Cricinfo - Blogs - Men in White

It's set the cat among the pigeons, T-20 hasn't it? The administrators won't know what to do. Whether to give it in small doses or go overboard. As you rightly say destiny had it that India face-off with Pakistan in the 1st T-20 finals and at the end the difference was 5 runs. If I am a devil's advocate, things may not be the Bollywoodian script as many comments that you site. This form is not real cricket but it does give the adrenalin shot and as you rightly liken it to a 3 hour bollywood movie. One more thing T-20 if played in excess will result in more and more injuries as this tourney showed, which might then compromise on the quality. I will go with Srikkant for once. It will have more of an impact on ODIs as it is played today than Test cricket because Mukul you forgot to mention what Imran Khan very aptly said the other day on TV. Of the 3Ts that mark a cricketer - talent, technique and temperament, only the 1st one is on show on a T-20. Test Cricket will remain ultimate. The threat will be on ODI cricket and the administrators won't be bothered if T-20 replaces that.
A small comment on your last post which I missed yesterday. Yes Dhoni has all the makings of a great captain but to link his dot straight to Pataudi is a bit far fetched at the moment, especially with the lot that went in between Kapil (World Cup winning skipper), Gavaskar (the canny one who won a test series against a formidable Pakistan and the B&H World Championship) and Ganguly (who brought in the modern renaissance in Indian cricket). Remember, Dhoni has to keep wickets, score runs and lead the side - day in day out. How long he can carry it on has to be seen, since bad days in Indian cricket is always only a day away. We must reserve all our best wishes for him, though.

Congratulation to all my Indian brothers and sisters . A new version of cricket and couldn't have a better finish. Great commitment from both the teams. Being a Pakistani and watching them fight was a pleasure, but for me the game itself won in this event. 20/20 World cup should happen every two years to keep the game alive. As Malcolm Speed said that it will not be played as much as we all want it, watching it every 2 years will be fun. Best of luck to all.

I think T20 has to be played in the countries where its getting harder and harder to pull the crowd to watch cricket.Its a beautiful advertisment for cricket where this game is not popular.Playing T20 in the venues where game is not popular, will give the popularity for cricket and also some rest to the players as cricket is getting non-stop action.So that we can keep other two formats fresh and alive.
But too much of adrelain will give the fatal result.so a proper mixture of all three formats of the game is needed.

Cairns idea of having two innings in T20 format sounds awesome. Double dose of adrenalin shots.

When oneday game was introduced every cricket pundit was unanimous that test cricket would die.But what happened ? infact test cricket became more positive & started producing results instead of the tame draw & also became more watchable as the runrate has improved.The advent of 20/20 will have a similar effect.Now more runs will be scored in one dayers & 300plus will be order of the day.Similarly test version will se a runrate of 4plus & will be more exiting to watch.As far as 3 day games are concerned ,it was never popular & will continue to be so.OVERALL I SEE A POSITIVE EFFECT & EVERY FORMAT OF THE GAME WILL CONTINUE TO REMAIN.

The idea of having two back to back T20 games as an alternative to test cricket is ridiculous! T20 is definitely an exciting format & here to stay..but trying to fit it in a traditional mould won't work.

Abdul Kalam's dream is fulfilled.

India super power in 2020.

I don't think it is the format that brings crowds to the game, it is quality of the players that play the game. The most talked about series and public craze i have seen, has been india aus test series of 2001 and india pak test series of 1999.
If shane warne is bowling to sachin, how does it matter if it is test, one day, 20-20 or a first class match.

T20 is here to stay. After the excitement of watching a T20 match the crowds might find the 50/50 format a drag.Why slog when you can hit? Just to hold on to your wickets? Or maybe more run will get scored. Possible.
But, personally I have lost interest in the oneday format.Why wait the whole day for a result when you can get it in 3 hours? Test Cricket is different.

Well said Mukul. The tactics that batsmen and bowlers are coming up with are very interesting to watch and judging by the roar from the audience, wildly popular as well.

Six runs per over is no longer an acceptable run-rate. Scores of 200 in 20 overs are becoming the norm. Batsmen are coming up with innovative shots (the scoop over the shoulders to fine leg is one that is becoming very popular albeit not in Pakistan I’d venture to guess ;-). Bowlers are adapting as well, learning to vary their pace and bowl yorkers with more accuracy and consistency. Fielders are hitting the stumps with more regularity than before (even India!!).

All of this bodes well for another form of cricket which once upon a time was frowned upon by so called purists. I’m referring to the “longer” version of the game, ODIs. Similar to how the advent of ODIs bought about positive changes to Test Cricket; better fielding, aggressive run chases and most importantly, more results; Twenty20 cricket is going to revolutionize ODIs. We’ve already seen a successful 400+ run chase in ODI cricket in the recent past. That will soon become the norm instead of the exception. Twenty20 cricket will prove to be a shot in the arm for ODI cricket.

However, the loser in all of this might end up being Test Cricket. Already, attendance for Test Cricket is down in most parts of the world. In this e-age, people just don’t have the time to sit down and watch five full days of cricket. The chances of the match being affected by weather are also substantially higher in Test Cricket. Future tours will have to accommodate Tests, ODIs and Twenty20 matches and Test cricket will invariably lose out since the costs of hosting a 5 day Test Match far outweigh the revenue generated from it. There may always be a niche market for the traditional version of the game, but the future is all about ODIs and Twenty20. The creation of professional franchises similar to those in the NBA, the NFL and the NHL in America is a good development for cricket. It will lead to better managed teams and Cricket Control authorities (BCCI – this one’s for you).

