| 
Posts and words
Loading ...England has Jaguars, Rolls-Royces, Bentleys and Aston Martins- and Pietersen’s going to buy a Porsche? To my mind, the cars a country produces are representative of the country’s people. British cars are very comfortable and traditional; Italian cars are fiery and full of passion; German cars are soulless, efficient automotons. Why would he want two of them? 
Twenty20: sport or reality TV?
By Will 2 years ago, mid-June Add your comment below
Simon Barnes questions whether cricket needs Twenty20:
Are we supposed to cheer for England? I don’t really think so; after all, the object of the match isn’t glory. It’s all about rich people suddenly getting even richer. Or not, of course.
And I ask myself: am I really going to get over-excited about Kevin Pietersen’s chances of buying a second Porsche? No, this is not the kind of fixture that is going to stir up the ancient loyalties that spring from ancient traditions.
But all the same, the match will have a kind of grisly fascination. I mean, say it comes down to the last ball, one wicket or one run to win; oh, and it’s a huge slog and the ball’s spiralling up in the air and if he catches it, every England player will get a million bucks, and if he drops it, they won’t, and who’s underneath it? Go, Monty, go!
This kind of simple yes-or-no test is a staple of modern television, but it’s not sport, it’s reality TV. We don’t care what they’re doing, we only care whether or not they can pull it off under as much artificial pressure as possible. “It’s always been my dream,” they sob. “It’s the chance of a lifetime.” And they blow it, or they don’t, tears prick the nation’s eyes, and then we put the kettle on.
It’s entertainment, but it’s not sport. In sport, the process itself matters: the beauties, the subtleties, the long-term relationships, the tactical nuances, the opposition, the quest for perfect execution. In reality TV, we put someone on the griddle, put him to the ultimate test, and then forget him for ever while we pour ourselves a nice drink.
Would Twenty20 have survived 20 or 30 years ago? It’s highly unlikely. If anything, the new, whizz-bang version mirrors our modern society’s insatiable greed for immediate entertainment. I’ve spoken to lots of fringe-fans (mainly taxi drivers) who find Test cricket dull and too long-winded yet are taken in by Twenty20. They can’t stand the slow-drip tension over five days but are happy to set aside four hours of urgent, in-your-face sport, safe in the knowledge they will see a result. It’s slightly safer, certainly simpler than Test cricket. People don’t have the time they did 20 years ago – or rather, there is a pressure to be doing things all the time – but perhaps also they don’t have the patience.
I suppose cricket should be applauded for reacting to what the public clearly want, but not if it comes at the expense of its grandest format.
Tags: simon-barnes, society, test-cricket, twenty20 |
12 Responses to “Twenty20: sport or reality TV?”
June 18th, 2008 at 5.58 am
June 18th, 2008 at 6.31 am
Oxford English Dictionary:
“Sport: noun 1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.”
Arguing that Twenty20 isn’t “sport” is fighting an uphill battle against the English language…
June 18th, 2008 at 9.41 am
I think you have to draw a distinction between this silly Stanford match and Twenty20 more generally. The Stanford match, which isn’t part of the normal cycle of international cricket and isn’t against a real team, is, as Simon Barnes points out, more like reality TV than sport as we normally understand it.
But 20 over competitions between counties or national teams: why don’t they deserve to be regarded as sport?
Personally I like Test cricket and 20 over cricket; the 50-over game is the worst form for me, because when it’s a one-sided game, like the England-NZ game the other day, it tends to trail off to a slow inevitable boring conclusion that you can see coming about an hour and half in advance.
As for the question of whether 20-20 would have survived a few decades ago: I honestly can’t see why not. It’s fun. People like things which are fun. People have never had so much free time that it was always convenient to give over a whole day (or 5) to a sporting event. And I don’t have the figures to hand, but surely it’s true that audiences for cricket have been in decline for lot more than 30 years.
June 19th, 2008 at 5.12 am
Marcus :
“You really are as malignant as a wasp, aren’t you? Every differing opinion offends you- if anyone doesn’t like the IPL, they’re “racially insecure,” if any Indian disagrees with you they’re not really Indian at all, and if anyone voices opposition to something you say, it’s carte-blanch to launch personal attacks- as you just did to Krusty! If anyone critcises the Indian team or the Indian board it’s not just an insult to you, it’s an insult to the entire Indian people. If you’re going to be so easily offended and turn so nasty every time you enter a discussion, maybe you should just stop visiting the site. I bet it’d do your blood pressure the world of good.
I’m eagerly awaiting your response.”
Since you’re so eager ,this is my response.
I’m sorry I didn’t know you had feelings for krusty the pizza boy.I could say all those things about YOU with regards to australia.Think before pointing fingers.Considering how frustrated you are, maybe its your blood pressure you should be worried about.If your thoughts are so extreme and your reactions so paranoid thats what it’s going to be called.Also,you could have done better than’as malignant as a wasp’.
GROW UP
And yeah,
I’M NOT AWAITING ANY RESPONSE FROM YOU.
June 19th, 2008 at 6.03 am
Test cricket is opera, one-day cricket is jazz, and 20/20 is rock. We’re witnessing the birth of rock’n'roll cricket, which may be a bit ugly at times.
