

The question I would ask, though, is where is the threat to Test cricket and where have all these negative changes occurred? As far as I can see, Test cricket has remained largely unaffected by Twenty20. Yesterday's play was Test cricket at its best and there are no indications that's about to change any time soon. All of the innovations which are occurring to Twenty20 to bias batting are pretty much staying there and other consequences such as faster and more innovative methods of scoring can only benefit Test cricket. And rule changes which were intended to nullify certain bowling (one bouncer per over/batsman) have been relaxed too.

Test cricket will just have to adjust to a more crowded schedule, really. I've seen no signs that there are wholesale changes to make it more appealing to non-fans on the way. Tests still go for 5 days, still in white clothing, still use a red ball, etc.

Firstly, its more about what kind of people watch T20 and how they view Test matches and FC fricket than the changes to the latter.

Having said that, there are a couple of things that are worrying.

Firstly, as we have seen with one day cricket, the space for Test cricket is getting reduced. Far more one day cricket is played today (relatively speaking) than was the case two/three decades ago. This influences the next generations. the generation os today has grown up in an atmosphere of limited overs cricket quite unlike what, say, my generation or even my sons gre up in. This makes the coming generations loyalties at least divided between the two forms. I dont want to get into the proportion of that division since thats a moot point. I suspect T-20, may start dominating (for monitory reasons as did the one day version) the cricketing space and in a couple of decades we may see simply too much of this form of the game and much less of the longer version - some suspect none at all. Definitely the generation of my great grand children may have very little interest left in Test Cricket. This surely is worrying.

 

[Langeveldt]

If we see a second string Sri Lankan side come to England as the result of the ugly beast that is T20, then hopefully some people may start seeing sense and admit that it's going to be a victim of it's own success.. We've already seen it massacre Bangladesh and NZ's fairly fragile resources..

 

[Richard]

The question I would ask, though, is where is the threat to Test cricket and where have all these negative changes occurred? As far as I can see, Test cricket has remained largely unaffected by Twenty20.

It's not about what's happened so far. It's about what's going to happen 30 years down the line. For me it's naive - just as those who talked about how "the death of English cricket has been greatly exaggerated" vis a vis the Sky deal... on the opening day of Sky's coverage - to say "ah well they said it was going to be big problems, I don't see any yet, do you?"

The effects most people worry about will take a generation or two to unfold.

 

[GIMH]

If we see a second string Sri Lankan side come to England as the result of the ugly beast that is T20, then hopefully some people may start seeing sense and admit that it's going to be a victim of it's own success.. We've already seen it massacre Bangladesh and NZ's fairly fragile resources..

That's not T20's fault per se, but the fault of the anti-competitive practices of the BCCI

 

[Top_Cat]

It's not about what's happened so far. It's about what's going to happen 30 years down the line. For me it's naive - just as those who talked about how "the death of English cricket has been greatly exaggerated" vis a vis the Sky deal... on the opening day of Sky's coverage - to say "ah well they said it was going to be big problems, I don't see any yet, do you?"

The effects most people worry about will take a generation or two to unfold.

I don't see Tests being wiped off the calendar as it's still regarded as the pinnacle of a player's career to play Tests and until that changes, it'll stay.

To me, it's a challenge to Test cricket to stay relevant. If no-one is supporting it, what's the point in keeping it around? For tradition? All well and good if you're not the one paying for it and without Twenty20, a few country boards I can think of would be in deep poo financially. If people are excited about Twenty20 (and most friends of mine, traditional fans and non-fans alike, are) but not about Tests, well something's wrong there, isn't it?

The way I see it, Test cricket, like everything else in the world, needs to succeed on its own merits, not rely on traditionalists to prop it up because it's 'proper' cricket. It does need the support of boards to remain the top level, sure (and the BCCI's attitude is a bit of a worry) but if the product is good, it'll do well. It has to shake off its stuffiness a bit, especially in this country. The fun Police did a lot to ensure that watching the cricket became a hell of a lot less fun last season and, surprise surprise, crowd numbers were down despite the cricket being great. The list of rules at the cricket last year was ridiculous and I can tell you I didn't go to an international match. No mexican waves, no beach balls, etc. THAT sort of stilted thinking is what is more likely to kill Test cricket than Twenty20, I reckon.

 

[Richard]

I don't see Tests being wiped off the calendar as it's still regarded as the pinnacle of a player's career to play Tests and until that changes, it'll stay.

Why has it stayed for so long? Because, well, that's the way it's always been. Nothing more. Things which rely on historical tradition are never safe from being changed and with enough force the thing will always be tipped.

