T20 cricket world cup '22

[Idaho]

I love test cricket, but it's dying internationally. Hardly anyone wants to follow 5 days of cricket that can end in a draw. Like most team sports, people want to devote a couple of hours to watching the whole thing. In this sense 50 overs has little to recommend over T20.

Test cricket and long form first class cricket is not some kind of ancient and eternal institution. It was created at a time when most of the players were self financing gentlemen. The crowds coming to watch had little competition for their attention. And from ww1 to the 80s the cricket ground was the only place in town where you could buy booze all day.

I was sceptical about T20 at first. But I'm a convert.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The death of test cricket is often announced prematurely. It is certainly struggling in some places. But in others it is much stronger than it was a few decades ago.

Test attendances in England are way higher now than they were in the 80s. Same is true in Australia.

In many other places, there never was a period of mass attendance at tests - Sri Lanka, for instance, where people do follow it without necessarily attending then turn out on big occasions.

In NZ, test cricket bimbles along much as it has done but a bit better recently due to the success of the team. A few thousand a day attendance is normal, but this isn't a big decline historically - that's just what it is in NZ.

In Pakistan, decent crowds turned out for the return of tests recently but go back a few decades and tests in Pakistan were often very badly attended. Will be interesting to see how big the crowds are vs England. There probably won't be big crowds every day, but you saw in UAE that the expat population would turn out in their thousands on Fridays after prayers.

In India, you don't get the 100,000 crowds you used to, but crowds are still decent - 20,000 plus is still common.

It's struggling in West Indies and South Africa for various reasons, many not to do with cricket.

One of the biggest reasons for the struggles of test cricket is the scheduling. Tests are pushed to the edges of schedules, often played away from the main population centres, priced in a way that prices out the locals sometimes, given Monday-Friday slots quite often in some countries, and generally not looked after.

The best illustration of the above is South Africa. They are set to abandon their traditional Boxing Day/New Year tests in Cape Town/Durban. You will see overall test attendances plummet as a result - down from maybe 50,000 per game to 10,000 per game. That will be entirely to do with the scheduling, nothing to do with the relative popularity of test cricket.

Meanwhile, tons of people follow test cricket online nowadays, all over the world.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

No it can't. It's essentially exactly the same rules as 50-0ver, or 60-over or whatever but scaled down to an over limit set at 20.

Yes it can. T20 was dreamt up in a marketing wank fantasy, not to serve cricket but to make money. By total coincidence it’s done just that, almost catastrophically. If you give a toss about test cricket, T20 needs to be set boundaries.

 

[Idaho]

Yes it can. T20 was dreamt up in a marketing wank fantasy, not to serve cricket but to make money. By total coincidence it’s done just that, almost catastrophically. If you give a toss about test cricket, T20 needs to be set boundaries.

Sporting events in money-making-crowd/sponsor pleasing shocker! Unprecedented!

If test cricket is going to survive, it should do so on it's own merits and not by deliberately hobbling rivals.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Sporting events in money-making-crowd/sponsor pleasing shocker! Unprecedented!

If test cricket is going to survive, it should do so on it's own merits and not by deliberately hobbling rivals.

Oh fuck off. Test cricket was mugged off by losing free to air test matches. When England won the Ashes in 2005 it was a national joy. I was at the Oval and there were people on the roofs and kids outside trying to get a peek through the gaps in the gates. It was wonderful. Now we’ve been robbed of free to air test cricket, interest has waned. So don’t come with the bollocks about all formats compete on a level playing field. They do not.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Test cricket is still the pinnacle of the sport and there's still significant crowds for the important international games. The problem is that there's very little appetite for lesser forms of the 4/5 day games, in terms of crowds and by extension exposure and money. Cricket as a whole is now almost exclusively a short form game, where some of the players also play long form matches.

 

[souljacker]

Five balls an over, although sacrilege, is easier to count with.

Only if you still count with your fingers.

I convert to 6 in my head when I watch the Hundred. 5 an over is weird.

 

[two sheds]

metric rather than imperial innit, we young uns are more used to it

 

[Idaho]

Oh fuck off. Test cricket was mugged off by losing free to air test matches. When England won the Ashes in 2005 it was a national joy. I was at the Oval and there were people on the roofs and kids outside trying to get a peek through the gaps in the gates. It was wonderful. Now we’ve been robbed of free to air test cricket, interest has waned. So don’t come with the bollocks about all formats compete on a level playing field. They do not.