Oh, and by the way, if you are wondering where my loyalties lie, I’m heading back to watching a recording of Glenn McGrath bowling in the 2005 Ashes ;-)

Some of these things are bound to happen -

a) The streets of the four Asian Test playing countries will see a flurry of T20 matches
b)T20 will attain a demonic status in India from the commercial viewpoint especially once the IPL comes into force
c) ICL will not exist after a year from now because the IPL beats it hands down
d) The ICC will use T20 as its main marketing tool and we can expect all the baseball playing nations - the US, Cuba, Japan to learn this pretty fast
e) With enough money in each of the cricket boards' coffers, Test Cricket will finally gets its due because the right people will play it in the right spirit without bothering about who is watching it and how many are watching it
f) There will be lesser one day internationals on every tour because the crowds and TV audience will reduce.
g) The test teams will look totally different from the T20 teams with the average age of the test teams being around 28 and that of T20's will be around 21
h) Cricket in the T20 format will be extremely popular in at least 50 nations in the next decade or so
i) Eventually, there will be only two world championships - Tests and T20's
j) Last and I am really really hoping this happens - Indian stadiums across the country will have better facilities for the crowds - owing to the nature of T20's we have seen in S Africa

The overhyped reaction to the 20-20 victory is quite amusing. Let's put this in perspective - we have only won playing the peripheral format of a peripheral sport. The tournament itself featured countries with among the least sporting pedigree in the world - India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Mukul once said football is a game where men just chase a ball. Well cricket, any form of it, is not much more than throw-and-hit. Although people like Mukul might cling to straws and claim that having to make decisions about the pitch and declarations, makes Test cricket a "superior sport". Mukul and his ilk hardly watch the world's truly superior sports and should refrain from making comments about other sports. Distance brings perspective, Mr Kesavan, but too much distance may make your perspective hazy and distorted

Well written Santhosh, youre on the mark. We're a bunch of success-craving desperadoes. Let's play some real manly sport for a change - switch to tennis or football

To Anil & Santhosh:

This whole argument of "my sport is superior to yours" is very childish. My advise to you is to grow up. Not long ago, we were hearing about how Golf was not a sport, but just a hobby/game. Along came Tiger Woods, revolutionized the sport with emphasis on fitness and power. Now no one seems to argue that point anymore. If you think that cricketers are less of a sportsman or an athlete compared to a tennis player, then maybe you should try bowling 5 overs of medium-pace on a 40C/95% humidity day in Chennai. We'll find out how "manly" you really are. We need to celebrate success and demand/work-towards more of it, no matter what the sport happens to be.

And I don't want to hear about "manly sports" either. That's very insulting to all women athletes in this world. Oh.. and BTW, since when did tennis become a "manly sport"? Was that before Margaret Smith Court OR after Justine Henin?

I think this format will succeed everywhere in the world not only where cricket is played right Now. Countries like USA, Japan and China will get involve in the game and the game will spread more. People in this age need fast result 3 Hours and you are done. Don't have to wait for whole day or 5 days for a result or sometime no result.

this is the problem i have with 20-20. they want to follow the american sports paradigm, more specifically baseball.. and have the game finish in 3-4 hours. here is where 20-20 is nowhere close to baseball.. baseball and american sports are very taxing on the human body (hence the steroids scandal in baseball etc0
each team plays 162 regular season games every year.. thats half a year with a daily game. if u make it to post season, 2 more weeks of that. So day in and Day out u come to the ball park and play high intensity baseball.. now thats hardcore.. the only thing that comes kinda close to this kind of rigourous schedule in cricket = test match cricket or a packed ODI schedule for countries like AUS and INdia, assuming the cricketer is in both the test and ODI team. looking at the trend it seems that they are picking slightly different teams for each format.. and they do not plan to play 100-200 20-20 games every year per team. IN that case, one can ride on talent alone and not worry too much about fitness in 20-20.. just go full otu for 2 weeks.. and then u r done.. so i would rather stick to watching baseball, since i can.. because twenty-20 to me is more like WWE scripted wrestleing rather than a real sport.. as of now

I am TOTALLY agree with MANCHI's analysis. I have same thoughts but you have put it here first. Thanks for same thinking.

T20 cricekt is an innovation and a novelty for now and thats its USP. But time only will tell if its going to stand the test sustained popularity that a sport so dearly needs. The purists, if they still exist , will scream on the roof tops about this version tat it is just not cricket but cricket surely has evolved in every sense and in all its forms . In the 70s when a days cricket in a test match was worth 200 runs , today we get to regularly see over 300-350 runs . This has been due to the advent of the 50 over game and the innovations that it naturally brought along.
The advent of 20-20 will speed up the 50 over game for sure and now scores of 400 maybe a greater reality. What is 400 in a 50 over game? just 8 an over. From what we have seen in the T20 thats pedestrian batsmanship .So if there is one version of the game that may be at threat is the 50 over version and not so much the Test format. That will survive just because its a test ....a test to every facet of the game . In both the abridged versions the batsman are at liberty to play as many balls / overs as he wants and can where as the bowlers have a quota of 20% of the full allotment. In any team you may have 2 or at best 3 strike bowlers whom the batsman wants to see off and milk the others for runs. This makes both abridged forms loaded against the fielding side. Which is not the case in Test cricket where the best bowler can bowl an unlimited quota and thereby making the game more balanced .
T20 , atleast in its infancy, which is what it is now , should be rationed to about one or two games at most per series there by the interest and the quality can be sustained . One more thing that ICC and the national governing bodies can consider is playing these T20 games on bowler friendly wickets , grass tops or uncovered pitches so that the bowlers come into play and its not just a slug fest of power hitting where a miss timed shot goes 80 metres and a good one goes a mile !!!
Too much innovation is never a good thing in the long run. Some things are best left untouched. Else the next generation will never get to see batsmanship of the calibre of a Vishy getting 97 unbeaten runs on a treacherous track in Chennai (then called Madras) against a fiery fast bowler who answered to the name of AMJ Roberts or a defiant Sunny tackling the Paki spinners on a mine field at the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru (then called Bangalore ) !!! The idea of Cricket should be to make it combative and played on a level playing field, which at least from a majority of the games in both the condensed versions we have witnessed over the years is not really happening. we need to draw up a level playing field between the batsman and the bowlers the sooner we do it the faster can the three versions happily co-exist !!

while test cricket will always be the ultimate testing ground for skills and sheer drama; and where the better team will always win;T-20 is the far more vibrant offspring of 50-50.In fact i see 50-50 fading away from the scene , but not Test cricket

I am not surprised by the reactions of people about 20-20. Becuase india is a country where people love cricket, but most of the cricket lovers ate cricket ignorant.If someone says that he does not like test cricket then he does not know what cricket is, he is watching some other sport.