To me, it's a challenge to Test cricket to stay relevant. If no-one is supporting it, what's the point in keeping it around? For tradition? All well and good if you're not the one paying for it and without Twenty20, a few country boards I can think of would be in deep poo financially. If people are excited about Twenty20 (and most friends of mine, traditional fans and non-fans alike, are) but not about Tests, well something's wrong there, isn't it?

The way I see it, Test cricket, like everything else in the world, needs to succeed on its own merits, not rely on traditionalists to prop it up because it's 'proper' cricket. It does need the support of boards to remain the top level, sure (and the BCCI's attitude is a bit of a worry) but if the product is good, it'll do well. It has to shake off its stuffiness a bit, especially in this country. The fun Police did a lot to ensure that watching the cricket became a hell of a lot less fun last season and, surprise surprise, crowd numbers were down despite the cricket being great. The list of rules at the cricket last year was ridiculous and I can tell you I didn't go to an international match. No mexican waves, no beach balls, etc. THAT sort of stilted thinking is what is more likely to kill Test cricket than Twenty20, I reckon.

It certainly won't help. But I fail to see how the financial rewards for Twenty20 success being ten times larger than those for Test\First-Class success is not a huge danger TBH.

 

[Richard]

That's not T20's fault per se, but the fault of the anti-competitive practices of the BCCI

Nah, you can't blame those. If you want to blame the BCCI, blame their perhaps rather dubious TV-contract bidding process which caused Zee to form the ICL.

Personally I just prefer to blame those at Zee TBH, much as they have a commercial right to stage competition it's not the way cricket is "supposed" to be.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why has it stayed for so long? Because, well, that's the way it's always been. Nothing more. Things which rely on historical tradition are never safe from being changed and with enough force the thing will always be tipped.

Crowds, from all reports, were pretty dismal at Tests in the 70's and 80's. What turned the tide? Certainly wasn't that Test cricket was there first.

No, it was the success of ODI's which brought cricket back and positive innovations which flowed into Test cricket (faster scoring, attacking play, results, etc.) and made it a better game. But the core assumption was that Tests were the highest standard of the game and that a player doing well in ODI's was all well and good but that Tests were the goal for the player who wanted to play cricket at its best. Can't see Twenty20 changing that assumption either, no matter how many of them are fit into the calendar. Like everyone predicted Test cricket would kill off ODI's, Twenty20 just hasn't found its market niche yet. I think we'll find the situation isn't so dire and there'll be room for all the forms of the game.

Dunno why people get in a flap about players who make a career out of being good Twenty20 players only, though. We've had the same in ODI's for ages. Michael Bevan; outstanding ODI player, below average Test player. That's a knock against him too. Until that changes.....

It certainly won't help. But I fail to see how the financial rewards for Twenty20 success being ten times larger than those for Test\First-Class success is not a huge danger TBH.

Some players will use cricket as a money-making exercise, yes. This is to be expected, though. Most players, I predict, will choose Tests first, though. As I said, this will be unless the assumption of Tests being the pinnacle of the game is violated. And I don't see that changing. Hitting out for up to 20 overs will always be seen as less skillful than scoring a Test hundred against a fired-up pace attack. Bowling for half a session will always be seen as much tougher than bowling a 4-over stint.

Let's not kid ourselves, though. If administrators of Test cricket insist on driving people away from the game, it won't come as a surprise if it falls flat on its face.

 

[Richard]

Crowds, from all reports, were pretty dismal at Tests in the 70's and 80's. What turned the tide? Certainly wasn't that Test cricket was there first.

No, it was the success of ODI's which brought cricket back and positive innovations which flowed into Test cricket (faster scoring, attacking play, results, etc.) and made it a better game. But the core assumption was that Tests were the highest standard of the game and that a player doing well in ODI's was all well and good but that Tests were the goal for the player who wanted to play cricket at its best. Can't see Twenty20 changing that assumption either, no matter how many of them are fit into the calendar. Like everyone predicted Test cricket would kill off ODI's, Twenty20 just hasn't found its market niche yet. I think we'll find the situation isn't so dire and there'll be room for all the forms of the game.

I've seen little evidence that crowds or TV viewing figures are significantly greater (and obviously this has to be done as percentages - TV sets have become more widespread and ground capacities have risen) now, in the 70s and 80s, in the 30s, or whenever.

I certainly don't think ODIs made Test crowds rise. Because, well... it just doesn't work that way. You aren't going to attract someone to a Test because you've attracted them to a ODI, the same point I've been making about Twenty20 for ages. A good ODI crowd is all well and good, but the only people who are going to come to Tests are those who've built an appreciation for Tests, which is usually only done via being an insider from an early age.

