6 years and counting. 200 years and counting. A fledgling and a bicentenarian. Is it the time for the new to take over the old? Or is it too young and naive to considered a worthy replacement for the veteran? This is the kind of debate that has been raging in the world of cricket over the past couple of years. Should the T20s be the face of the game than Test cricket? The arguments have been reaching fever pitch, to the point where they are only rhetorical. This article, clearly taking a pro-T20 stance, tries to reason the importance and significance of T20s to the future of cricket.
200 years ago, when the game was new, the society and the technology was very different and only better compared to previous centuries in terms of reliability, but not technique. At this point, someone might say, "Yes, Mr. Obvious, that was a time when even electricity did not exist". And yes, it took us about 100 years to lead to an industrial revolution and another 100 years to lead to an information age. Over 90% of these past years of Test cricket, movement of information was slow; slow compared to that of the present day. The options to entertain the masses were minimal. There was hardly anything like a personal entertainment device like a smartphone or a laptop or a tablet to play around with. It was a time, when, whatever the source of entertainment, it had to be preserved, it had to lengthened as much as it was optimal. Such was the time and circumstances under which Test cricket was born. But the times have changed. Information travels at the speed of light to almost every nook and corner of the Earth (of course not literally). Options for entertainment have gone up exponentially. The attentions spans, as a result have reduced. Is that good or bad? It doesn't matter because the reduction was not desired but acquired naturally owing to the inventions we are surrounded with. Thus, a solution, that is Test cricket, that worked to entertain the masses two centuries ago, does not apply to the current age, and the future. T20 promises to be cricket's Noah's Ark.
40 years ago, the cricketing world took another turn. It introduced One Day International cricket and from the time, it took only 4 years to host a Cricket World Cup. World Cup. The World. Never before ODI cricket was introduced, was there a concept of a multi-nation, all teams encompassing tournament in cricket, which had stepped beyond 150 years since it's inception. And the teams were playing the 'purest' form of cricket till the time. Limited overs cricket brought about a revolution for the cricket world and cricket fans, where in they started to vaunt for, want for, long for and strive for the one and only way to supremacy. The World Cup. So much for being pure and sacred, Test cricket managed to create no landmarks, no unification of the world under it's umbrella, that limited overs cricket achieved in less than a decade.
The cricket fans went berserk, the players experienced nirvana, when their team lifted the Wold Cup trophy. They were the champions for the next four years. Such was the revolution ODI cricket was able to bring and change the face of the game. Some might have complained, it was a corruption of the game. Some might have complained, a win in a day is only a matter of luck against a victory that was persevered over 5 days (of course, assuming the result was not a draw). This was the era of the television. Specators were watching the game in theatres, reading it in newspapers, listening to live commentary on the radio, and finally watching it with their friends and family at the leisure of their houses. Sprinkled in were the bonus of action replays and a million other camera angles. ODI cricket helped reinvent cricket as a spectator sport. As Test cricket comes under more scrutiny, more and more of the legendary Test matches have been quoted in articles. Unfortunately as spectators, more than 90% were games, that a majority of the cricket fans have not even heard of, leave aside having actually witnessed it.
Association football or soccer as it is called, came into world arena some 7 decades after cricket, and hosted it's first World cup 4 decades prior to the first Cricket World Cup. It is being played as a serious sport on a national level in over 200 countries today. Cricket on the other hand, remains a mainstay of about only 10 Test countries, and a game of curiosity for the rest 40-50 countries. Why is the pure and pristine form of game not appealing to the masses? Former cricket giants, West Indies are withering in talent, as basketball and soccer are taking roots there. It appeals more to the spectators and athletes in West Indies, enough to ignore the glory and heydays of their previous generation. So much for purity. Not only Test cricket has been able to shut it's doors to the world, it is estranging the full members. The cricket world is eroding. Test cricket has become the dinosaur of modern sports. ODIs showed us the way towards a shorter format of cricket, and making it a spectator sport for the 21st century. T20s provide us the opportunity to perfect this approach and metamorphose this giant to a smarter creature that can survive.
Often the Test cricket apologists have been slinging mud at T20, by claiming the lack of grace and technique that made Test cricket pure. This begs a question. What is a technique? A technique is a smart way of applying a solution to achieve success. When the Test and ODI cricket were the only cricket which lasted for 5 days and 1 day respectively, the 'technique' was something that applied to those formats to score runs and save wickets. Come T20s, the manner in which the game is played is THE technique that helps achieve success. So, essentially it is not the solution where in the beauty lies, it is the success. Also, on another note of sanctity and purity, why do these terms apply to only Test cricket which the English invented as opposed to Twenty20 cricket which the English invented?