Bravo, Venkat, Bravo!

Although I don't quite agree with you on the future of Test Cricket. Everyone flocked to the grounds to see the Ashes in both 2005 and 2006, and when the West Indies toured England for the tests, it was greeted with a visible sigh of relief after the World Cup. You say that no one in this day and age has the time to "come down and watch five full days of cricket"- well, that's really not relevant. Most people you'd expect would be able to find the time to watch ONE full day of cricket, on the weekends or in the holidays or somesuch. Tickets will still be sold, regardless of whether it's the same person buying the same seat on all five days or not. If the rivalry is there, people will come.

I also disagree with Srivasthan when he says that 4+ an over will become the order of the day in test cricket. Everyone knows the expression "necessity is the mother of invention"-well, I believe that T20 will force bowlers to change and become tighter, more accurate and generally better and cannier. T20 could in the long run actually be better for bowling standards worldwide than batting.

So what is it finally ? Who has won ? India? of the younger variety? or the ICC administrators? (yeah the same ones of the 2007 WC format). These NCP workers would have you belive that its no one else but Sharad Pawar. Or perhaps layers upon layers of worthless TV cricket commentary (of the sub continent type) would have you believe that its the "game of cricket" that has won.
While I have an acute distaste for this "join-the-dots-and-predict-the-future" type of journalism, for I have serious ( and mathematical) reasons to believe that history jumps rather than crawls and it remains highly random as to which path it takes in future, I still feel obliged, as a happy citizen of a world cup winning nation, to comment.
So much for these unsolicited comments. Here are some of the pre T-20 comments.

"Only talent is on display and niether temprament nor technique" or so goes Imran "I vomit opinions" Khan. An amusing categorization and interplay of words indeed, but a terrifyingly untrue statement. If oodles of solid temprament shown by Misbah-ul-Haq couldn't convince him, at least India's wins against Australia and Pakistan from seemingly hopeless situations should have. As for technique, Vettori's very technically correct spin bowling to win against India, followed by Yuvraj's extremely technical hitting, Hayden's technically correct highest scorer stint are evidence enough.

John "I-want-to-be-heard-the-ex-cricketer" Doe goes, "This will give rise to batsmen of the slogger kind and bowlers would be reduced to nothing but puppets", well I was there watching Shahid Afridi batting and "going for it" in the finals, I was also there watching Mahsherfe Mortaza trying to plant every ball into the orbit and miserably failing, I was there also watching Bangladesh trying to ( god only knows why) score at a zillion an over, and there I was watching Shaun Pollock's stumps uprooted by a RP stunner, and did I forget Bret Lee's hat-trick, Yeah was watching that too. I have nothing further to say on this comment. I rest my case for this one.

Free-hit notwithstanding, there is absolutely nothing wrong with T-20 just as there is nothing wrong with Test Cricket. The important reason being, both these formats make cricket an "equal opportunity sport". Equal opportunity for both batsmen and bowlers. As correctly pointed out by you, the problem with ODIs was the middle overs. Bowlers are always meant to take wickets, as in Test cricket and now in T-20. We know there is trouble when a bowler happily, and thats the key word happily, gives 6 runs and thinks he has done a great job. Wickets, at the right time,have won India this competetion and there are no two questions about it. There have been more man of the match bowlers than batsmen. The man of the series is a bowler. Thats their primary jobs. One-day cricket had taken that important part of cricket out of the game. There is always a wicket pending and the point is who takes it.
Another thing that T-20 has done is that it has correctly identified the reasons for joy of watching a sport. No better sight than watching athletes seizing the moment, backing themselves up and coming through. Celebrations. Be it football of cricket, the real joy as a spectator comes when we achieve unison with the game.when we become one with the game. One could never get that feeling in ODI because there is always going to be that plateau period where bowlers arent going for wickets and batsmen arent going for their shots. Everyone is trying to be smart and games loses appeal. The way test cricket sucks you in, takes you through high and lows for five days the same happens in T-20. You miss it and the beauty is disturbed. Successful global sports like tennis and football always have this attention demanding aspect to them and ODIs over the last few years had greatly missed that point.Thankfully now, we dont find ourselves changing channels between overs 25 to 40.

