Bec 1Is 20/20 REALLY Cricket?
June 10th 2009 17:39
Cricket has evolved and taken many shapes and forms since it first began. There have been the three-day game and a trial run of the four-day game in county cricket. There has also been the advent of the one-day game in the form of various amounts of overs; 60 overs per innings, 50 overs and 40 overs. There have been day/night matches in an attempt to attract spectators after work.
The usual white flannels and shirts have been thrown aside for coloured clothing which has had the side effect of having to change the colour of the traditional red ball to white. Sightscreens have been covered in a black background.
Test matches, once the ultimate dream of any professional cricketer, are slowly but surely being pushed aside as the clamour of the ODI (One Day International) resonates around the cricketing world.
There are now more ODIs played than test matches and the prize of winning a One-day series is as much hyped as the winning of a test series.
I believe the only test series that will remain unharmed by the fad of One-day cricket is the Ashes. As for five-day tests between other countries, I wonder how long they will carry on. Will there still be five-day games being played by the time my grandchildren are old enough to go along to Lords or the Oval by themselves?
Cricket, like any other sport, is now chasing the big bucks, the money monsters of the sponsorship deals. This has led to the latest innovation known as 20/20, a game lasting no more than three hours.
This form of the game seems to revolve around the number of times a batsman can despatch the ball to the boundary, preferable without it landing inside the boundary rope first. I admit there is a sort of adrenalin rush as I crick my neck watching the little seamed sphere disappear into the crowd, but I remain concerned at what is happening to a game I loved to play and now enjoy watching.
How long will it be before someone decides 20/20 could become 10/10 without the need of any fielders? How long before it will be one batsman against one bowler and a wicket-keeper? Extreme? Maybe, but no doubt plausible to the money men who seem hell bent on shortening the game as much as possible.
The common excuse is the fact it's done for the enjoyment and excitement of the spectators; cricket must compete with other sports and events, blah blah blah. No mention is made of the fact the main reason being money. The sponsors and businessmen want an early return on their investments, complete with a huge profit.
In this modern, stressfull world where everyone wants everything NOW rather than slightly later, I find serenity and peace of mind while I relax for a full six hours watching a days play as the fast bowler or the wily spinner tries to dislodge the stubborn batsman. I try and work out for myself the subtle skills used by both protagonist and antagonist as the sporting prowess of the men in white flannels is put to the test.
The idea of watching a twenty over slog-fest with little skill or artistry is somewhat anathemic to me. Then again, I was brought up watching the likes of May and Edrich, Compton, Trueman and Statham, Lock and Laker as well as greats such as Benaud, Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. I will never forget the likes of Sobers and Richards of the West Indies.
I may be set in my ways, but I will take the intensity of an Ashes series anytime. As for the biff-bang-wallop of 20/20...I'll pass.
As a final thought: Have you noticed it is almost always referred to as 20/20 and very rarely as 20/20 cricket?
The usual white flannels and shirts have been thrown aside for coloured clothing which has had the side effect of having to change the colour of the traditional red ball to white. Sightscreens have been covered in a black background.
Test matches, once the ultimate dream of any professional cricketer, are slowly but surely being pushed aside as the clamour of the ODI (One Day International) resonates around the cricketing world.
There are now more ODIs played than test matches and the prize of winning a One-day series is as much hyped as the winning of a test series.
I believe the only test series that will remain unharmed by the fad of One-day cricket is the Ashes. As for five-day tests between other countries, I wonder how long they will carry on. Will there still be five-day games being played by the time my grandchildren are old enough to go along to Lords or the Oval by themselves?
Cricket, like any other sport, is now chasing the big bucks, the money monsters of the sponsorship deals. This has led to the latest innovation known as 20/20, a game lasting no more than three hours.
This form of the game seems to revolve around the number of times a batsman can despatch the ball to the boundary, preferable without it landing inside the boundary rope first. I admit there is a sort of adrenalin rush as I crick my neck watching the little seamed sphere disappear into the crowd, but I remain concerned at what is happening to a game I loved to play and now enjoy watching.
How long will it be before someone decides 20/20 could become 10/10 without the need of any fielders? How long before it will be one batsman against one bowler and a wicket-keeper? Extreme? Maybe, but no doubt plausible to the money men who seem hell bent on shortening the game as much as possible.
The common excuse is the fact it's done for the enjoyment and excitement of the spectators; cricket must compete with other sports and events, blah blah blah. No mention is made of the fact the main reason being money. The sponsors and businessmen want an early return on their investments, complete with a huge profit.
In this modern, stressfull world where everyone wants everything NOW rather than slightly later, I find serenity and peace of mind while I relax for a full six hours watching a days play as the fast bowler or the wily spinner tries to dislodge the stubborn batsman. I try and work out for myself the subtle skills used by both protagonist and antagonist as the sporting prowess of the men in white flannels is put to the test.
The idea of watching a twenty over slog-fest with little skill or artistry is somewhat anathemic to me. Then again, I was brought up watching the likes of May and Edrich, Compton, Trueman and Statham, Lock and Laker as well as greats such as Benaud, Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. I will never forget the likes of Sobers and Richards of the West Indies.
I may be set in my ways, but I will take the intensity of an Ashes series anytime. As for the biff-bang-wallop of 20/20...I'll pass.
As a final thought: Have you noticed it is almost always referred to as 20/20 and very rarely as 20/20 cricket?
| 83 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Robert Bruce
Australian Storyteller
Storyteller - prose and poetry
Bushwriter