The will of cricket fans and the game has come to a crossroads, where we must choose our future carefully. Cricket should not exclude the world, but include it all. Let's acknowledge the T20s and not ignore their meaning for cricket's future. Let our nostalgia not blind our rationale. Let's hope cricket passes it's Darwinian Test.
200 years ago, when the game was new, the society and the technology was very different and only better compared to previous centuries in terms of reliability, but not technique. At this point, someone might say, "Yes, Mr. Obvious, that was a time when even electricity did not exist". And yes, it took us about 100 years to lead to an industrial revolution and another 100 years to lead to an information age. Over 90% of these past years of Test cricket, movement of information was slow; slow compared to that of the present day. The options to entertain the masses were minimal. There was hardly anything like a personal entertainment device like a smartphone or a laptop or a tablet to play around with. It was a time, when, whatever the source of entertainment, it had to be preserved, it had to lengthened as much as it was optimal. Such was the time and circumstances under which Test cricket was born. But the times have changed. Information travels at the speed of light to almost every nook and corner of the Earth (of course not literally). Options for entertainment have gone up exponentially. The attentions spans, as a result have reduced. Is that good or bad? It doesn't matter because the reduction was not desired but acquired naturally owing to the inventions we are surrounded with. Thus, a solution, that is Test cricket, that worked to entertain the masses two centuries ago, does not apply to the current age, and the future. T20 promises to be cricket's Noah's Ark.
40 years ago, the cricketing world took another turn. It introduced One Day International cricket and from the time, it took only 4 years to host a Cricket World Cup. World Cup. The World. Never before ODI cricket was introduced, was there a concept of a multi-nation, all teams encompassing tournament in cricket, which had stepped beyond 150 years since it's inception. And the teams were playing the 'purest' form of cricket till the time. Limited overs cricket brought about a revolution for the cricket world and cricket fans, where in they started to vaunt for, want for, long for and strive for the one and only way to supremacy. The World Cup. So much for being pure and sacred, Test cricket managed to create no landmarks, no unification of the world under it's umbrella, that limited overs cricket achieved in less than a decade.
The cricket fans went berserk, the players experienced nirvana, when their team lifted the Wold Cup trophy. They were the champions for the next four years. Such was the revolution ODI cricket was able to bring and change the face of the game. Some might have complained, it was a corruption of the game. Some might have complained, a win in a day is only a matter of luck against a victory that was persevered over 5 days (of course, assuming the result was not a draw). This was the era of the television. Specators were watching the game in theatres, reading it in newspapers, listening to live commentary on the radio, and finally watching it with their friends and family at the leisure of their houses. Sprinkled in were the bonus of action replays and a million other camera angles. ODI cricket helped reinvent cricket as a spectator sport. As Test cricket comes under more scrutiny, more and more of the legendary Test matches have been quoted in articles. Unfortunately as spectators, more than 90% were games, that a majority of the cricket fans have not even heard of, leave aside having actually witnessed it.
Association football or soccer as it is called, came into world arena some 7 decades after cricket, and hosted it's first World cup 4 decades prior to the first Cricket World Cup. It is being played as a serious sport on a national level in over 200 countries today. Cricket on the other hand, remains a mainstay of about only 10 Test countries, and a game of curiosity for the rest 40-50 countries. Why is the pure and pristine form of game not appealing to the masses? Former cricket giants, West Indies are withering in talent, as basketball and soccer are taking roots there. It appeals more to the spectators and athletes in West Indies, enough to ignore the glory and heydays of their previous generation. So much for purity. Not only Test cricket has been able to shut it's doors to the world, it is estranging the full members. The cricket world is eroding. Test cricket has become the dinosaur of modern sports. ODIs showed us the way towards a shorter format of cricket, and making it a spectator sport for the 21st century. T20s provide us the opportunity to perfect this approach and metamorphose this giant to a smarter creature that can survive.
Often the Test cricket apologists have been slinging mud at T20, by claiming the lack of grace and technique that made Test cricket pure. This begs a question. What is a technique? A technique is a smart way of applying a solution to achieve success. When the Test and ODI cricket were the only cricket which lasted for 5 days and 1 day respectively, the 'technique' was something that applied to those formats to score runs and save wickets. Come T20s, the manner in which the game is played is THE technique that helps achieve success. So, essentially it is not the solution where in the beauty lies, it is the success. Also, on another note of sanctity and purity, why do these terms apply to only Test cricket which the English invented as opposed to Twenty20 cricket which the English invented?
The will of cricket fans and the game has come to a crossroads, where we must choose our future carefully. Cricket should not exclude the world, but include it all. Let's acknowledge the T20s and not ignore their meaning for cricket's future. Let our nostalgia not blind our rationale. Let's hope cricket passes it's Darwinian Test.
Twenty20....yes please
ReplyDeletehttp://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/534364.html?CMP=chrome