So where is it heading ? Frankly, I dont know and am happier that way. For it to head the european football way there is a lot that still needs to change. Cricket, by nature, and consequently, the cricket fans, by upbringing, lend themselves to become hero worshippers and not team fans. For this game to have a sustained appeal, the cricket fans should start supporting teams and instead of knocks and wicket hauls and that is asking for a BIG change. But that is the only way stadium collections and merchandise can be profitable revenue streams. People line up to watch Arsenal - Chelsea first and Fabregas - Maluda later. Because these clubs are region based and have a huge history hence the fan loyality. For that to happen in cricket,format is the last thing that one needs to worry about. First, the bias that Indian national men's cricket team is be all and end all of cricket needs to change. Fathers need to tell their sons stories that I was there when Jallandar bullets trounced Sydney - rockets, Jallandar Bullets should have a stadium, Kids should freak out and cry for the bullets jerseys and there should be healthy rivalary and deep pockets. So in that sense there is still some way to go. And I say that because I know, for a fact, that none of this would have been written had India not reached the finals. The Prime Mover is still international cricket. We want to see those 11 players wearing blue. I wont go to the stadium just to Watch Joginder Sharma playing for Haryana. But I will surely watch the final over of the world cup final. Having said that, says who, that one has to mimic football. The apetite is huge, but sadly its only for international cricket and why change it, why invent the wheel all over again? The ideal way forward would be to have more and more international teams playing T-20 cricket. Lesser teams beating bigger teams and consistently. Have a global appeal. T-20 is the right format to introduce it to other parts of the world. Do some voodoo and Somehow have USA win the world championship beating India and allow the US media to go crazy.
That will take care of this game allright. Me thinks. !

Its interesting to read Manchi's analysis, but i disagree with some of the points -
1. T20 is already popular in India. Almost all the club games, and division 2 cricket played in India is T20, and this was before the T20 concept started in england. Cricketers got the taste of the longer versions only when they played first class matches for their respective state. even now,70% of the cricketers in India play 20 overs a side.
2. Cricket is a technical game with nuances. While its easy for the cricket playing nations to grasp the game in whatever format it is played, the same would not be the case with the other nations like USA, Cuba, Japan, China etc. Also, cricket would have to compete witht multi-billion dollar sports like Basketball, Soccer, Baseball, etc. T20 may entertain the crowd but will it pull them to play the game? I doubt it. The Soccer WC in the USA showed huge attendances but still majority of the population has not taken to playing the sport, even though its a much more simpler game than Cricket. And if the arguement is that because cricket is similar to baseball so it can be popular, then the reverse could aso be the case. But even if baseball comes to India Pakistan or Srilanka, will it enjoy the same popularity as cricket (base ball lasts 3 hours as well). I doubt it. Crowd pull does not determine whether the game would be popular, but the numbers who pay the game determines whether it is popular and cricket will find it hard to compete with the other sports, examples being scotland, ireland and netherlands, who have cricket teams participating in the WC but hardly being played in those countries. Hence, i cannot foresee 50 countries playing cricket in the next decade or so. In fact its taken Bangladesh almost a decade to reach to the current level and that too in a country where people understand the game of cricket.
3. Too much of T20 would make the game go the way of the ODIs. ODIs used to be exciting, but overkill and meaningless series in the last 6-7 years have made it lifeless. To preserve T20, the franchisee model proposed by the BCCI looks the best bet. Meaningless series and T20 tournament may result it going the way of the ODIs. Hence, to preserve the different format and make international games more meaningful, the ICC should plan out the franchisee model and implement it. This would ensure that the international contests have more at stake ---like the soccer WC/Rugby WC etc.

T20 will be best advertisement for cricket, which will bring the countries where cricket is not popular.
I think all three formats will be in will get more interesting and thrilling. If 50-50 formats made test cricket more result oriented then T20 will make more thrilling 50-50 formats. It is because bowlers, Even though T20 looks like a slam bam batsmen game, only bowlers win the matches for their team. Look at the two semi-finals, finals and other matches of this world cup, Its bowlers did their job for their team. If T20 make batsman more innovative and attacking, then it will make more wicket taking and attacking bowlers. It is not easy to take 7-10 wickets in a span of 20 overs, which has happened regularly in this tournament when the batsmen are at full flow. So Bowlers need more concentration to get their length and line perfect, need to bowl Yorkers, Slow deliveries, variations in pace…etc to fetch wickets. But these things can bowl in any formats. So this will impact on bowlers on the others formats too since in all the formats we need to take wickets for the result…Yes target of 400 is easy in 50-50 formats, but also target of 270 to 280 is defendable which will make cricket more interesting and thrilling.
So I think we will get more result oriented, more interesting and thrilling encounters in all the three formats of the game in future .

As a born and raised american I think T20 Cricket is a great form of Cricket for Americans. I first saw highlights of the British T20 Cup on Sky Sports News. I followed the World T20 Championships online and saw the Semi Finals between India and Australlia, I thought that was one of the best sporting events period. I only with more people could see this form of Cricket in the United States. The game enourage action, baseball is boaring. Yes T20 is not ODI or Test Cricket it a hybrid of the sport just like Arena Football or Indoor Soccer are Hybrids of there outdoor sports.

no doudt this newer version is very good and it has reduce the time of this game but with this it also increase the variet in the cricket ,so i think it is time to support 20,20 cricket but not discourage other forms of cricket ,these all r form of cricket and we r lucky as a cricket lover that now u can entertain urselve not only with test matches and odis but with 20,20 every form of cricket has its own style . In 20,20 u can watch 4s, and 6s but where would u go to watch the real cricket shorts like drives , and where would u go to watch long partnerships . so enjoye this additions but not criticise other forms of this game.

Beautifully written, Santhosh. And I agree with Anil's and your views. Pathetic jingoists!

Unfortunately, Mr. Nivas and the others who think T20 will "rock" the world, other countries have better sense than follow a dead, static sport like cricket. Fancy Brazilian kids giving up football to play cricket! What a joke.

