My view of Twenty20

[Apologies to those who prefer their blog posts to be nuggets rather than essays but I hope this stirs some debate]

An email came this morning from Homer, referring to William Rees-Mogg's agitated harrumphing about Twenty20 in this morning's Times. "While his objections to the premise of Twenty20 are laudable, I could not understand where the angst was when England launched Twenty20 five years ago," Homer writes. "I have yet to see an English writer who objects to the Pro Twenty competition between counties while having nothing but scorn for the IPL.

"If the objection is towards Twenty20, shouldn't the county Twenty20 league be the first to go? And if money is the object, how is no one saying anything about the obscene amounts Sir Allen Stanford is throwing towards the contests between his "All Stars" and the England team? Could you enlighten me as to why the English media is so intent on losing all credibility (before I start thinking race)?."

Fair points, Homer, and here's my take on the whole thing:

First, to deal with His Moggness's article, I don't think he is spurning the IPL specifically. It seems clear that Rees-Mogg dislikes all forms of Twenty20 and he doesn't mention India until halfway through. I don't know our former Editor, but imagine he was just as upset when the Twenty20 Cup was launched in England, it's just that the subject is at the top of the news agenda again right now because of the IPL.

Indeed, a year ago - before the IPL was even a daydream - Rees-Mogg wrote a piece in The Times criticising Twenty20 cricket, calling it "vulgar and meaningless". In 2001, two years before T20's birth, he wrote complaining about the meaninglessness of limited-overs cricket, a theme he also dallied on in 1997 and no doubt at various intervals going back into the dawn of time. There is nothing wrong with preferring your cricket in longer packages and I will defend Rees-Mogg on that. Like him, I prefer Tests to limited-overs.

Where we disagree is on the pros and cons of T20. Personally, I find it quite fun. The longer versions of limited-overs cricket can often drift and close finishes are rare (although when you have a side needing, say, 60 off the last ten overs with wickets in hand, 50-over cricket can be much more enjoyable than T20 because of the longer finale). I think 50-over also stifles skills. You have time to bowl and bat negatively, to pass away the middle overs, whereas in Twenty20 bowlers and batsmen have to be more creative. It is brilliant that T20, far more than 50-over cricket, is spin-friendly. The slower ball is another skill that was dying out until T20 came along.

The first five years of T20 in England have been a great success. Crowds have increased substantially and thousands of new fans for the game have been won. I hope that many of them try longer cricket and find it even more enjoyable. Internationally, the World Twenty20 was a really enjoyable tournament (especially by comparison with the odious 2007 50-over World Cup) and was graced by some excellent games, not least the final. Twenty20 is here to stay and I think it is a valuable addition.

Fair enough, Homer would say, so why do people who agree with you on the Twenty20 Cup dislike the IPL? I suppose my view on the IPL (which I stress I have an open mind about) is that it has taken the T20 concept and extended it beyond sport and into showbusiness. When sportsmen become celebrities, when sporting occasions are used as a backdrop to sell records, when people go along to see who is in the crowd rather than who is playing, when there are cheerleaders (rather than people being able to decide for themselves when to cheer), when the game is no longer "the thing"... that bothers me.

The English Twenty20 Cup has had some of that but on a lower scale. The finals day is now synonymous with a Superbowl-style halftime concert by one bubblegum pop group or another and you can't go to a game without there being loud DJ music. Some people like that and I have to accept it. Yet for all the razzmatazz, it has never seemed that the entertainment overtook the sport. I guess people in England fear that the IPL in India is leading a charge towards cricket being about more than the bat and the ball. We worry that in replying to the commercial success of the IPL, the ECB will make our T20 just as loud and brash and crass.

Another worry is that the IPL will be such a moneymaker - or certainly there is so much money invested in it - that T20 will become the dominant form of the game. In England - and other countries - T20 has only ever been a diversion, an entertaining time-out in the season. Some of us are worried that the money men will take over and ensure that it becomes the main event. It is not sour grapes at the success of T20 in India, but fear.

With money comes nastiness, too. The involvement of IMG in the IPL has ensured that there will be a ruthless pursuit of exclusivity, whether it be in clamping down on competitions that infringe on the IPL or by demanding that media organisations buy into their approved rights deals (hence the row about pictures from the IPL). I have been pretty vocal here about my distaste for the way the BCCI and other boards have attacked the ICL and those who play in it. Not that I back the ICL, but I want them to have the freedom to offer an alternative product.

