Cricinfo Mobile
Peter Roebuck
Peter Roebuck Peter RoebuckRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former captain of Somerset; author of It Never Rains, Sometimes I Forgot to Laugh and other books
Email Feedback Print

Why Twenty20 deserves its success

The 20-over version has caught the popular imagination, and the quality of the game hasn't been bad either. It reminds us that cricket is meant to be fun - and that that is an important quality for a sport

Peter Roebuck

June 4, 2009

Comments: 7 | Text size: A | A
The victorious Deccan Chargers hold aloft the IPL trophy, Royal Challengers Bangalore v Deccan Chargers, IPL, final, Johannesburg, May 24, 2009
India, initially reluctant to get on the Twenty20 bandwagon, are now in the forefront with the IPL © Associated Press
Related Links

Englishmen have been playing 20-over cricket for yonks. As a youth, a hundred years ago, I turned out for various club sides in various twilight- or Sunday-morning competitions. Even by local standards, the evening leagues were somewhat social, but the Sabbath editions were combative, and the finals were held at the county ground and attended by sizeable and suitably sober crowds. No one complained about the brevity of the matches, least of all wives, veterans and youngsters - a breed whose brains cannot cope with dot balls. (As it has turned out, old-timers and teenagers still shine in these capers.)

Everyone enjoyed them; they were fun, a reminder that cricket was a game and that only life was truly serious, and that not always, for it too has its Harold Pinters and Noel Cowards. As far as recreational players were concerned, cricket had its traditions, but belonged as much to Georgian rogues as to Victorian preachers.

Although these contests were hectic, they did not shrink into parody. Nor were the exchanges mere skirmishes. Winning is winning. Cricket is cricket. By and large, the same players scored runs and took wickets, and for the same reasons - cunning, power, eye, pace, whatever. It was swift but it was recognisable. Cricket might have put on a red nose, but it was still telling a compelling story. And what else is sport except an opportunity to let off steam, pit one's skills against another, or else against a dartboard or golf course, and to take part in a drama whose outcome is unknown? At first sight it is child's play, and has always been treated as such by the constipated, but closer inspection reveals another outlet for the human journey.

Small wonder, then, that 20-over cricket took such a hold in England when the bright sparks decided to let county cricketers have a crack at it. Obliged to compete with a rampant and lucrative soccer league, cricket's mother country might have given up, but instead seized upon a local custom and dared to try it at a higher level. Notwithstanding its conservative reputation, canny ways, expense accounts and fondness for Yorkshire pudding, England has long displayed an ability to think up excellent games, and shown the mixture of respect and admiration needed to ensure that they change with the times without losing their essence. Doubtless it bemuses inhabitants of that odd land that other countries rapidly prove their superiors at these activities. Maybe England has forgotten the price that must be paid by those seeking high achievement.

And so the counties followed in the footsteps of clubs and junior sides by taking part in a 20-over competition. Although it was not long ago, no one had any idea about the public's likely response. As a precaution, only a few matches were arranged. But England had several advantages denied to other nations, not least long and glorious evenings - at the height of summer, visitors have been spotted shaking their watches as 9.30pm passes and still the sun shines - grounds located near the centre of busy towns, fondness for a convivial night out, and familiarity with this form of the game. Moreover Englishmen have always been good watchers of sport. As much can be told from the packed and mostly good-humoured Test crowds, some of them dressed in Walt-Disney outfits.

Nevertheless, even the most sanguine were taken aback by the swollen ranks of cheerful supporters that turned out for domestic matches. Far from starting slowly and gradually stoking interest, 20-over county cricket was a success from the first ball. Suddenly grounds were packed and cricketers relevant. And the players loved it. When Somerset won the trophy, their first Cup since 1983, the team was paraded around the local capital in an open-topped bus. Miserable Australians critical of India's celebrations after its Twenty20 World Cup triumph ought to have seen The Ciderman in that hour!

As far as can be told, the introduction of 20-over cricket has not ruined the game or weakened the England team. It's always tempting to blame every setback upon the latest innovation. But the problems faced by English cricket were deep-rooted, and included dubious leadership, poor coaching, callow thinking, greed and cultural decline.

I can still remember an Academy coach complaining that the indoor nets were not available from 9am, and balking at the proposal that his charges might start at dawn. On another occasion a school coach accepted that his most promising player was unfit and might therefore fall short of expectations, only to reject the suggestion of putting him through a demanding training programme. Needless to say, the boy did not make the grade, and the coach blamed everybody else.

Twenty-over cricket caught the imagination. And the cricket was not nearly as bad as had been feared. The idea that matches might be dominated by sloggers and other louts was quickly contradicted. Again, the second season of IPL told the tale. Critics called upon to choose the team of the tournament found themselves sifting through mighty Test cricketers.

Whatever problems may arise from 20-over contests have their origins in the fall of man. Alas, there is no cure for greed and selfishness. Even parliamentarians are not immune. It is folly to expect better from young and insecure sportsmen, many of them from humble backgrounds.

