Caution! 20-over slogfest

[Beny]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Cricke...577417365.html

Good or Bad?

[Zainub]

I think categorically McGill might be right, mind you, he's not the only person who think 20-20 is not good for young cirkcters, Shoaib Akhtar did an exclusive photo shoot cum interview for a local tabaloid here and he wasn't too impressed with the idea of 20 20.

Having said that I can't help but admit how much fun it is, last year they televised the finals and semi finals live on ESPN STAR, and I watched it with my friends, enjoyed it very much despite the fact that we really aren't passionate county cricket followers. Was just fun to watch, the atmosphere was refreshing. And we could do with that sort of atmosphere in international one-cricket more often - it was almost one of fectivity. People were just there having fun. And the best part of it all was Bumble in box, I'd pay big money for that...he was just halirious.

[Beny]

There was another article in 'Men's Cricket' about this and how it can wreak a bowler, especialy a spinner who starts sacrificing wickets for runs.

[Occasional Fan]

I think it's one of those things that you'd do if you had to. In England, it absolutely had to be done. Attendances at county cricket were a disaster and we had to find a way to get people through the turnstiles to bring some interest (and cash) into the domestic game. Other than the marketing guys, no-one was very impressed with the idea of Twenty20 until it started. As the article says, the matches were sell-outs, and suddenly everyone took notice. If this was all the cricket that was on offer, I'd be disappointed - and we certainly are going to have to be careful: there are 50% more Twenty20 games in England next summer than there were this year, and at some point that is going to start to crowd out the longer forms of the game.

Elsewhere in the world, the big question ought to be whether this form of the game would bring in new audiences. If your grounds are already full for domestic competitions, or if you're already making enough from the TV rights to those games, then I would resist the Twenty20 for as long as you can. I also think Twenty20 internationals are just a waste of time as far as cricket is concerned - simply a way of generating a bit more cash at the risk of injuring international players in games which count for nothing. There's one before The Ashes next summer. Just suppose (God forbid!) that England are daft enough to field Flintoff and Harmison and the Aussies field McGrath and Warne, and any of those blokes picks up an injury skidding on a dew-covered outfield. Why take the chance?

[Zainub]

Don't know about Aus, but here in Pakistan, domestic cricket has no fan following what so ever, so I'm hoping that when our domestic 20 20 cup kicks of, in Jan I think, it can get some interest into the domestic game following back in.

[Occasional Fan]

Other than having an interest in cricket, I couldn't call myself a big sports fan. Zainub's post just got me wondering, though: is cricket unusual in having such a strong following at international level and such a weak one at domestic level (taking England and Pakistan as examples which may not be at all representative of the cricketing world), or is this the pattern in other sports as well? There is certainly a difference between cricket and soccer in this regard in the UK, and my instinct is that rugby (union and league) have reasonably strong and loyal followings at domestic first class level. Is cricket really so strange, or have I got some misconception here (wouldn't be for the first time)?

[flanflinger]

Couple of points


1. I love Twenty-20. It is an awesome game. Many of my mates who woule not consider going to a Test can goto the Twenty-20 and have a great time. However, I do not see the need for it to be translated into an International game though. It works at FC level and it is a great way of helping counties in England finance themselves rather than relying on the centralised funding pot by drawing in big crowds.

2. The issue of spinners and Twenty20 is intresting, as I have seen some spinners really flourish, as they take the pace off the ball meaning that batsmen have to do the work. I think spinners are not excluded from Twenty20 but have found a new role.

3. I would say the in the UK Rugby Union and Cricket are sports where the International team is more imporatant than the Club level. While Rugby League and Football are much bigger as club competitons.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

3. I would say the in the UK Rugby Union and Cricket are sports where the International team is more imporatant than the Club level. While Rugby League and Football are much bigger as club competitons.

Interesting comment on rugby union. I was in Belfast a month or so ago and saw Ulster playing a team from South Wales (can't honestly remember who they were). The ground wasn't packed, but it must have been 75% full. Could be that that was unusual. As I say, I'm hardly a regular.

[flanflinger]

I'm a Quins season ticket holder. Top-flight premiership rugby, the most they get is 9,000 fans, on Sunday there was only 6,000 fans. Yet the day before Twickenham was packed and obtaining Tickets for the England-Australia was down to luck...

sound familar - that could be a Cricket game at the Oval... Where Tickets for the Test are alraedy sold-out?