The English football Premier League is often held up as a model of what the IPL wants to be. If so, then that is a shame. The Premier League may be a financial success, but it has done much to kill football. Traditional fans are priced out of games, merchandising and developing a brand becomes more important than a team being part of the community, advertising is everywhere, the officials are no longer treated with respect by players or fans and the players are paid and treated like gods. Great, good for them, but football's soul has withered.

Aha, says Homer, but if your problem is really with the money then why is there no such criticism of Allen Stanford and his wealth in the West Indies? I interviewed Stanford two and a half years ago when he was putting his tournament together and it was clear that he meant to invest big money in making it work, but people have largely ignored it because the West Indies lacks the power in global cricket terms. Stanford is desperate to find another nation to come in with him - hence the promises of $100m to the ECB if they play with him - because he needs someone else to get international credibility. He may yet turn out to be the sleeping tiger that people ignore at their peril, but for now there is a very much awake tiger in India, with a huge wealth and population to support it.

That, perhaps, is why the IPL is viewed as dangerous by some people over here. We fear its power and the fact that it could destroy the form of cricket that we love. And yet I understand the indignation of many true-blood Indian fans who think that this is sheer envy or - as Homer hints - racism. Why should India not have a T20 competition? What is wrong with using India's wealth and fanbase to make the game grow? If India has billionaires who want to sink money into the game, why not let them? Let the free market decide if it is a good idea.

I agree with all that, but I remain apprehensive that the purpose of cricket will be lost amid the razzmatazz and marketing. Brendon McCullum's pyrotechnics in the first IPL game were astounding, but his big hitting ultimately became, for me, rather dull and the collapse of Bangalore in the second innings meant the game was an anticlimax. It is not anti-India or anti-T20 to point that out, but it seems that if you do then you are seen as being racist or against progress. I don't think I am either.

If cricket does not balance batting and bowling, it has no purpose other than just being entertainment. T20 is a form of the game that should encourage this balance. The first three IPL matches were imbalanced, the next two have been much better. But if cricket is to survive we must learn to discern between a bad game and a good game. If the marketing men and the passionate new Indian fans say that we MUST see the IPL opener as a good game, then cricket really has no future. If we say "well it was a bit crap as a game but quite a fun night out" it may just survive.

But, hey, let's trust the true Indian fans to have the final say. I believe that most Indians like to see proper cricket rather than just showbiz, whatever the marketing men say. So if the IPL does not start to deliver on the field, no doubt it will begin to fade. There are only so many times you will pay to watch the Washington Redskins cheerleaders. And perhaps the ICL can exploit that niche by providing good cricket ahead of big-money entertainment?

Gosh, that was a bit rambling wasn't it? Anyway, hope it answers your question Homer. What does everyone else think?

Comments

[Syed Jaffri]

Okay, so I have this GREAT idea and I would like to know what you guys think out there. It has to do with Cricket and making hay while the sun is still shining.

How about I open a "cricketVillage" say in Delhi Metro that will primarily have 12 dedicated Cricket Batting cages utlizing bowling machines.. just come out and hit twenty20 style and then the second thing would be to have a virtual Twenty20 arena which will again utilize bowling machines but you can field a team of say six players and have a Twenty20 like tournament IPL style.. with same audio visual effects....

What do you guys think ??

[Rusty]

P. McG,

I concur.

[Peter McGuinness]

The vagaries of human nature upon parade.

I am thankful that T20 is being enjoyed by many people.

It goes some way to explaining the ongoing popularity of Jackie Collins as an author - a vexing puzzle for a number of decades.

Apologies for the length of this comment Patrick.

[Venkat Reddy]

Brilliant article!Having watched most of the games on tv i can assure the people watching in England that the razzmatazz is what the media makes it out to be.The cricket has been enjoyable and the discussions have been more about the teams and the players rather than the chher leaders.Noone has gone to the gorund to watch the bollywood stars.Its just an added incentive.I think the administration has just got one thing wrong.They have brought the boundaries in so far that hitting a six has become an on demand activity.The number of two hundred scores being routinely chased down is not good for the game.Apart form that everything has gone off really well.The twenty over game as a concept is here to stay and it will create more big money cricketers.

[D.S. Henry]

Interesting piece, Patrick (and I definitely concur on the need for longer posts every so often).

I think what bothers a few IPL fans is not so much the content of the (mostly English) critics' treatment of the league, but its tone. There's a hint of dismissiveness and condescension to some of it. The IPL is seen as "dangerous", "a money-grubbing beast", ready to pounce at any moment.