What’s ugly is that bringing in lots of new fans with short attention spans who might not appreciate the old forms means you have to re-invent some things, and you have all sorts of ideas coming up about how to get and what to do with these new fans’ money. There will be a gradual sorting-out of these ideas, and a few of the more popular ones will endure.
I suspect that international cricket will remain healthy, but that in future the best players in most countries will play a few years domestically in India, just as so many of the world’s great soccer players put in some time in English Premier League and great basketball players play in the NBA.
By the way, as someone who has spent nearly his whole life in non-cricketing countries, the idea that a sport which ONLY lasts 4 hours could not have survived 20 years ago is laughable. When I tell people I like cricket the first thing they often say is “don’t those matches last, like, 5 days or something?”
June 19th, 2008 at 9.33 am
Gill
For the record, Australia isn’t even my favourite team, so I don’t see how you could say “the same” about me.
Alan R
Nice analogy with the rock and roll. I’ve also read one where T20 is compared to waltz conductor Andre Rieu, which I think is a pretty good one considering how popular he’s become. The crowds you get in places like New Zealand for a T20 are far greater than they get for Tests, but it’s still cricket. I agree with you- ultimately I think international cricket including Tests will survive, and if the top players play in the IPL I don’t think it’s such a big deal. For all the talk about everyone else having their own Premier Leagues, in reality the only boards who I could see doing that don’t have the money to pull it off.
June 19th, 2008 at 11.34 am
Twenty20’s main attraction for me is its ability to produce tight finishes. As Harry says, 50 over games are often an anti-climax. The ebbs and flows that make Test cricket so great are actually there in Twenty20, but just condensed.
If the shorter format and gimmickry attracts new fans, great, but there is value for traditional fans as the battle between bat and ball is still there. The Twenty20 cup has been good this year, with plenty of exciting run chases.
The Stanford matches are indeed a different matter and I’ll be watching more out of interest than support.
June 19th, 2008 at 2.23 pm
Will it be possible to block AS Gill? I guess he has single handedly created more ill will against India and Indians than anybody else. India is better off without such a ‘fan’. And, I am Indian, BTW. Not sure if Gill will agree though:-)
June 20th, 2008 at 7.30 am
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
It’s not test cricket that is threatened by T20, it’s the ubiquitous ODI.
Flashback to 20 years, and at that time there was this hue and cry that the flickering flame that was test cricket then, will be extinguished by the sandstorm that was the ODI format.
What happened eventually? Test cricket became stronger, imbibing the best that was to offer from the ODI, namely Increased scoring rates, improved fielding, ensuring more results…
Relax, Will. test cricket is and will be forever. Infact, I assume it will only get stronger, imbibing the best that the T20 will have to offer. ODIs will go, and T20 will come in its place. I for one would not shed a drop of tear for the ODI. Good riddence really. remember, the two forms cater to two different audience groups.
Happily ever after!
For a more detailed analysis, visit the following article if you will.
http://spamsport.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/about-why-one-day-cricket-will-go-and-test-cricket-will-survive-in-the-twenty-20-world/
June 21st, 2008 at 5.07 am
You know , If we could block australia and some ass -licking indians from writinf stuff on cricket the world would be a better place.
But Will,T-20’s gud for d game ain’t it.Extra-money,extra-entertainment.No1 has time now with 16 hour working days.
I see bloggers are saying that T-20 will kill ODI’s n not tests.Why did englands 3 test tour of india get shortened to 2 tets.Answer-To put in an extra T-20 game
I fear for Tests too.
June 21st, 2008 at 5.51 am
Hey ,why’s there such a delay in my post getting on the blog?
not cool at all.
*white ass-licking indians*
June 21st, 2008 at 7.53 am
I came across some interesting stats of team records.
I had the day off, so decided to come up with somthn of significance.I think I succeeded.But will these historical facts hold up in 20-20 is another thing.
Comparing the 8 best cricket teams in the world on their overall ODI records against each other I came up with this.(Remember,no bangladesh,zimbabwe,namibia,UAE,timbuktoo,hooolooolaalaa-land)
Won Lost Win% Favourite Whipping Boys
1)AUS – 365 231 61.24 NZ,SRL
2)SA – 203 133 60.42 WI,PAK
3)WI – 274 232 54.16 IND,PAK
4)PAK – 294 289 50.42 SRL,NZ
5)ENG – 196 224 46.66 PAK,SRL
6)IND – 251 315 44.34 SRL,ENG
7)NZ – 194 272 41.63 SRL,ENG
8)SRL – 187 268 41.09 SA,ENG
Overall SRL,ENG,PAK,NZ are the favourite whipping boys.
I know there are lots of influencing factors like home conditions,no. of home matches, but historically Aussie fans have had the most to cheer(I dunno y thyre so grumpy,they win most of the time) about along with South african & West Indian crowds.
What would be the overall International 20-20 situation after 10 years?Or even the ODI records, would they have changed? Would the unpredictability of the 20-20 format cause similiar W/L records?
These questions indicate that 20-20 will stay for a long time.
Comments
« Saturation point nears | Main | Pietersen auditions for the role of Oliver »