Mr. Kesavan

Being one of the many respected bloggers on this website i was wondering if you would care to read an article i have written about crickets newest craze- twenty20. is there anyway i can contact u so u can have a read, and even see if i mayb be able to post it up on the site as a blog. even if it is a one time thing. thank u for ur time, i would appreciate it if u found the time to email me in regards to this. here is a preview

"India and Pakistan, two young teams, emerged as the heroes of the twenty20 championship, deservedly so, having played brilliant absorbing cricket throughout. But take a look at the team sheets. No Tendulkar, no Dravid, no Inzamam, no Akhtar, no Yousuf. If you’re telling me that these teams are better off without these players, you may be right, but there should be no way these teams should be winning international tournaments, not yet. Unless offcourse their playing some childish hit-and giggle, money-orientated game… Oh wait, they are."

admittedly it is controversial, and adverse to ur opinion, but i believe cricinfo has not posted both sides of the story commonly enough. thank you

20-20 may not get popularity in Brazil or OTHER countries as stated above, but who cares. How does a game that is not popular in US makes it a lesser sport. I feel pity for such thinking. We are Cricket's T-20 champs and we are proud of it.

yaar...ab itne time ke baad india koi major world tournament jeeti hai...enjoy it! not going to happen very often :)

This win is Absolutely a stunner. A much awaited and a kind of Break through just what indians wanted, not only for a players but for the true indian fans. Hopefully Indians will develop and carry on a killing instinct atleast from now and that should not be difficult at the present momentum that is whirling. The joy and spirits among the players and spectators which was under abeyance after early world cup exit in West Indies is again back and rocking. Hats off guys.. Rock on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is amusing that when this blog clearly has a title which refers to the future of T20 cricket, we are getting enough comments about how cricket is not a manly sport, about it being a peripheral sport and so on. I fail to understand how Santhosh and Mukund are readers of Cricinfo, when they have no interest in cricket and when they rate cricket as any lesser a sport than football or tennis!I do wonder if this is a topic worth discussing - maybe Mukul can have another blog on this. But if I have to add to this - there are enough peripheral sports which are extremely popular although few countries actually play it. If I assume rightly that peripheral sports mean those which are played SERIOUSLY in not more than 10 countries - Baseball, Rugby, Basketball, Formula One racing, American Football and Professional Boxing are all peripheral sports. Does that make them any less popular? In fact, Cricket is a much more evolved sport than most sports because we see so many forms of it - as many as three accepted ones. Are there such options for football or tennis? For those who have spent decent amount of time on a cricket field, or for that matter, even in a cricket nets practice, it is pretty evident that its an extremely taxing sport. From a commercial viewpoint, there are hardly any other sports which are so advertising friendly as cricket. I feel it is no surprise that after the advent of one day international cricket, the number of countries which adopted cricket have increased. This happened because one day international cricket is more marketable. T20 is even more so because it is shorter, involves the audience more - and still does not compromise on the spirit of the game. The T20 World Cup has shown that the aspects of cricket that make it such a dear sport to us - the impact of weather, the mind games, the role of the intellect of a captain - are all well presented. If anything, it is in a typical one day format, that some of these qualities get undermined - not in the T20. The T20 also gives a genuine chance to the new country to cause an upset on its day. This is why new countries will find it attractive as a playing option. Cricket is a great sport. With due respect to contact sports and other team sports, it is unique and more nations need to play it. It is the earlier imperialism of the ICC that had stopped it from growing. Its about time, the rest of the world knows what the fuss is all about. I say it again,Cricket is a great sport - and all those who visit this website are well aware of it

Its interesting to read Manchi's comment. Manchi is right that some bloggers should not be ridiculing the sport of cricket. Cricket is a fine game and involves a lot of planning and thinking which gives it a real edge. However, i would not concur with Manchi's evaluation about sports like basketball, baseball and rugby. Infact Basketball is an olympic sport and almost entire europe, US, china, Japan, australia ply it. It is not a game played in 10 countries. Similarly, baseball is a sport which is played in the olympics and the first ever baseball world cup had 16 teams participating with Japan winning the title. Motorport is played across half the planet and the rugby world cup has 24 teams participating it it. Hence, these sports are much more popular than cricket. However, having said that i think cricket in 50 over is much more challenging than T20, as the captain needs to put sustained pressure on the opposition for 50 overs..also the captain needs to keep his troop motivated in periods when the other team is dominating and some of the players show signs of frustration..also as there is time for a batsman to settle down and pace his innings it becomes even more imperative for the captain to rotate his bowler, search for a breakthrough and try to do something different. In 50 overs, the intellect of the captain is tested more than in T20 and hence the ODI is also a gripping format. If we remove the recent dominance of australia in the ODIs, there have been some very close matches and thrilling contests - eng v india series being a prime example- the ODi in which england came back from 7 down to win the match is possibe in ODIs and not in T20 and in such situations the intellect of the captain comes into question. Also, cricket needs to keep evolving as it is an attrition sport - the attrition of the mind and patience - while other sports like football are much more fast paced and cannot be truncated from what it is now. In fact tennis as a sport also boasts of 2 formats - 3 setters and 5 setters...having said that cricket is a sport which should be enjoyed by all those who follow it..if other nations choose to follow it, its well and good, if not then it should remain the same..the mindless globalisation is not what the sport of cricket requires..but stiffer competitions and meaningful series between the countries which play the game..also as i said to attract new countries you need more than having a T20 format..you need the basic infrastructure like cricket grounds, cricket coaches and the ability of the cricket associations to raise money and take cricket to the grass root level..In india you have audiences for football and hockey, but when it comes to participation kids choose cricket as it is much more viable to earn a living compared to the other sport.. so if kids grow up dreaming of becoming a michael jordan,david beckham or a mike tyson, then playing T20 in those nations is not good enough. Hence if ICC is to globalise the sport it needs to figure out a way to attract people to the sport and for the cricket associations to be able to lay down the basic infrastructure..till the lets enjoy cricket as it is --- T20, ODI and Tests.

I think the is endless discussion which game is popular and dont think there is need for that .we all have to admit that fast that popularity of this game is increasing rapidly especially with the introduction of the 20,20 but it would not be true to say that cricket has become very very popular i think it would be but not now ,in present only subcontinent poeple r crazy about this game , and one other thing is that all other games eccept soccer have limited popularity only i would say soccer is that team game which have worldwide popularity so we cant compare cricket or any othwer game with soccer .And it think it doest matter at all who is cricket lover cricket is popular for himself so not need for this discussion of popularity.