 
 
Recent 50-over World Cups have been tarnished by boycotts and inept organisation. Cricket might have put on a red nose, but it was still telling a compelling story. And what else is sport except an opportunity to let off steam, pit one's skills against another, or else against a dartboard or golf course, and to take part in a drama whose outcome is unknown?
 

South Africa was the first country to recognise that England was on to something. Learning from a rival, and a former colonial ruler at that, requires humility. Despite all the furore about quotas, and the patchy commitment to change, most of it emanating from a rich elite happy to pay workers a pittance, for all the complications that inevitably attend a bloodless revolution, South African cricket has made significant strides. At times it has been fraught and it remains incomplete - replacements for Makhaya Ntini continue to prove elusive - but without strain the current team better reflects the nation at large than any predecessor, and that is an achievement. By and large, goodwill has kept anger in its place.

Needing to widen its appeal, South Africa recognised the possibilities presented by 20-over cricket. It is fast, simple, eventful, and easily understood by people unfamiliar with the game. Moreover, spectators were made welcome, with lively music, refreshments, fun and games. Cricket has often taken its crowds for granted; now it treated them with respect. Before long, 20-over cricket had made its mark. Previously roars coming from the black students in the TV room downstairs in my South African home meant that Real Madrid or Manchester United had scored. Suddenly, they might just as well indicate that Yuvraj Singh had clouted another six.

India was slow to embrace the 20-over game. Did pride block its path? Or was respect for the game an inhibition? In any event, India seemed unwilling to send a team to the first Twenty20 World Cup. Not that they were alone in their reservations. The Australians remained snooty about it for longer than required. New South Wales went so far as to include local rugby players in its team for supposedly competitive contests. States played a couple of matches and crowds came along, but the cricket community retained its hauteur. It took defeat at the hands of a coltish Zimbabwean team in the World Cup to bring Australia to its senses. Afterwards, observing the excitement, absorbing the loss, Ricky Ponting said that they were had not given this form of the game its due, and intended to correct their mistake. India did eventually send a young side to the World Cup and it promptly romped to victory.

Twenty-over cricket has been lucky, and has deserved its fortune. Recent 50-over World Cups have been tarnished by boycotts and inept organisation. Followers of the game have been insulted by high ticket charges and sterile atmospheres. Contrastingly, 20-over cricket cast itself as the people's game - long may it last.

India's triumph ensured that a vast audience was hooked. Here were dramas. Larger-than-life characters, great cricketers, tight matches and brilliant exchanges all wrapped in the same package. How could it fail? The IPL followed as India took the initiative, and it too has succeeded, not least in bring players of all sorts and nations closer together. Long may that last as well.

Of late, Indian students have been viciously attacked in Melbourne. Just as well it is happening at a time when Australians and Indian cricketers are laughing together, slapping each other's backs and playing in he same side, and not a week after the acrimonious SCG Test match (perhaps now, those responsible for that debacle will grasp its full dangers).

Now comes the second 20-over World Cup. England deserved to stage the first instalment, but that honour fell to the South Africans. Now it is England's chance. As can be deduced from the topsy-turvy results from the two IPL seasons, it is impossible to predict the outcome. Certainly it'd be risky to ignore rank outsiders like Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Whatever happens, and provided the sun shines, cricket - shamelessly adopting the cliché - will be the real winner. It is okay to laugh as well as cry, to seek amusement as well as satisfaction, a lesson known by men as wise and gifted as Mozart and Shakespeare, and not to be forgotten by a game.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

RSS Feeds: Peter Roebuck
Comments: 7 
Email Feedback Print
Posted by Venn on (June 05 2009, 22:48 PM GMT)

ICC and others have tried to take cricket into other countries for so many years and failed miserably. After 100s of years, cricket is still played by single digit number of countries. 50-50 and tests are not a good advertisement for cricket no matter how many of you critics say that test cricket is ultimate and it's the real test. From a spectators point of view I don't buy that. Tests are only for those mainly associated with cricket such as Ex-cricketers, commentators, journalists and a few insightful nerds. As for any others, T20 is the best ambassador of cricket. If you want cricket to be picked by other countries it is T20 and only T20. The sooner all the pundits recognize it, the better its for cricket. As a cricket lover i'm disappointed when experts say test cricket is the ultimate...With no offense to test cricket, it's what the spectator likes that matters the most at the end of the day.

Posted by cheguramana on (June 05 2009, 11:57 AM GMT)

Interesting article by Peter Roebuck. I think the reason why T20 was slow to pick up in India is simple. Recall that England brought T20 into the mainstream to re-ignite public interest in cricket. Such an effort was not necessary in India; before T20 and IPL, stadia used to be full-whether it was a 5 day Test Match or ODIs. I am puzzled by vswami's comments abt Aussie reaction to Indian win. As far as I can recall, India beat Pakistan in the finals of the T20 World Cup. On the way to finals, they also beat South Africa, England, etc. I dint see other teams complaining. His comment reminds me of the 1999-2000 Indian tour of Australia. Venkatesh Prasad was fined because on one ocassion, his celebration of taking a wicket was considered 'inappropriate with respect to his cultural background' !!! Should Australia determine how others, Indians included, celebrate their victories ?

