Twenty 20 Cricket

Qaiser: One word money?

That is what is making the world go round.

ODI and T20 has shown money is in subcontinent -hence the soul searching about what is cricket? The white estb feel that it will no longer be able to control cricket the way it has so far, and is scared ****less about it.

We all played 20 over games when young, and even today in village cricket it is often a 20 over game. It has always been so and will so.

Cricket is a simple game. Bowl, hit. Run. If caught without hitting the ground you are out. hit your pads you are lbw (if blocking wickets). Hit stumps you are out. Okay there is some fine-tuning to this (which game does not have it).

T20 is not new has been around

Re: # 1: You are spot on mate! The 75% of world's cricketing revenue comes from Sub-Continent. Also, you are right that the format existed since Adam and Eve's times and I am not suggesting otherwise either.

The article suggestes that it is a very good tool to take the game beyond the borders of core cricket constituencies - 10 core cricket playing nations. Cricket, for starnge reasons, never crossed its borders on the international level beyond 10 cricket playing nations. However, twenty20 is a format that might suit and attract many other nations, while cricket's other formats - test and ODI - never did and never will!

I have used the example of IRB - International Rugby Board - which has, on the similar lines, introduced a Rygby format known as Rugby Sevens. You see traditionally, there are six top Rugby playing nations, which dominate Rugby Union - Rugby's format like test cricket. In Australia and couple of other countries, Rugby League - Rugby's format like ODI cricket - is very popular. Rugby sevens is marketed in non-rugby-playing-nations very successfully. For instance, one of its yearly tournament is held in Dubai every year, where there were over 100,000 spectators in the stadium during the two days of the event of 2007.

In summary, cricket needs to grow out of its borders and twenty20 might be the sloution!

Cheers.

Excellent stuff!!!

I agree that cricket is traditionally played stricitly by certain nationalities, where British colonies existed. On the other hand, no one even knows about the game from the rest of the world!

I think that twenty-20, on one hand has opened the doors for many unemployed and frustrated cricketers, and on the other hand dragging exisiting professional players unnecessarily, and I take your point that the marketing focus of the game should be on the non-cricket playing nations.

Qaiser, can you please provide me with the source reference of the first game of cricket between America and Canada elevens, and about the number of cricket clubs in Philadelphia? I'll much appreciate this.

Re: # 4
The reference is as follows:

Kaufman, Jason & Orlando Patterson. 2005. “Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of Cricket.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 70(1) P. 82-110

Both Jason and Patterson come from Harvard University. They took up this research project years ago with the help of various research assistants.

I hope this will help. Thanks for your input.

Cricket is in trouble. When english people were at top it was gentleman game and they played at slow pace for 5 days. They use to have tea, coffee and lunch break, biskit breaks and tea. The game was leaserly and enjoyable. Now indians have demolished by making as commodity, every player is share. You can allow them to play but they should not be allowed make rules as they are not gentleman.

Everything evolves with time; so should cricket. Sports is a form of entertainment. 20-20 Cricket is not bad. We should retain both 20-20 and test cricket. One day international should be removed...
BCCI IPL is rocking.

Re: # 1
"Cricket is a simple game. Bowl, hit. Run..."
Cricket is not simple game...

Re: # 7
1. If you are talking cricket in general, then cricket has been around since 18th century and well and truly evolved but did not spread as much as other sports of the same era have! If you are talking about twenty-20, then there is not doubt it will evolve. The question is: will it help spread cricket cross-cultures?

2. We must retain all forms of cricket including ODI. However, we should continue developing twenty-20 like ICL and IPL, as well as introduce cricket to the non-cricket-playing-nations via the twenty-20 format.

3. I must acknowledge that any country that has done a real service to cricket in these days is India - as mentioned earlier, 75% of the world's cricketing revenue comes from the sub-continent and the most of the 75% come from India.

Re: # 7
1. If you are talking cricket in general, then cricket has been around since 18th century and well and truly evolved but did not spread as much as other sports of the same era have! If you are talking about twenty-20, then there is not doubt it will evolve. The question is: will it help spread cricket cross-cultures?

2. We must retain all forms of cricket including ODI. However, we should continue developing twenty-20 like ICL and IPL, as well as introduce cricket to the non-cricket-playing-nations via the twenty-20 format.

3. I must acknowledge that any country that has done a real service to cricket in these days is India - as mentioned earlier, 75% of the world's cricketing revenue comes from the sub-continent and the most of the 75% come from India.

Re: # 6
I can agree to some extent that cricket is in some sort of trouble - it is declining in West Indies, where basket ball is taking over; declining in New Zealand fractionally; Ausies say that in 10 years' time cricket won't be a national past time there; cricket hasn't done very well in Pakistan due to security issues in the country; cricket has not been doing well in England as the national side has been underperforming for a while! However, Indians have done well and perhaps given the game a life line to some extent, especially through the fixtures such as ICL and IPL.

Re: # 8
Cricket is surely not simple game! It is considered to be one of the most complex sports around!

Re: # 5

Thank you for putting the reference for me Qaiser. That is indeed helpful.

Re: # 3 see http://www.cricinfo.com/database/ABOUT_CRICKET/HISTORY/

I would like to initiate a discussion here: how would ICC manage if 10 more nations started to play cricket - I mean good cricket? Isn't it tough for the development of cricket when ICC and its core 'constituencies' make it so hard for the new entrants to come into their circle?

Re: # 15
It will be impossible for ICC to organise any sort of event with 10 more countries playing cricket to the level of current 10 core nations, except organizing some thing in twnety-20 format. It took almost two months to conclude world cup 2007 with 16 countries participating in it....

We all know that it took New Zealand almost forever to register their first ever win in test cricket! Countries like Bangladesh, Kenya, and Zimbabwe will eventually make their mark. Other emerging nations, such as Ireland, Scotland, UAE, Holland, Canada, USA should be slightly better in ICC with regards to their recognition.

It is worth noting that some nations might do very well in twenty-20 and possibly cause upsets as has been a case in the IRB Sevens!!!