Mr Manchi,

Cricket is dead. Basketball and the other so-called peripheral sports are played in more than 100 countries and are played at the Olympic level. the reason there are 3 forms of it is , is exactly because it is just not getting popular. Football and other sports does not need multiple forms, because the one existing format is sufficient. Yes after the advent of one day cricket the number of countries has increased - to 9 (to include Bangladesh). People in England, which invented cricket have long since relegated cricket as a sport for old men who can't run

manchi, your comment that formula 1 and basketball are peripheral sports can only come from an ignorant one-dimensional cricket fan

I absolutely loved Santhosh's comment - "Distance brings perspective, Mr Kesavan, but too much distance may make your perspective hazy and distorted". Let's be honest - I have travelled all round the world , I have to say that we Indians are the most jingoistic people in the world

Which world do you live in Mr Manchi, the sports you have mentioned are infinitely more popular than cricket.

In response to Aditya, Vijesh and others who regard cricket as a "dead" or "peripheral" sport, I think they make the mistake of only including the Test-playing nations as cricket-playing countries. This is not so. The ICC has over a hundred members, all of whom play some form of organised cricket. Regional championships are played on a regular basis, and it's growing in poularity among the native poulations of several countries, Afghanistan and China among them. Here's the address of an article that says crciket is the second most popular sport in the world- http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/NEWS02/709240317/1123. You can also find it in the Beyond the Test World blog. And it was written in New Jersey, no less.

India and Pakistan, two young teams, emerged as the heroes of the twenty20 championship, deservedly so, having played brilliant absorbing cricket throughout. But take a look at the team sheets. No Tendulkar, no Dravid, no Inzamam, no Akhtar, no Yousuf. If you’re telling me that these teams are better off without these players, you may be right, but there should be no way these teams should be winning international tournaments, not yet. Unless offcourse their playing some childish hit-and giggle, money-orientated game… Oh wait, they are

I don't know where all this talk of popularity is heading, but while we are at it, we might as well define it properly. If popularity is the total number of countries in which the game is passionately followed, I don't see how baseball and NHL and basketball can be called popular, because the only country where these games are followed with anything resembling pride is in the USA.

Alternatively, if we define popularity as the sheer number of people passionately following the sport, then I must say cricket wins hands down, what with the most populous country in the world being its number one patron.

So no matter which way you look at it, I don't know how you can call baseball and basketball more popular than cricket. Soccer, of course, is an entirely different story. It definitely is more popular than cricket if we apply the first definition. So is tennis.

Baseball? NHL? Basketball? No.

Sharath, you forget that China has a bigger population and the most popular sports there are gymnastics, basketball, dragon-boat racing, table tennis (apart from football). So going by your argumentm these should be the most popular sports in the world

Regarding sharath's comment, from the comments above , it is clear that almost half of the contributors are not fans of cricket. Sohow can you say the entire 1billion of india are fans of cricket. let us bring down the hype a little bit- let's not carried away

Neha

Nowhere in his comment did Neha say that every single Indian follows cricket. All he did say was that cricket is the most popular sport in India, which isn't the same thing. No offense, but if anyone here's getting carried away, it's you.

to venkat's comment about bowling 5 overs in the chennai sun, well professional footballers typically run 15 to 20 km over 90 mins and if you are Michael Essien or Frank Lampard, it's probably 25 km. No cricker runs half that distance over 5 days. Other sports are physically much more demanding - ask a squash or badminton player. You can sometimes see cricketers reading a newspaper on the field - rememeber the England side in Calcutta in 1985

marcus i think you need to get your head sorted out first - "Nowhere in his comment did Neha say that every single Indian follows cricket". of course youre right. Anyway you only have to look at the reaction to see how insecure we are in our ability. If we were a little more confident we wouldn't react to winning a meaningless hit-and-throw tournament this way

marcus i'm sure it was written in new jersey, but you can bet your bottom rupee, that it was written by an Indian expat.

I agree with aditya's comment that the reason there are multiple formats of the game of cricket is because it is actually less evolved than other sports. Cricket has failed to capture the imagination, that's why you have Test cricket, onde-day and 20-20 and that's why the rules keep changing every season. Football which is the most popular sport is also the most stable rule wise. There are only 10 odd rules in football and very little has changed in over 100 years.

and to add to shoban's comment, the fact that cricketers use helmets, pads, gloves, stumps, arm guards etc show how immature the sport is. Compare this with football where the only thing you need is a ball

Arun

Baldwin isn't really an Indian name, however it could well have been written by an expat. But that doesn't really change the content of the article itself- that cricket is the world's second most popular sport. You do have a point regarding the number of expats playing cricket in America- it needs to be a bit more mainstream than that if it's going to take off a bit. However, just because expats dominate the USA scene doesn't mean that the same is true for all the other countries. Afghanistan and China are two examples of countries I mentioned where cricket is spreading throughout the native population. I'm sure they're not the only ones.

Neha-"...you need to get your head sorted out first"- thanks. I'll take it under advisement. :)

Mr. Marcus, I can also provide web sites that say dog-racing is the most popular sport in the world. Everybody knows that cricket is played seriously in about 7 countries. Even in India the crowds for domestic cricket matches is pretty much zilch.