Posted by jfilsellcricket on (June 04 2009, 12:49 PM GMT)

Excellent article by Peter Roebuck on 20-20. I am a die-hard Test cricket upholder (where I think the analogy of - and PR may warm to this - a Mahler symphony with its broad canvas and emotional and periodically dramatic undulations is apt) but I too spent twilight evs as a youth (some 30 years ago) playing 20-20. It was never the same as 'big boys' cricket (Tests) and was always played after listening to TMS with an earpiece during school maths lessons .. but 20-20 has a great place in the pantheon of the game's different forms. It always strikes me that cricket IS a great game as much BECAUSE it morphs successfully into so many different formats as anything else. Is there really ANY other game that does this? Living in the US now, thank God for Internet TV where I can watch on-demand (for a small, er, fee) all the Tests and all the 20-20. I much enjoy your writing PR (I remember your playing days well too - you were one of the big boys when I was in maths lessons!).

Posted by DevBard on (June 04 2009, 07:35 AM GMT)

India was not keep on T20 as it meant less air time on TV i.e less revenue. A ODI has 100 overs and a 40 min break which is used to bombard viewers with thousands of adverts. T20 is 40% of a ODI and the economics did not work in BCCI's favor. India winning in SA in 2007 forced the adoption!

Posted by SSChicago on (June 04 2009, 06:33 AM GMT)

Peter is pretty good in being present where the action is. Not long ago while he considered Australia - South Africa series to be the clash of twin titans, he slammed the newest format as a "circus" at the start of the IPL - his comments where specifically meant for IPL. Before the Aus- SA series, he rated Border - Gavaskar Trophy to be the highest in the game's profile. Now he is strengthening his column by quoting India as "the best example for a major shift in T20 acceptance." He should not forget that the so called circus is a domestic Indian tournament. He should at least decide whether he is for or against the T20. It is nonetheless disappointing to know that after all these years the money that BCCI has generated to save the game, India is still looked with so much criticism in the way it deals with the game. IPL was an innovation, not technological though. But it has changed the fortunes of many, including the game itself.

Posted by riteshjsr on (June 04 2009, 05:31 AM GMT)

Well written article. Twenty20 has indeed captured the imagination of a lot of cricket fans around the world, and for all the right reasons. The contests are thrilling, action packed and more often than not go down to wire. Add to that, the fact that one can enjoy a game of cricket after work hours. However, I disagree with the author's contention that 50 over cricket is dying. One bad tournament (the World Cup 2007 in West Indies) does not sound the death knell for the format. I enjoy watching all 3 formats of the game as they all have their own charm. What irritates me though is the snooty comments that I keep reading on this website from fans especially from Australia and England, dismissing Twenty20 as a hit and giggle format. Twenty20 is here to stay and the sooner we accept it and learn to enjoy it, the better. The Australian cricket team got its pride pricked in the last tournament and I'm sure Ponting, the competitor that he is, will want to make amends in this edition.

Posted by vswami on (June 04 2009, 03:48 AM GMT)

The deterioration in cricketing respect between India- Australia started after the previous T20 tournament. It just shows how you win is as important as winning itself. Its just a sport and its very important to show magnanimity and restraint in victory and acknowledge the opponent in the immediate moments following it. I hope whoever wins the tournament shows grace in victory. A lot of ordinary people take their cues from sporting heroes and they have a definite responsibility to behave themselves on and off the field with their actions and words.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Peter RoebuckClose
Peter Roebuck He may not have played Test cricket for England, but Peter Roebuck represented Somerset with distinction, making over 1000 runs nine times in 12 seasons, and captaining the county during a tempestuous period in the 1980s. Roebuck acquired recognition all over the cricket world for his distinctive, perceptive, independent writing. Widely travelled, he now divides his time between Australia and South Africa.

Good on Dravid and Mahela, pity about the pitch     

In his new column, Sourav Ganguly says flat pitches aren't doing Test cricket's cause any good, especially when fans pay to watch

Dead pitches killing Tests in India     

Dileep Premachandran: What sanctity of Tests when they're played out in front of paltry crowds on pitches designed to drag the game to the post-mortem table?

Long live the crackdown on chucking     

Harsha Bhogle: India has made a start towards combating illegal actions by allowing umpires to call bowlers on the field

West Indies: from amazing to abysmal     

The Numbers Game: The aura and anticipation of an Australia-West Indies series has slipped and the contests have become one-sided

English cricket embraces Pakistan

Pak Spin: Administrators deserve credit for Australia series

  • Twenty years of Tendulkar
Sponsored Links

Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.

Debate now on the new ESPN Soccernet Castrol Rankings Blog

Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store

on www.scrum.com

20 Years of Tendulkar

Cricinfo celebrates two decades of the maestro

Bodyline

Bowl a fast one

Cricinfo Mobile Site

Our brand new mobile site