Twenty 20 Cricket

I don’t know twenty-20 cricket will kill the ‘gentleman’s sport’ or going to be its savior! What I know for sure is that twenty-20 is an excellent format that can help cricket to defuse within the non-cricket playing nations.

Diffusion of cricket has been a real issue since the birth of the game. The game was originally dominated by twelve core constituencies (according to contemporary world map), now down to ten nations. Not many people know that the first ever official cricket game was played between American and Canadian Elevens in 1844 – neither of them is represented among ICC test cricket playing nations – core constituencies. It might surprise readers that approximately 120 cricket clubs existed in Philadelphia area – a city of Pennsylvania State, USA – at one time or another. One can not find these many clubs in whole of the USA today. Clearly, cricket did not spread cross cultures.

It is interesting to see that cricket not only survived within the ten core constituencies but also gained maximum level of popularization. Rather, cricket took over as a truly “hegemonic sports culture” or a “national past time” in all the cricket playing nations. We can call such nations as cricket playing nations, where cricket is played or followed as a ‘national past time’.

It is equally interesting to note that cricket never crossed its borders beyond its core constituencies. Cricket never crossed the borders outside the full-member-nations’ circle on an equally popular level despite of the fact that the game was popularized in North America, Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sub Continent (Now comprised of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka), West Indies, and Zimbabwe during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Cricket’s cross-cultural-diffusion has always been a challenge for the game’s administrators. ICC has taken lots of measures to help cricket succeed its popularization within non-cricket playing nations. Despite of the fact that there are 32 associate and 56 affiliate member nations of ICC; there is a huge gap between the 10 full-member-nations and other 88 associate and affiliate member nations with regards to the skill, popularization, and hegemony of the game. Let’s review why cricket failed its popularization outside the circle of its core constituencies?

1. Cricket is a complex sport and teams take a very long time – spanning over decades – before they are able to meet the cricketing level of the full member nations.
2. Cricket games are held over longer durations – lasting up to five days – which make multinational fixture un-feasible rather impossible and cease the opportunities for more nations to participate in the test-cricket and ODI-cricket fixtures.
3. Cricket is a slow moving game and more cerebral than physical – not the attributes that many nations like to be identified with quickly.
4. Cricket, being a slow moving game, more cerebral and less physical, coupled with its complexity make it totally boring for its viewer who are not conversant with the game.
5. Finally, some of the full-member cricketing nations, particularly Australia, have advanced so far in regards to the competitiveness and skill of the game that their matches are mostly one-sided, especially when they are playing against the emerging nations. This factor takes the entertainment factor away!

Above all, imagine how long it might take to organize a multinational cricketing event, obviously in its ODI format, where more than twice of existing full-member-nations might participate!

Twenty-20 cricket, a shorter rather compact version of the game, is a more suitable format that can be marketed for cricket’s diffusion for obvious reasons. It is game that lasts for three hours only; attacking in character; fast-paced; more entertaining; and provides possibility of multiple fixtures at the similar venue.

Current ‘fit’ of twenty-20 has obvious issues with it. Australian former vice captain Adam Gilchrist has referred to twenty20 as the “way of the future”. He has also pointed out a real danger in his press statement by saying;

‘Who knows? Maybe now having seen the crowds at this World Cup [2007], maybe it is going to be the way to go. It might cannibalize the one-day game a little bit but we'll have to deal with that as we go because it's obviously a popular format,’ Gilchrist said (theage.com.au, 2007).

Twenty20 cricket is clearly associated with the ICC’s top ten full-member playing nations as a potential substitute of the future – at least which is the direction it is heading to as we speak.

The existing positioning of the twenty20 format is limited in scope, heading to substituting rather cannibalizing the existing formats of the game, such as test and ODI cricket versions. Secondly, as said by Michael Holding – a former great West Indian Bowler, and currently an analyst, columnist, and commentator – ‘twenty20 forces very best cricket players to alter their style and technique to an ordinary level of aggressive style of cricket only’. This refers to a danger of losing the cricket’s core “tacit” competencies which exist on a highly-competitive-level within the test and ODI cricket-versions.

The third issue refers to the ‘fit’ of twenty20 in the cricketing-calendars. For instance, Australia is scheduled to play twenty test matches and twice as many ODIs in 2008. Regardless of the fact how entertaining twenty20 cricket is, the world’s number one team won’t be able to fit twenty20 in its schedule in 2008! Same is the case with most of the other ICC full-member nations, which would struggle to accommodate twenty20 in their schedules!

The fourth issue is associated with the sponsorship opportunities, which are many at this stage. However, the mishandling of the twenty20 fixtures with regards to having a right mix of teams and players could potentially put off the potential sponsors and investors who might be interested in the innovation. What happened with ICL might be viewed as a victory for IPL in a shorter spectrum, but in a broader spectrum a huge loss towards cricket’s popularization. For instance, Antigua-based American Allen Stanford and Indian Subhash Chandra, who made his fortune in the grain trade, were on the verge of establishing separate big-money Twenty20 competitions. Stanford planed to stage an international Twenty20 carnival in the West Indies in 2008. Plans and suggestions were underway including speculations that prize-money could be up to $24.5 million. The winner of the current World Cup, by comparison, stands to win just over $3 million. Chandra, who owns Zee Telefilms, has reportedly outlaid about $50 million for the ICL competition. In a situation that mirrors Packer's 30 years ago, the BCCI rejected Chandra's $378 million bid in 2004 to broadcast the sport on his network — despite being the highest bidder. Stanford was burnt by the West Indies Cricket Board in 2006 when his plan to stage a $6 million three-match Twenty20 series between South Africa and his All Stars XI was scuttled because it clashed with the tour of Pakistan. He has since paid the West Indies $2.5 million to sanction his tournaments to avoid such conflict. In summary, the emergence of tycoons such as Allen Stanford and Indian Subhash Chandra has the potential to change the cricket landscape because of the money they are willing to invest. It is however compulsory for the two things to happen: the sponsors must find encouragement through the return from their investments; and most importantly, twenty20 must progress in the third stream – like IRB sevens – to avoid major and radical unrest within the established test and ODI versions of cricket.

As a fifth issue, there will be those meaningless competitions between the top teams and second tier teams, hence causing and further enhancing disinterest and de-popularization of the game out side the circle of the ten full-member nations!

The sixth issue relates to the diffusion of cricket within ICC’s associate and affiliate member nations. It is however important to note here that twenty20, unlike IRB sevens, is in no position to cross the borders due to a lack of the compatible structure required for its diffusion in the second tier nations – ICC’s associate and affiliate member nations. I would like to therefore suggest a structure for the twenty20 cricket as follows, suitable and compatible for its diffusion; and achieving other objectives, such as incubation of the emerging talent on the individual as well as national level across the board.

The suggestion with regards to redirection and re-positioning of the twenty20 cricket is based on the following objectives.

1. Shift of the twenty20’s association and its primary focus from ICC’s full-member playing nations to its associate and affiliate member nations.
2. Use the twenty20 cricket as the cricket’s development and diffusion tool across all the ICC member nations.
3. To provide an opportunity for the rookie and emerging talents for their incubation and growth on the international level from all the cricket playing nations.
4. To provide the second tier cricketing nations with an opportunity to be introduced with the cricket on a wider level, and then to interact more with the full-member nations with a view of having them evolve into established one-day and perhaps even test match playing nations.
5. To provide the sponsors with ample and consistent opportunities to participate in the development of the twenty20 cricket without facing any interference or conflict from the other versions of cricket – test and ODI versions.