Time for T20 to take the main stage?

[ParkedTheBus]

Unpopular opinion but imo ICC should look to prioritise the shortest format of the game if they're truly looking to expand and globalise the game. It's important to ensure that cricket doesn't become another rugby in terms of participating nations, and T20 is the only way to do this.

T20 would enable the participation(or in the case of some countries, increase) of Europe, the Americas, Africa and Eastern Asia: all massive markets. With England and South Africa losing interest in cricket(again, I don't live there and I go by what people from there tell me), cricket seems to be bound to Asia and Oceania, which is definitely not a good thing.

The main issue in many countries is that cricket doesn't pay enough to be a full-time profession while it isn't short enough to be a part-time job. T20 would rectify both issues: it will not interfere with players' day jobs while the truly elite players would get paid well in the T20 leagues.

So, where does this leave Test and ODI cricket? I believe it is time to do away with bilateral ODI series: nobody wants to see India and Sri Lanka play yet another 5 match ODI series. Let's have a World Cup every 4 years, that's all. If T20 becomes popular enough, maybe doing away with the 50 over format is a feasibility.

Coming to tests, how about an idea of having a 12 team ranking system with the 7 full members(8 minus West Indies) and the 5 best other countries? Tests are to be played in a particular window, say, every alternate month and each 'test window' would be about 3 weeks long.

Of course, this cannot be done overnight. This plan would take about 10 years at the least for its effects to truly take place and till then the current Test/ODI system could exist.

Thoughts?

 

[cricket_icon]

T20 has been ongoing for over a decade and has done little or nothing to promote the sport in new territories...and do you know why? Because it is not the format that is important but the people who run the game. Just look at the current associate nations, they have shown impressive form at times but with a lack of cricket, especially at the international level, they never improve beyond the point of the odd upset. This is down to the games administrators.

We need more international cricket for the assocs, we need smaller tournaments for them to take part in and we need greater investment in grass roots within those same countries. Is that going to be possible now that the ICC, however ridiculous it was in its previous incarnation is far worse now?

We've already had 5 ICC world T20 tournaments, garnering close to a billion viewers world wide and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue yet where has all that money gone? Into the pockets of a select few and yet I still keep hearing that T20 is the way forward and that it will open up new doors elsewhere. It won't, no single format can do that.

In terms of the cricket itself, t20 is the least watchable form from a purists standpoint. Yes it can be fun a lot of the time but where's the style? The elegance? The see-saw matches? Too often games are decided on a single, wicked batting run or a brilliant spell of bowling...normally far less of the latter. If you look at India, the nation which has gained the most financially from this format, they have also lost out the most in terms of producing test quality players. Which batsman now would be bale to hold a candle to Tendulkar, Dravid or Ganguly? Who now can play a patient and effective innings?

The same can be said of numerous other countries but cricketing nations such as Australia and England have still managed to produce some good bowlers, which has kept them afloat for now. The batting is just as swash buckling and wam bam, thank you ma'am.

So no, t20 cricket is not the way forward if we are really talking about safe guarding this game and its participants.

 

[CerealKiller]

It's important to ensure that cricket doesn't become another rugby in terms of participating nations

Well, rugby has done a much better job than cricket in expanding itself all over the world.

 

[icyman]

Expansion of cricket is possible only if big nations play at off-shore venues. This idea was mooted quite some time ago by Jagmohan Dalmiya, under whose aegis India and Pakistan squared off in Toronto. The positives being that we had a new cricketing venue which could've been developed along the lines of Sharjah. The negatives though are aplenty. Instead of simply having India & Pak play, the organizers could've invited Canada to take part in a triangular.The fault herein partly would lie with the Canadian administration also for not effectively conveying the message.

Coming to the format- T20 & ODI would bode well for the expansion of the game agreed. However, the ICC should have carried out a rewards system for Associates who have done very well. I think they erred in granting Test status to Bangladesh(a decision which has still not repaid them). The time at which Bangladesh was given Test status- they were pathetic and incompetent. Kenya, on the other hand who reached the World Cup semi-finals in 2003 was a prime candidate and should have been awarded Test status at that time. Instead Bangladesh, won their claim to play Tests by simply beating Pakistan in the 1999 World cup.Ireland-a country which has made great strides in world cricket since their first World Cup in 2007. Despite the 'virtually zero' ODIs they play in between two World Cups, they've always put on a competitive front. This is a country which has been losing players to England and is in desperate need of Test status.

If attention is paid to ODI cricket, we can certainly see expansion in the number of countries playing cricket. Perhaps a ruling that every full member has to play atleast 3 ODIs with an Associate member per year might help.

 

[cricket_icon]

Well, rugby has done a much better job than cricket in expanding itself all over the world.

That's just what I thought. There are far more teams that play the highest level of rugby compared to cricket.