Daniel Prokosch are you sure your name is not Prakash. I didn't realise Americans make so many spelling mistakes or grammatical errors. If you want to convince us that Americans have taken up cricket, you need to brush up your English first :)

the rain interruption in today's match shows another weakness in cricket, when was the last time you heard a football match being abandoned because of rain? There are far too many problems with cricket for it to go beyond 8 or 9 countries

Hi Neha,

Of course, I agree with you in that the hype following the twenty20 world cup is not healthy, but I have to disagree in calling the tournament "hit and throw" because as almost everyone who understands the game even to an amateur level, it is hardly that. We have seen how proper cricketing shots prevailed over wild heaves, intelligent, attacking bowling took precedence over restriction, and the sheer quality of cricket itself was much higher than what you find in your average 50 over match.

So branding it a "hit and throw" is hardly fair, in my opinion. But you are right, that doesn't justify the reaction and hype following the win.

And as for the billion people comment, as Marcus pointed out, I never said each of the billion people in India worships cricket, I just said "India is cricket's number one patron".

all this talk of football makes me recall a disparaging article on this great sport by Mukul where he says "Rooney looks worryingly like a skinhead". He might look like a skinhead but he has more sporting ability than 5 Tendulkars and 5 Laras combined. I agree with Santhosh above that these so called cricket historians should refrain from talking about other sports when they don't even watch them, let alone play them

Hi Anand,

By claiming Rooney has more "sporting ability" than five Laras and five Tendulkars combined, you have just done what Mukul has done in the past, i.e. compare players from two different games (although I think Mukul did it with his tongue firmly in his cheek, but that's a different point altogether).

When it is widely accepted that it is not fair even to compare two sportsmen from two different eras in the same game, I don't see how anyone can compare sportsmen from two different games altogether. For example, I am sure I play badminton better than Wayne Rooney does, does that mean I have more "sporting ability" than him?

I am confused.

@Anand.. 5 Laras and 5 Tendulkars.. ! Certainly Hyperbole is your style..But most of all Rooney? Couldn't you find a Zirco or a Muller or Beckenbauer? Even in the current crop Messi is better. Even Elano is better !

Interesting point made by Marcus... he has provided a link which has an article wherein the writer of the article has very conveniently said cricket is the second most popular sport in the world without even mentioning the source.. So i decided to check and verify the same on the net and have come across the following sports - Handball, Volleyball, Table Tennis, Badminton - all of which claim that they are the second most popular sport in the world :)...Even if we go by participation, soccer is played by half the planet, Basketball ( some bloggers who think it is restricted to USA) is played by eurrope, USA, China, Australia, Japan , hence by far making it more popular than cricket.Even in india which has a population of over 1 billion, how many actually play the sport? By this i mean players who play in organised tournaments/divisions/club etc. and not gully cricket or cricket played on the road. I am sure such data would not exist in India and even if it does i am pretty sure that the nos would equal that of football (played in the same format and level)...hence saying cricket is the second most popular sport is just fooling yourself..however, instead of trying to figure out whether cricket is second most popular sport or not the better thing would be to enjoy the game.. also cricket is the only game which has evolved in 3 formats -ODI, Tests and T20- which shows that cricket in its original sense never managed to attract a wide audience and whoever the game of cricket managed to attract has remained loyal to the game...However, i find it very difficult to believe that T20 will take crikcet to countries wherein its not played and will also replace the existing numero uno sports played in those countries...Just a question for those who think T20 will "globalise" cricket- has T20 changed anything for country in Ireland, Scotland , Netherlands? Do we have audienceflocking to play cricket or sponsors pumping in money? If the answer is no then you should be able to judge how much cricket has "rocked" the non - cricketing nations.

Rahul

Thank you for your response. Maybe some of those sports are more popular in the participation sense. And I certainly don't expect cricket- even T20- to displace other sports in other countries as Numero Uno. However, my point is that cricket is not just restricted to a handful of countries- it's just that only a handful of countries get any publicity. It's still played on an organised level in many countries such as Kenya, Uganda, Argentina and others, such as Afghanistan and China which I've already mentioned. And someone mentioned Rugby and how 24 countries are taking part in the World Cup. However, only nine countries play regular Test rugby. Are we saying that Rugby is only played in nine nations? Of course not! Therefore I think it's wrong to say that cricket is only played in ten- even acknowledging that it's not likely to become Argentina's number one sport.

I know rooney is less skilled than messi or even an elano (yesterday's Man City v New Castle game more than proves the point). But my point was that even an off-form Rooney is more skilled in terms of overall sporting ability than any cricketer. A footballer has to be be good with his head and his chest, must be able to jump athletically, must have good feet, close ball control, good vision, accuracy and power when he shoots, must be a good sprinter and above all a quick mind. A batsman needs good reflexes and good hand-eye coordination, but little else. He doesn't even need to be accurate because more often than not if he plays through the line of the ball, he will hit it into the gaps. The probability of finding a gap in the field is higher than that of finding a fielder. If he happens to be an Azharuddin, his good wrists will help him keep the scoreboard moving.

on sharath's point, it's very possible that you play better badminton than Rooney, but if you give a badminton racket to Rooney and to Tendulkar and give them six months each, you will find that Rooney will turn out to be a better badminton player. The reason is that some of the skills you need for badminton are also required in football, but not in cricket.

It's tragic that the Anand, who is now the world champion in the most intellectual sport will get a muted reception while players who've won something minor in the most brain-dead sport in the world are treated as Gods. Says something about our brains doesn't it?

marcus, if you've been following the rugby world cup, you'll know the difference in the popularity of cricket and rugby. Every game in the ongoing World Cup has been filled to capacity and every pub is showing every game to full crowd here in the UK, unlike the cricket world cup which as everyody knows was a damp squib.

Yes, it is very true that cricket is not much physically demanding, but there is no rule which says
Physical labour is directly propotional to entertainment.
and for those who never saw or played cricket, consider this - a sport played over 5 days,6 hours a day has survived over 130 years has to have something in it to bring huge crowds to stadium (remember 2005 and 2006 ashes).

Sandy, it certainly helps that the Ashes are played during the football off-season.