Dunno why people get in a flap about players who make a career out of being good Twenty20 players only, though. We've had the same in ODI's for ages. Michael Bevan; outstanding ODI player, below average Test player. That's a knock against him too. Until that changes.....

That's not the point. The point is not about players who are naturally good at one form and not the other, the point is about players aiming to be good at Twenty20 (because the financial rewards for being so are far greater) before they worry about being good at the First-Class game.

Some players will use cricket as a money-making exercise, yes. This is to be expected, though. Most players, I predict, will choose Tests first, though. As I said, this will be unless the assumption of Tests being the pinnacle of the game is violated. And I don't see that changing. Hitting out for up to 20 overs will always be seen as less skillful than scoring a Test hundred against a fired-up pace attack. Bowling for half a session will always be seen as much tougher than bowling a 4-over stint.

I think you're making a dicey prediction TBH. I hope you're right, obviously, but I don't see that being the case. If you think players are going to be able to resist huge financial incentives (and I'm not talking about turning-down Tests to play IPL - I'm talking about making sure you're good at IPL before worrying about how good you are at Tests) purely to do something which requires more skill, well... as I say, I just can't see it.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've seen little evidence that crowds or TV viewing figures are significantly greater (and obviously this has to be done as percentages - TV sets have become more widespread and ground capacities have risen) now, in the 70s and 80s, in the 30s, or whenever.

I certainly don't think ODIs made Test crowds rise. Because, well... it just doesn't work that way. You aren't going to attract someone to a Test because you've attracted them to a ODI, the same point I've been making about Twenty20 for ages. A good ODI crowd is all well and good, but the only people who are going to come to Tests are those who've built an appreciation for Tests, which is usually only done via being an insider from an early age.

Well that's funny because I got to know Tests through exactly that way, through watching ODI's as a 12-year-old, hardly a kid. For everyone one of me, there are thousands.

That's not the point. The point is not about players who are naturally good at one form and not the other, the point is about players aiming to be good at Twenty20 (because the financial rewards for being so are far greater) before they worry about being good at the First-Class game.

I think you're making a dicey prediction TBH. I hope you're right, obviously, but I don't see that being the case. If you think players are going to be able to resist huge financial incentives (and I'm not talking about turning-down Tests to play IPL - I'm talking about making sure you're good at IPL before worrying about how good you are at Tests) purely to do something which requires more skill, well... as I say, I just can't see it.

Pointless discussing this any further. You believe the different forms of the game are completely separate requiring separate skillsets, non-transferrable skills to do well, etc. and I don't.

 

[Richard]

Well that's funny because I got to know Tests through exactly that way, through watching ODI's as a 12-year-old, hardly a kid. For everyone one of me, there are thousands.

12-year-old age is extremely young - I was the same age when I got properly into cricket (had been watching it loosely since the age of 6). By "a very young age" I mean perhaps 10 to 16. Younger than that, you can't really understand it in full IMO, just appreciate the basic stuff.

Pointless discussing this any further. You believe the different forms of the game are completely separate requiring separate skillsets, non-transferrable skills to do well, etc. and I don't.

Are you really telling me that the skillset required for Twenty20 is particularly comparable to First-Class?

If so I'm amazed TBH.

About the only things the two have in common are being able to see the ball and hit it, and being able to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other. Everything else is, to some varying extent, different.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, you can't blame those. If you want to blame the BCCI, blame their perhaps rather dubious TV-contract bidding process which caused Zee to form the ICL.

Personally I just prefer to blame those at Zee TBH, much as they have a commercial right to stage competition it's not the way cricket is "supposed" to be.

Look, I'm not one of these blame the BCCI for everything type people, but as I believe I may have said before () I find their stance on the ICL despicable.

Mind you, I hold the Bangladesh players themselves responsbile for the decimation of their side, in a way at least, as they knew what the consequences of signing for ICL would be. But those consequences should never have been there in the first place.

 

[Richard]

Look, I'm not one of these blame the BCCI for everything type people, but as I believe I may have said before () I find their stance on the ICL despicable.

Even if you don't believe that all boards should be anti-ICL, that isn't really relevant to what Hingston posted. An anti-ICL stance might make NZ and others better-off in the short-term but I see no reason to believe it would in the longer-term (as I may have mentioned before too...) and it certainly wouldn't make the slightest impact on whether it's England A vs SL A next summer.

There is so much wrong with next summer's scheduling anyway, I wouldn't really mind a great deal if it was such a thing.

