June 19, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in Extras
Why Twenty20 needs other forms of cricket
From Binu Thomas, India
I recently read an article from Aravind Panchal in "Inbox" observing that in Twenty20 cricket, there are no definite favourites. I do not think that anybody can argue against it. But what I want to contend is the proposition that the chance of not having favourites or champions is good for the game. I am not quite so sure.
Surprises as good as long as they remain only as surprises. But more than this simple fact of life, there is one thing about Sports - that unless the game do not consistently reward quality, the game itself cannot compete with other games who nurture quality, over a long period of time. The reason why we celebrate the failure of Australia is: they have a set of players who are proven champions in "OTHER" forms of cricket.
For the time being let us assume that cricket as a game is played only in the Twenty20 version and that there is no Test cricket or ODI (which is very much possible going by Chris Gayle's words). Even though it is too early to judge, the predictable patterns emerging from the world of Twenty20 is that there are no champion cricketers in Twenty20. Every tournament, every match has its own heroes. Twenty20 most probably is not going to throw up a hero for a decade or even five years, forget about a Pele or Maradona or Bradman or Sachin. I am not sure whether a Sporting game can sustain in the long run without the so-called "Legends".
My understanding is that legendary players play an equal role in the growth and sustainability of the game as the attractiveness of the game itself. How many of us can imagine Brazilian soccer without Pele? I am almost sure that eighty percent of school cricketers in India in 1990s dreamt about becoming "a Sachin Tendulkar" rather than "a batsman". If Twenty20 does not produce its legends who perform consistently over a period of time, can it sustain the public imagination across generations? Is Twenty20 capable of producing its legends without the existence of other forms of cricket? I will not say no, but I am pessimistic, because, let me quote "it is easier to play at your top level for three hours" and hence a lesser-skilled is almost equally rewarded as a highly-skilled.
My theory is that as much as cricket needs Twenty20 for its growth, Twenty20 may need Test cricket for its survival. As a game, T20 needs champions and Test cricket is the source where it can hope to get get champions from. In future, Twenty20 may become the basis for entry into cricket, and whoever does well in Twenty20 may have to adapt themselves to become consistent Test Players (I seriously doubt if it is going to happen the other way, which is bad news for the Rahul Dravids of the cricket world). Test cricket, then, is going to produce champion players and teams, and whose failure we are going to celebrate as "upsets" or "surprises".
Comments (4)
June 13, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in T20 World Cup
Group bug
From Ankit R Gulechha, India
The group stages of the ICC World Twenty20 are over and the Super 8 leg kicked off two days back. It would interest many of us to see how rules laid by ICC has left a few matches insignificant in group stages and also led to formation of one sided groups.
According to the rules, irrespective of the number of matches a team wins in the Group stages or the position in which they finish in their group, they will move forward to the next round based on their ranking which was determined after the last edition of world cup. Just to give an example, though South Africa finished on top of group D, they were ranked as D2 and moved to group E. If ICC had not made such rules South Africa would have moved to group F.
Now what this did is that it made the last league match between South Africa and New Zealand insignificant, because irrespective of result South Africa would go to group E and New Zealand to Group F.
Similarly the Sri Lanka and West Indies match became a practice match for them before super Eights. If the rules were, and should have been, that group leaders are ranked based on performance in this world cup, and not last years, then the groups would have been like these: Group E: India (A1), Pakistan (B2), Sri Lanka (C1), New Zealand (D2) and Group F: Ireland (A2), England (B1), West Indies (C2), South Africa (D1).
If we look at the current group we have to feel for England, West Indies and South Africa on having lost out on a match with Ireland. What this bizarre rule has done is placed three group toppers (India, England and South Africa) in one group, which is unfair.
The team which has gained most from this is Sri Lanka. Not only do they play Ireland in Super 8, but also two other teams which finished runners up in their groups. Overall the group E looks tight with the favorites being South Africa followed by a three way race between India, West Indies and England for second semi-final spot from group.
Whereas Group F is a three way race with Sri lanka and New Zealand favorites to go through to semi-finals after a dismal performance by Pakistan. I hope the ICC will take into consideration these factors for the next edition of world cup or Champions trophy.
Comments (8)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in T20 World Cup
The thing about T20 cricket
From Arvind Panchal, United States
Probably T20 is still in its nascent stage at the international level and probably things will change further in the years to come, but a few basic things that have emerged out of T20 world would probably remain the same. And I hope so, because that is good for cricket. One of such things is the end of dominance of a few teams over others.
Compare it to Test Teams and the One day teams, where we have definite favorites going into a series or tournament. Agreed, upsets are a part in those formats too, but not to the same extent as we have been seeing in T20. After all, the Australians have ruled the world of Test and One day cricket for almost a decade now.
Only three days into the World Twenty20 and one of the Kings of cricket teams thus far is out of the tournament. An associate member of ICC, Ireland easily Pushed Bangladesh out of the second round and England the host team were galloped by the nascent Netherlands in the opening game. Another finalist for the last World Twenty20 is struggling to move to the second stage. So who is your favorite for World Twenty20?
Yes, now you have the luxury to keep Australia out and probably by tomorrow you would also be comfortable to keep a few good teams out. But the question is, coming into this tournament, how many of us believed that Australia would crack like this? How many of us believed that Netherlands would punish a team that is considered to be the father of this format? How many of us thought that Pakistan would be so unsure about its place in the second stage? Do we still dare to have a favorite?
One of my favorite writers, Harsha Bhogle, recently mentioned in his article about the impact of the duration of a game by saying "If football was played over 20 minutes Manchester United and Barcelona may not have been in the final." This is the underlying difference between a T20 and other fatherly forms of cricket. When the game is reduced to shorter duration, the strategies must change and at the same time, it adds an element of surprise into it. It is easier to play at your top level for 3 hours, but not so easy when you have to stretch the same to over a day. At the same time, there is a little room for making mistakes when you are up in the short format, since there is a little room for recovery.
In the longer format of the game, even if you make some mistakes, there is time for you to recover, your team and the captain can plan out counter attacking strategies. But such luxuries are not accepted by T20. Such basic things have allowed us to see surprises more often which in fact are not surprises, because there have been far too many. This probably is the core of T20. And probably this would be the reason for T20 to be a huge success.
Comments (2)
|
RSS Feed