Anand's comments are obviously that of an ardent football fan, who is willing to exaggerate in order to prove a point. Only a nerd can say that Football is not the most popular sport on earth. But it takes a cricket ignoramus to say all that Anand has said about the nuances of the game. Does he ever read the interviews given by any of the physios of even one of the top international cricket teams? He obviously has not, because he would then know how fit a cricketer has to be to even stay in the game, let alone play in it. A footbaler has to be good with his head and his chest - no doubt. What makes Anand feel that a cricketer does not have to use anything apart from good reflexes and good hand -eye co-ordination? How easy would it be for a footballer to focus on a 5 1/2 ounz cricket ball hurtling at his head with an average speed of 80 mph, especially when he knows it can hurt - really bad? Is Anand aware of the stress that a batsman undergoes on his lower back, when he generates a bat speed of around 120kmph to hurtle an overpitched delivery over the deep mid-wicket fence? The probability of finding a gap in the field is higher than finding a fielder. True, Mr.Anand - as is the case with a penalty shootout and yet many players goof up. You kow why? Because its not just a physical sport - you need to think as well. But the one that takes the cake as far as Anand's comments go is - A batsman "doesn't even need to be accurate because more often than not if he plays through the line of the ball, he will hit it into the gaps". It seems so simple is it not - plays through the line? Ever wondered how tough it is to PICK the line let alone play through it, Mr.Anand? Its not a football that measures as big as your head - its a red leathered ball, sometimes brown from mud, which needs to be struck by a bat whose width is only thrice that of the ball - and you dare to talk of accuracy not being needed? And lastly, Mr.Anand - if you felt cricket is so easy a sport and so inferior to your dear football, what on earth are you doing visiting a cricket website - not just once but again and again? Just passing by on the way to a football link, I suppose?

Roy, I have been following the Rugby World Cup. I didn't say that Rugby wasn't as popular, or more poular than cricket, in fact I said the complete opposite, that Rugby was a popular and global sport despite it only having nine regular test-playing nations.

My original point (which only one person has really responded to) is that cricket is played in a lot more than just the ten Test-playing countries. In fact, it is played at an organised level in over a hundred countries worldwide that make up the ICC- and in many cases, by the local population, rather than expats. So saying that cricket's not a global sport because only ten nations play regularly at the highest level is like saying the same thing about Rugby- and we all know that doesn't make any sense.

Don, you talk of cricketers being fit. I don't think you can say that Gavaskar, Ranatunga, Mendis, Ramesh Powar or Ganguly are fit by any stretch of imagination. I agree with some of your comments but you have to admit that the above mentioned cricketers could hardly play any other sport at a professional level

Don, you seem to have called football "just a physical sport". Yes it is a physical sport but its also quite demanding of mental acumen. You have to have great presence of mind. I have been amazed very often by Ronaldinho's vision and his ability to spot a pattern before it is woven. Well not so much this season and the last, but when he was in form. Also remember footballers have to make decisions at pretty much lightning speed.

I'm not a football fan, but Don, don't you think it's a little far-fetched to say that cricketers think. How often have we seen Ganguly with his finger up his nostril...

I don't agree with anand but Don, I'm disappointed when you imply football is "just a physical sport". You need a good presence of mind and you need to think fast.

Fit cricketers, don? What an oxymoron. Remember Duleep Mendis, remember gavaskar and vishwanath. And what about Inzamam ul Haq

Don, I disagree with anand but claiming that cricketers are supreme athletes is going a bit too far. Have you seen Ganguly run or are you talking about a different sport

Some people have the annoying idea that the sport they follow is the most intellectual sport in the world. Don, if a batsman had to think hard every time he faced a ball, he would be dismissed on every occassion. Likewise its a little crazy to think that captains turn into Einsteins when faced with a decision on declaration or after winning the toss.

Let's be honest, the main reason (if not the only reason) Indians follow cricket is bacuase it is the only game where we can win something.

I'm quite happy to see a lot of comments on football, as I am an great fan of both cricket and football. I watch cricket because I like it when India wins and I watch football because I don't have to support any team to enjoy the sport

Its pretty evident that nobody has read Don's comments completely. I dont think he has said anywhere that football is just a physical sport. In fact, he has said that the reason why so many players miss in penalty shootouts is because they need to use their mind as well. But I am surprised by the number of people who are following this website - which is surely the best avaialable on cricket - who still feel that fitness is not an important component for cricket. I think this is a deep rooted problem especially in India - the ignorant cricket fan. Perhaps it is for this simple reason - that we have such adverse reactions to India's losses on the cricket field. Far too many of us think that its too easy. This is perhaps the same reason why the wrong people get selected to play cricket sometimes. Because the knowledge of officials running the game in India is not too much higher than people like Gopal and Goyal!I mean, phrases like " you got to have the right attitude" and "cricket is a mind game" have become cliches in the game which even a half decent cricket fan would know. Yet, we have presumptous "cricket fans" who feel that cricket does not need thinking. And then we have these wonderful people like Anoop and Jay who wish to labour a point by taking examples of Duleep Mendis and Ranatunga. There were 11 Australians in 1996, considered the fittest cricketers who though the same of Ranatunga and he stripped them naked on a cricket field to win the World Cup. I can draw a pictre of the readers who do not know how fit you need to be to play a 20-20 game or a one day international. Imagine a couch potato, who has read a lot and seen a lot of cricket - seeing in slow motion over and over again, participating in several debates over coffee with many of his ilk who will find it hard to remember when was the last time he was able to bend down and touch his feet. Every professional sport today demands a high level of fitness. Its not about football or cricket or any other sport. People who feel that cricket does not require intellect and physical ability in copius measures - who as much about cricket(or for that matter about any sport)as Adolf Hitler knew about human equality