 

[fredfertang]

The harbingers of doom were out in force in the 60’s and 70’s declaring limited overs cricket would destroy the first class game yet 40 years on we have Test Cricket which is a much better “product” than it was then – if that is the right comparison then we have nothing to fear from 20/20 and perhaps something to gain
My fear though is that a better comparison is with WSC in the late 70’s – very few watched the WSC games and the official matches at that time were greatly devalued because not all the leading players were available – if good sense had not prevailed the game would have been left in a sorry predicament
If 20/20 fits in with the Test calendar then let them get on with it – if it reduces the number of Tests played then as long as it’s not by too many I can live with that - if it won’t/can’t fit in and players and/or boards have to choose where to play then there will be troubled waters ahead
Then there is the potential problem of the player who is quite content to pocket the huge rewards of 20/20 and give up the more arduous and less well paid first class game as soon as it has propelled him to the attention of the Rajasthan Royals or whoever will pay him his millions – things may not develop that way but if they do, and to an extent I believe it is inevitable, then the first class game will suffer

 

[Richard]

The major difference between the Twenty20 boom and OD and ODI cricket of the 1960s and 1970s is that Twenty20 has one big paycheque-day - the IPL. And it also has a pirate enterprise - the ICL.

The OD and ODI boom was at least on an equal footing with the First-Class game - those who staged the ODIs paid you equally for playing in Tests and ODIs. Now, however, Twenty20 offers vastly larger sums than the First-Class game does.

In 1972 (for example) there was no incentive to prioritise your OD skills - First-Class and OD cricket offered the same rewards, and it was the same people making the offers. The IPL's franchise nature changes this completely - it means that there's a very distinct carrot for Twenty20 alone.

The one potential saving-grace is that the IPL is entirely dependent on the allure of established international stars - stars who have established their stardom in Tests, or at least ODIs. Excellent Twenty20 domestic players who play the odd international per year and no more because they're no good at Test or ODI cricket still aren't terribly likely to be noticed.

But I don't feel you can use the OD\ODI boom as a precedent in any way. There is the one crucial difference.

And as I've said - WSC is a precedent for the ICL. Hopefully a similar outcome will happen - WSC lasted just 3 seasons. I don't really care who "wins" (it's a lose-lose situation really - I'd love to see both Zee and the BCCI "defeated", which obviously won't happen) but I just don't want the ICL to last. If the BCCI decide to give Zee Indian cricket rights, or if the BCCI manage to disincentivise every cricketer of any note from signing and the ICL becomes a true joke competition which no-one watches and ceases to be viable to the channel - either would be a good outcome for me.

Having said that, giving the bidder rights might potentially set a dangerous precedent - just start an ICL and bingo - that's Indian cricket TV rights for you.

Say the ECB give broadcast rights to the BBC next time bidding commences - why would Sky then not see the benefits of signing-up as many cricketers as they could find and gutting English cricket? The only thing that'd stop them would be the decency of the people involved - and as we know for experience, banking on the decency of TV executives is a very dangerous thing indeed to do.

 

[Jamee999]

By "a very young age" I mean perhaps 10 to 16.

 

[Uppercut]

Why has it stayed for so long? Because, well, that's the way it's always been. Nothing more. Things which rely on historical tradition are never safe from being changed and with enough force the thing will always be tipped.

It certainly won't help. But I fail to see how the financial rewards for Twenty20 success being ten times larger than those for Test\First-Class success is not a huge danger TBH.

Because the financial rewards for playing football have been ten times larger than those for playing rugby, yet rugby has not died out? Nor has Union killed League despite its much greater popularity.

For one who insists that the two games are completely separate entities, with only a small amount of transferrable skills, your stance here doesn't add up.

 

[Richard]

Does anyone seriously doubt that football's hold over this country damages other sports? I don't often hear very long go by without someone bemoaning that fact.

There's more in common between First-Class cricket and Twenty20 than there is between football and either code of rugby mind.

 

[Uppercut]

Tbh, and i don't mean this as an argument, more a statement of my opinion, i don't consider cricket's lack of popularity "damaging". Football (and i say this as a huge football fan) tends to attract an unusual proportion of idiots, religious nationalistic fanatics and just plain assholes. I'd have said it's just a reflection on the sport itself, but then cricket in India has the exact same effect. I'm perfectly happy for cricket to remain as it is now, a minority sporting preference. Otherwise every thread on the forum could become like your typical soccer board.

 

[Richard]

True to a great extent, but I know a massive number of wholly decent, 100% genuine football fans out there (I'd reckon it'd be 30% or so of the fanship) and these could potentially offer a lot to cricket fanship if the game wasn't so "uncool".