20/20 does not have cricket's essence
April 22nd 2008 02:31
As the IPL has just kicked off (excuse the inapt metaphor), it seems appropriate to comment upon what the emergence of 20/20 means for cricket. It hardly needs to be said that 20-over cricket has both its fans and detractors, for a variety of reasons; it is one of the claims made by many of its fans that I primarily wish to consider here. Those seeking to defend 20/20 often invoke the apocalyptic prophecies which accompanied the advent of 50 over cricket. In essence, they are suggesting that any change to existing practices provokes a negative reaction in some quarters, and – just as with 50-over cricket – it will simply blow over. However, I believe 20/20 represents a change to the game that 50-over matches did not.
Cricket is much more like a marathon than it is a sprint: one of its critical skills is the regulation of defence and attack. The thrill of seeing a batsman play big shots or a bowler bring in four slips and two gullies is accentuated by the knowledge that this is a risk, which could easily backfire if the player’s ability does not match his ambition. Though 50-over cricket is a shorter version of the game, with bigger hitting, faster scoring, and a result within a day, the essential regulation of risk and caution is preserved though in an attenuated form. There remains an incentive to retain wickets, for batsmen to bat long innings, and for fielding teams to defend as well as to attack. 20/20 cricket, on the other hand, virtually removes this most wonderful, and difficult to master, aspect of the game. One may argue that it is simply attenuated further to create a more exciting spectacle, but how much can something change before it becomes something else altogether? And how long will cricket remain entertaining once it has devolved into all-out attack?
I have no doubt that 20/20 in all its guises will be commercially successful for a variety of reasons: it’s short, making it more attractive both the spectators and broadcasters; it’s fast-paced, and non-stop. However, are bigger crowds and bigger markets really the be-all and end-all, if cricket becomes something that it is not? One could put on a modified pop-concert, call it opera and claim that crowds for opera had dramatically increased; but it wouldn’t be opera anymore, would it? Perhaps, like the opera, there are some people that will simply never enjoy cricket. The people who are only attracted to the 20-over game are probably the same people that say football is boring because there is the possibility you might watch for 90 minutes and see a nil-all draw. However, that is to miss the tension that builds during a tight, low-scoring tussle, which makes that winning goal (if it comes) all that more satisfying – or heart-breaking. Something similar occurs in cricket, when a boundary or a wicket punctuates an absorbing battle between bat and ball. Removing this kind of tension from the game - by reducing the duration to such an extent - may appeal to some, but is it really worth it if cricket is robbed of its essence? I say no, and not just because I like cricket the way it is.
Firstly, 20/20 is popular for the same reason that fatty foods, reality television and pornography are popular: it satisfies our base instincts. However, just as with these activities, I suspect that over-exposure will bring boredom, and the desire for more extreme versions. It may be great as a novelty, but can that same excitement really be sustained year after year, tournament after tournament. Ultimately, the glut of runs and cheap wickets may bring a kind of decadent boredom, and a need to develop something even more “exciting”.
Secondly, as I stated earlier, it seems that some people simply do not understand cricket. They may be lured by the bells and whistles of 20/20, but is there really any serious suggestion that they will then come to love the longer forms of the game? Returning to my earlier comparison, it would be like a porn aficionado suddenly deciding that he (and it almost certainly would be a he) enjoyed reading long, romantic novels. However, by the time this hypothesis has been tested, we may already have gone past the point where 20/20 could return to its earlier novelty status. Indeed, we may already have gone past that point with the IPL and the 20/20 World Cup. I would hate to see cricket in its purer forms replaced by something that is barely cricket at all.
Although I have no doubt that 20/20 is entertaining and may attract people to the cricket, it may be at the expense of some of crickets defining features: the things that make cricket-lovers love cricket. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
]
Cricket is much more like a marathon than it is a sprint: one of its critical skills is the regulation of defence and attack. The thrill of seeing a batsman play big shots or a bowler bring in four slips and two gullies is accentuated by the knowledge that this is a risk, which could easily backfire if the player’s ability does not match his ambition. Though 50-over cricket is a shorter version of the game, with bigger hitting, faster scoring, and a result within a day, the essential regulation of risk and caution is preserved though in an attenuated form. There remains an incentive to retain wickets, for batsmen to bat long innings, and for fielding teams to defend as well as to attack. 20/20 cricket, on the other hand, virtually removes this most wonderful, and difficult to master, aspect of the game. One may argue that it is simply attenuated further to create a more exciting spectacle, but how much can something change before it becomes something else altogether? And how long will cricket remain entertaining once it has devolved into all-out attack?
I have no doubt that 20/20 in all its guises will be commercially successful for a variety of reasons: it’s short, making it more attractive both the spectators and broadcasters; it’s fast-paced, and non-stop. However, are bigger crowds and bigger markets really the be-all and end-all, if cricket becomes something that it is not? One could put on a modified pop-concert, call it opera and claim that crowds for opera had dramatically increased; but it wouldn’t be opera anymore, would it? Perhaps, like the opera, there are some people that will simply never enjoy cricket. The people who are only attracted to the 20-over game are probably the same people that say football is boring because there is the possibility you might watch for 90 minutes and see a nil-all draw. However, that is to miss the tension that builds during a tight, low-scoring tussle, which makes that winning goal (if it comes) all that more satisfying – or heart-breaking. Something similar occurs in cricket, when a boundary or a wicket punctuates an absorbing battle between bat and ball. Removing this kind of tension from the game - by reducing the duration to such an extent - may appeal to some, but is it really worth it if cricket is robbed of its essence? I say no, and not just because I like cricket the way it is.
Firstly, 20/20 is popular for the same reason that fatty foods, reality television and pornography are popular: it satisfies our base instincts. However, just as with these activities, I suspect that over-exposure will bring boredom, and the desire for more extreme versions. It may be great as a novelty, but can that same excitement really be sustained year after year, tournament after tournament. Ultimately, the glut of runs and cheap wickets may bring a kind of decadent boredom, and a need to develop something even more “exciting”.
Secondly, as I stated earlier, it seems that some people simply do not understand cricket. They may be lured by the bells and whistles of 20/20, but is there really any serious suggestion that they will then come to love the longer forms of the game? Returning to my earlier comparison, it would be like a porn aficionado suddenly deciding that he (and it almost certainly would be a he) enjoyed reading long, romantic novels. However, by the time this hypothesis has been tested, we may already have gone past the point where 20/20 could return to its earlier novelty status. Indeed, we may already have gone past that point with the IPL and the 20/20 World Cup. I would hate to see cricket in its purer forms replaced by something that is barely cricket at all.
Although I have no doubt that 20/20 is entertaining and may attract people to the cricket, it may be at the expense of some of crickets defining features: the things that make cricket-lovers love cricket. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
]
| 52 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Films Found
Zoo Parent
Comment by Sue deNim