But the IPL is not a creature... it's a sport league. Bad management and crass commercialisation of the IPL might be "dangerous"... not the IPL per se.

The reservations of most IPL skeptics are natural, and understandable, but their prescriptions and solution are essentially not IPL-specific. They are just common sense rules that apply to ANY new venture, be it in sports, business, public policy, etc.

On the other hand, I can't help but roll my eyes when I start hearing about things like "the purpose of cricket" and "football's soul". Those are just meaningless concepts, belonging solely inside the heads of sportswriters. Come on, these are just games people play. Let's not get ahead of ourselves(Messerschmitt up the arse, and all that...)

Still, it's nice to have people discussing these ideas, as we're doing now, and thanks for bringing them up, Patrick.

(And I hate to end this with a cheap plug, but check out our daily IPL coverage at Outside the Line -- http://outsidetheline.typepad.com)

[Brian Carpenter]

Superb, Patrick. I agree with everything you say. Also a very thoughtful follow-up comment from Pablo.

I haven't seen a ball bowled in the IPL - I haven't got Setanta and I haven't caught anything elsewhere - and I don't feel deprived at all. However, come Twenty20 finals day, well, cancel everything. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say (I've had the type of dreamy day in the sun which doesn't lend itself to deep thought), except that, like you, I get the impression that there's Twenty20 and then there's the IPL, but I just don't feel that it'll be the death of the cricket we know and love.

I'm the optimistic type anyway, and if I ever knowingly agree with anything written by Rees- Mogg, well, it's time to give up.

[Pablo]

First let me say I strongly support the long posts. Proper analysis and discussion need the right amount of space and time, regardless of the media.
Now, to the issue at hand. I believe there are two elements to this issue, the introduction of T20 as a "lighter" form of Cricket and the degree of commercialization of Cricket, that should be treated separately. The fact that most people as well as analysts are treating them as one is responsible for much of the confusion and controversy. Some of that is present in Rees-Mogg's article, which Patrick tries corageously to clarify in his own post.
Here is my own attempt at it. On the first element, I don’t share Rees Mogg’s negative view of T20 as a “lighter” form of Cricket. Like him and most of us, I prefer longer forms of Cricket because they allow strategy and timing, the true self of Cricket in my opinion, to shine. However, I agree with Patrick in that T20 is here to stay and it can have a positive role in the wider Cricket context. People need to be able to play a sport in significant numbers in order for that sport to create interest and be followed within a society. T20 can really fill that role, to build up non-professional Cricket, “just-for-fun” Cricket if you want, thus bringing people to the game. For example, I really see T20 as a great way to bring Cricket back to the schools as a regular sport. Anyway, the point is that once a significant portion of the society is now part of the game, it will be much easier to create interest around it. Obviously, there is an underlying risk of people getting interested just in the lighter form, but that is a risk worth taking if it implies that you will get, say, three times more people interested in Cricket. In this case, at least it would be in the hands of educators, analysts, and “conoscenti” in general to share their enthusiasm and knowledge to help drive the new fans towards more educated forms of the game, if not to play at least to follow. I would point out that when I write T20 I imply it surrounded by the general culture and demeanor that has been around Cricket traditionally, and this leads me to the next element of this issue.
I think most of us agree that the levels of commercialization that both ICL and IPL brought into the sport are a bad thing. I have nothing against cheerleaders (god bless them all), but that is not what Cricket is about. Cricket is a sport of a different kind, more focused on skills, timing, and strategy. The only reason such sort of NFL-like Cricket can work in India is because there is no competition in that “mass sport” segment of the market. In other countries that segment is already solidly taken by one or more sports, and my feeling is that such NFL-like cricket would have a hard time getting any significant position past the initial interest. In India, however, there is nothing there and they are trying to fill the void with Cricket. Keeping this in mind, my point on this element is that as long as this form of Cricket can be encapsulated in India, the only place where it can succeed, and it doesn’t affect Cricket in other countries (for example, by taking players out of their traditional domestic tournaments), chances are that Cricket as we know it and NFL-like Cricket can live mostly separate lifes without affecting each other. The only true risk I can find would be to attempt a similar kind of approach in England or other countries besides India. I think it wouldn’t succeed but it can have an impact messing up domestic tournaments for a while until people figure out that T20 as mass sport won’t work outside India. In any case, if I’m right on the fact that Cricket would fail as a mass sport outside India, it would be a self-contained risk.
So, this is my take on the issue.
Long live long posts!!! Hooray!!!