I never said anything about level playing fields. It's a naive concept. And there is no doubt that they've repeatedly botched how they sold the TV rights. But that doesn't mean that limiting the fastest growing format of the sport is workable or sensible.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

I never said anything about level playing fields. It's a naive concept. And there is no doubt that they've repeatedly botched how they sold the TV rights. But that doesn't mean that limiting the fastest growing format of the sport is workable or sensible.

It would be foolish and naive to believe the growth of T20 is organic and from the grassroots. Big money is taking over world cricket. See what’s happened in South Africa. This naivety is seriously risking the existence of test cricket.

 

[Idaho]

Just seems like a lot of harrumphing. World sport of any sort is a big money game.

 

[planetgeli]

So the serial chokers choked.

Netherlands
158/4
South Africa
(20 ov, T:159) 145/8

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

So England India in the semi final then. Cracker.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Just seems like a lot of harrumphing. World sport of any sort is a big money game.

You’re unfortunately likely to see how much worse it can get by the hands of Indian big money franchises taking over whole nations cricket.

 

[Idaho]

Within a decade Netherlands, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan all fielded teams capable of providing a stiff test for established nations because of the format and because of franchise cricket. What has the old boy network of test match cricket done in 100 years?

 

[planetgeli]

Within a decade Netherlands, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan all fielded teams capable of providing a stiff test for established nations because of the format and because of franchise cricket. What has the old boy network of test match cricket done in 100 years?

Interesting choice of word.

If you dumb something down, it's not a test. That's why tests are called tests. If you removed say all the pawns from a chess game the game would be over quicker and arguably more exciting for some. It doesn't make it chess though.

All you are relying on in your first sentence is...largely this world cup actually. What major success have the teams you name had in T20 besides the odd victory or the odd close match? Those teams are nowhere nearer providing proper competition over a long term, it's just if you reduce a game to it's bare bones then deficiencies will be more easily overcome occasionally, which is exactly what is happening in T20.

What has test match cricket done over 100 years? It's given periods of dominance to teams of excellence. It gave us the West Indies brilliance of the 80s and 90s. You wouldn't even have Sri Lanka in this WC if it wasn't for them (long overdue) being introduced into test cricket first. India were not always good at the longer format, in fact for a long time they were hopeless. Years of test cricket was the basis of their dominance in bashball today.

If you reduce a game to something akin to a virtual coin toss, the Dutch are going to get it right occasionally.

 

[Idaho]

If you are only prepared to see T20 as existing to the detriment of test cricket, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes it can. T20 was dreamt up in a marketing wank fantasy, not to serve cricket but to make money. By total coincidence it’s done just that, almost catastrophically. If you give a toss about test cricket, T20 needs to be set boundaries.

It was invented in England for county cricket. Yes it was done for money reasons but as the original home of professional cricket, England was always the innovator in shorter forms designed specifically to draw in crowds.

I don't have a problem with t20 in principle, but I do agree that the new money flooding into it is distorting and ruining cricket. If you don't play for England, Aus or India, you can make way more money from white ball cricket than you can ever make from the red ball.

I would argue that test cricket needs protecting because long term all cricket declines if it disappears, including t20. Whoever wins this tournament, it will be mostly forgotten soon enough. Famous test series victories live forever.

Ironically, Indian players are among the best placed to combine red and white ball careers. Nearly all of their test players also play in the IPL but don't play in any other franchises. Their test schedule is protected.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Somehow Pakistan have got through. Got to quite fancy them now. I think all four teams could win it, though. Wide open.

 

[Idaho]

I've played about 10 organised, fully equipped and scored cricket matches in my life, and all of them were 20 over games. Seems pretty grassroots and accessible to me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Within a decade Netherlands, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan all fielded teams capable of providing a stiff test for established nations because of the format and because of franchise cricket. What has the old boy network of test match cricket done in 100 years?

I'm not sure that stands up tbh. How many Dutch or Zim or Ireland players have regular franchise gigs? Ireland now has a squad of professionals under contract, and one of the stepping stones to that stage was the setting up of a domestic red ball tournament and promotion to test status. Zim has been struggling in the last 20 years primarily because of its exclusion from mainstream test match schedules - the big teams won't play them.

