Out of pure intrigue, I tuned in to watch some of the rapid-fire Twenty20 cricket played during the week, and I reckon that this fast, new truncated version of the game has a future. It was awesome!
The 20 overs per side concept has already proved popular in England, and if the two sell out games last week are any guide, will prove the same here in Australia. Much to the chagrin of some of the dinosaur purists out there.
The rules for this game, which is all over in three hours, are pretty much the same as for traditional One Day Cricket. With each bowler limited to four overs, instead of ten, and no-balls are worth two runs, not one, plus the batsman gets a free whack at the next ball. And the ensure the tempo is maintained, teams are penalised runs if they don't bowl their overs in the allotted time, and incoming batsmen have ninety seconds to get to the crease.
I enjoy the style and grace of the five day Test matches; the twists, the turns, strategies and tactics; it really is great to watch a competitive Test Match unfold. But it takes five days (four, if you are as good as the Aussies!) to complete. Even the popular 50 overs a side One Day Internationals take eight hours to play, and have become a bit formulaic. And that's why the three hour Twenty20 concept (CricketLite if you like) has a future.
Anyone who has read a basic Marketing Textbook ("Marketing 101" or something as droll) will tell you that the modern consumer is "asset rich and time poor." Add to that, most of us have the attention span of a dead fish. It is easier, and more enjoyable to watch a game, than something that trundles along for five days, or even eight hours. At the end of the day, that is what is all about; money and bums on seats. Even better though, women seem to like Twenty20 game. And a clever bloke once told me that women rule! (some proof here)
And whilst cricket will always have a special place in the Australian psyche, the fact is that the game has to compete in a very crowded sports market, as well as renewed pushes by Soccer and Super 12's (Rugby Union). If cricket as a sport is to survive and prosper, the Twenty20 version needs to be seriously considered.
Of course the nay-sayers will claim that the Twenty20, damages the skills of the player, favours that batsmen, or that cricket "just isn't meant to be played fast", and that any change will bring about the death of the game. I say "bah to them. I saw clever bowling, brilliant fielding and some innovative, big powerful batting, and the crowd loved it, the television viewers tuned in in big numbers.
So how can playing good, entertaining cricket in front of a vibrant, energetic full house be bad for the game?
Comments