I’ve written lots about my dislike of the shorter game, and it still interests me how little I actually care about it. I’ve not yet worked out whether it’s because England are so poor, or whether it’s the format. Probably a mixture of both. With the Champions Trophy nearly in full swing, my indifference shows no sign of abating.
It is not Test cricket. Any variation on the five-day format is, in my eyes, dumbed down and easily avoided. That’s not to say a run-chase won’t have me thwacking my desk in frustration and excitement; I do view Tests as the superior, daddy of cricket but I’m not ignorant (or snobbish) enough not to appreciate a tense finish.
Anyway. See? I’m rambling again. The point of this waffle is a rather bloated introduction to Rohit Brijnath’s excellent piece at the BBC. Brijnath, an India-based sportswriter, laments the format and his declining interest in the shorter game.
The world’s finest batsman once is now Tendulkar one day, Endulkar the next. Sehwag is God with every six and devil when caught on the boundary. Captains are hailed at 20 overs and heckled at 40.
As a writer, I was despairing. Cardus might have made even Prabhakar’s action seem poetic, but for us, hacks, one-day cricket was a writer’s nightmare. There were few storylines, few characters, few innings worthy of grand description. This wasn’t writing, it was accountancy.
It doesn’t help that matches are now absent of subtlety. Pitches are seemingly lifted from cemeteries, boundary ropes pulled in so close that edges go for six, 500 runs by one team is a battering away, and the basic equation of cricket has got skewed: bowlers are now like extras on a film set where the only leading men can be batsmen.
The paragraph I put in bold is where I stand. A clutch of five one-dayers, I’m afraid, does very nearly render us speechless with boredom; they’re forumlaic, and even more so when England are so poor. Yep – if they were dominant, I’m sure I/we would find greater artistry. But it’s hard, if impossibly, not to be affected by some sort of bias in this field; I appreciate all good cricket but want England to win, much as Indian journalists gun for India.
What to do? Not a lot. Familiarity breeds contempt. Even for Brijnath, whose country is pretty damn good at one-day cricket, the format bores him. Its future, then, must surely be limited.
To my mind, Twenty20 plus changes in the way Test matches are played has removed the need for 50 over cricket.
I’ve always seen the point of the one-dayer as being a way of keeping audiences interested: higher run-rates, more wickets, and (obviously) only lasting for one day.
Twenty20 makes the game even shorter, and so more watchable for the public at large (let’s be honest, it’s only because i’m a student slacker that I have the time for any serious following of four and five day cricket). A lot of people won’t want to give up their whole Saturday, but they might stretch to a few hours over tea-time. If you want a short format of the game, Twenty20 is definately the most accessible.
You’ve got your high run-rates, short boundaries, sixes-galore cricket. And maybe a few wicket-taking deliveries too.
And, at the same time, the Test match also has its increasing run rates and greater excitement. No longer do we need the one-day format to alleviate the boredom of Geoff Boycott scratching around for three-and-a-half runs before lunch on the first day.
I say all this from an English perspective, of course. Many people, the Indian public especially springing to mind here, love the one-day format. Who am I to deny them it?
I’m with you, Will. It is a formulaic game, and even having a generally winning team to support does not offer enough to be truly engaging. Since the run rate revolution in Test cricket, the need for smash and grab fests has declined. Who would now be a bowler, what with the 50 over game and 20/20?
I couldn’t agree more with the theme of this correspondance.
If I want exciting, booze-fuelled cricket the way I tried to play at school then 20/20 is the thing. And I really don’t there is anything wrong with wanting a bit beer and bashing from time to time.
However, for the true artistry, complex story lines and intense narrative of bowler against batsman and team on team you just can’t beat Test cricket. Look at the last Ashes series. The whole Gary Pratt / Ricky Ponting / Duncan Fletcher scenario just wouldn’t have come about in one day cricket. And go back six or seven years to Donald vs Atherton at Trent Bridge – again not possible to have an eight over, maiden-filled battle that the batsman won despite scoring very few runs.
Couldn’t agree more Will, a thirty minute soap opera versus the enitre Shakespeare opus. Last summer was the apogee, can managed to work the Edgbaston denouement into an essay on Sophocles at Warwick university.
Whatever your thoughts on the shorter version, it’s getting the kids involved. Rightly or wrongly, Twenty20 is far more popular and accessible to the next generation of England stars. It’s a world of goldfish attention spans and cricket has to cater for it.
Isn’t that the broad consensus? 20/20 is a good thing – changing the way the game is played and watched; engaging a different group of spectators (and hopefully players). Fifty over stuff is predictable, formulaic and rubbish. The choice is between the true form (Two innings Tests) or the shortest form possible.
| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