I also wouldn't overstate the progress. There have been three shock results in this tournament but none of those teams came close to qualification for the semis. And shock results in limited overs cricket have a long history. It would have been a surprise if there hadn't been any. Remember when Kenya was a fast-rising team? They have since completely disintegrated. Without a base of test cricket underpinning your structure, that can happen very quickly.

 

[Ted Striker]

Interesting choice of word.

If you dumb something down, it's not a test. That's why tests are called tests. If you removed say all the pawns from a chess game the game would be over quicker and arguably more exciting for some. It doesn't make it chess though.

All you are relying on in your first sentence is...largely this world cup actually. What major success have the teams you name had in T20 besides the odd victory or the odd close match? Those teams are nowhere nearer providing proper competition over a long term, it's just if you reduce a game to it's bare bones then deficiencies will be more easily overcome occasionally, which is exactly what is happening in T20.

What has test match cricket done over 100 years? It's given periods of dominance to teams of excellence. It gave us the West Indies brilliance of the 80s and 90s. You wouldn't even have Sri Lanka in this WC if it wasn't for them (long overdue) being introduced into test cricket first. India were not always good at the longer format, in fact for a long time they were hopeless. Years of test cricket was the basis of their dominance in bashball today.

If you reduce a game to something akin to a virtual coin toss, the Dutch are going to get it right occasionally.

This. But I don't know the answer to stopping the genie out of the bottle of the shortform. It's cricket for a generation that doesn't have the attention span for the Godfather, so they just watch TikTok.

The best answer I can come up with is leadership - sell the longform better. It feels very synonymous with politics - how do you drum in the slow trudge of effective boring government vs extremist reactionary populists?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This. But I don't know the answer to stopping the genie out of the bottle of the shortform. It's cricket for a generation that doesn't have the attention span for the Godfather, so they just watch TikTok.

The best answer I can come up with is leadership - sell the longform better. It feels very synonymous with politics - how do you drum in the slow trudge of effective boring government vs extremist reactionary populists?

I dunno. I fell in love with test cricket aged 10 watching the 1981 Ashes in the summer holidays. I know a generation of kids later fell in love with test cricket watching the 2005 Ashes. Are ten-year-olds that different today?

Here in England, the biggest problem is the lack of free-to-air coverage. That has hurt all cricket and participation numbers at grass roots, probably the best single measure of a game's health, have declined since 2005. The selling off of the game to Sky was the biggest crime (and they virtually gave away the domestic t20 rights in 2005, an act of utter folly and incompetence).

While cricket remains the second-most-popular sport in England after football in terms of an active following online, participation numbers have been slowly declining, including among kids. They sold off to Sky and set up 'Chance to Shine' and pretend they're doing it for the good of the game, but they're not. Participation numbers declined by around 1/4 in the 2010s.

As of 2020, there were 294,000 people playing Cricket in the UK which had decreased from 419,500 people in 2009 (30% decrease).

Cricket Statistics 2021: How Popular is Cricket in the UK?

 

[two sheds]

Here in England, the biggest problem is the lack of free-to-air coverage.

Yep that's why I've largely lost interest - I hardly recognize any of the players any more. One thing that's good (temporarily) about the 100s.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep that's why I've largely lost interest - I hardly recognize any of the players any more. One thing that's good (temporarily) about the 100s.

A couple of years ago, I listened to an extremely revealing and depressing interview with a coach who was trying to get kids from diverse backgrounds into cricket in South London. Even the kids who were motivated to turn up to her sessions had never heard of Joe Root or Ben Stokes. They're not household names because all their exploits are hidden behind a paywall. As cricket fans, we can tend to think they're mega famous, but they're actually not.

 

[Idaho]

Here in England, the biggest problem is the lack of free-to-air coverage. That has hurt all cricket and participation numbers at grass roots, probably the best single measure of a game's health, have declined since 2005. The selling off of the game to Sky was the biggest crime (and they virtually gave away the domestic t20 rights in 2005, an act of utter folly and incompetence).

Completely and emphatically agree. They absolutely shat the bed in 2005.

 

[The Octagon]

Slow start to the 1st Semi Final

 

[Petcha]

That was a brilliant bonkers first over. Should be a cracker.

 

[Ted Striker]

That's a class run out, playground stuff

Really hoping for a PAK win here...Therefore leaves the other semi fairly win/win in either us or India playing Pakistan in the final

 

[Petcha]

India - Pakistan final would be brilliant