Part 1 of CricInfo Talk reviews the impact of Twenty20 cricket with the headline titled ‘Fifty-over cricket breeds mediocrity’. As the concept stands today, this flavor applies heavily to a group of entities who are absorbed in their daily routine and on occasions, are more inclined to take the whole family out on vacation for three hours in the evening, which this version of cricket is best known for. The build and success of Twenty20 is enormous, but comparing the new-born to the success of one-day cricket, and it begs attention that rules are tilted all in the favor of batsmen. Power-plays, having only two fielders in the outer circle limiting the options for bowling team, the delicate hands of umpires while the television audience gets wowed with technology, the no-ball-free-hit rule, mediocre captains…
Speaking of the power of Powerplays -
“The thing that’s happened in Australia - something that I really like - is that on their domestic circuit, one of the Powerplays belongs to the batting side. I think the rest of the world will soon follow this, because it makes the game more interesting” - David Lloyd
On the same note, the streets of Pakistan is known best for eik-tappa-out. I think the rest of the world will soon follow this, because it makes the game more interesting. Have to get the game somehow equally balanced. This thread also has been a very good read.
Thoughts/opinions/concerns/questions? Have we just come to realization that fifty-over cricket is no longer the attraction? How long has it bred the mediocrity? The competition makes for an interesting round-table discussion.
Good topic, though the Cricinfo title and discussion are somewhat misleading. Two different issues, IMO - first, does 50-over cricket (or 20-over cricket for that matter) breed mediocrity in test cricket, and second, the question of balance between ball and bat.
On the first one, I am a hardcore fan of test cricket, and believe it to be the ultimate contest. Yet, it is hard for me to not acknowledge that a lot of the recent changes in test cricket that I like so much (the speed at which the game is currently played, which in turn creates more results, etc) are not directly a result of the one-day and 20/20 formats. The shot making and the speed at which the game is played is so much changed from the 70s, and a lot of it is a direct consequence of players having grown up with the one day format. While some might argue that ODIs and such can play havoc with things like textbook technique (long considered a staple requirement for success in tests), my counter would be that it is all part of the evolutionary change in the game. New textbook, thats all. Good players will take the best from each format and evolve to suit the needs of the situation and game. Meanwhile the fake heroes and one-day wonders will be sorted out in the pressure of the test arena soon enough. So not sure that the breeding mediocrity argument holds.
Second issue of balance between bat and ball has long been a sore point with me, but that applies equally to test cricket as well. All the recent changes in all formats of the game have been heavily favoring the batsmen - pitches, bouncer rule, helmets, fielding restrictions, etc etc - heaven forbid if a batsman actually has to face some challenging pitches or bowling. That is the one area where I believe the game has actually slipped a bit. And that is why I have a tremendous amount of respect for the batsmen of previous eras (even with significantly lower career averages), many of who were playing very fast bowling without helmets, often on uncovered pitches.
Yes it does. That is why our tullah baaz batsmen with poor techniques did well in Twenty-20 but apart from Younis Khan struggled in the test series against South Africa and India. Misbah struggled against South Africa. Yousuf can be excused for 1 or 2 series and Butt performed in patches against India. Test cricket is the real deal.