Runs, rumours and razzmatazz: The T20 story

The Chennai Super Kings team with their spoils

T20 cricket, with its speed and glamour, has taken the cricketing world by storm. First it was the Indian Premier League that packed more than a few punches and gave life to this short, twenty-over format. Now Bangladesh is ready with its own version and Sri Lanka and Pakistan are planning to have their own T20 tournaments as well.

There are opinions galore on the positives and negatives of the format. Some say that T20′s will soon oust Tests and one-day matches, while others feel that the format is too superficial to make dents in the glorious gentleman’s game. Still others hope for a happy bonhomie where each format has its share of the cricketing pie.

Here are a few pointers about what T20 has brought to the table for cricket and how it fares vis-à-vis the older versions.

T20’s a bestseller!

A T20 match lasts for approximately four hours, during which it packs several punches and thrills to keep the audience at the edge of their seats. In a world where people are getting increasingly busy and no one has the time to watch a 5-day game ball-to-ball, T20 comes as the perfect alternative that has all the drama of a conventional match but squeezed in a shorter time space. No wonder the format enjoys immense popularity, as evidenced by a viewership that runs into millions. Popular games like soccer, basketball and baseball also last merely for a couple of hours, which is why they are watched by mass audiences on prime-time TV.

Keep those runs coming!

Critics of the T20 format argue that it is an arbitrary setup as compared to the strict rule-based forms like Test cricket and ODIs. Many have even referred to it as the dumbing-down of cricket. As the prime aim in this version is to pile runs on the scoreboard, batsmen fling their bats at everything, sending skill and technique down the drain. Audiences love the ball rolling over the boundary line, a fact that prompts sponsors to press for ever-smaller grounds. Consequently, even mis-hits fly away for sixes and it rains runs cats and dogs.

A widespread viewpoint is that a T20 team should be made up of 11 sloggers. While implementing such an idea would not make bowlers entirely irrelevant, it would brings their priority down by a couple of notches. Twenty four deliveries are the maximum a bowler gets whereas a batsman plays unabated till he’s declared out. It is this batting-heavy nature of the format that makes T20′s weaker than Test matches and ODIs when it comes to batting temperament and technique.

Commercialization of cricket

The T20 format, in a lot of ways, represents the commercialization of cricket. That there is an auction where players are sold off to teams with millions to spend is proof enough of the big money put in and made from tournaments like IPL.

T20, and particularly IPL, spells big money for sponsors and advertisers. It offers a unique marketing opportunity to brands in terms of scale and message. With viewership running into millions, a T20 match is a marketing goldmine where everything – right from the playing teams’ uniform to the screen shot when a boundary is hit is up for grabs. Vodafone launched its landmark Zoozoo campaign during the second season of the IPL. The Indian viewers had never seen anything like that before and needless to say, were enthralled by the campaign, eagerly waiting for a new Vodafone ad in every break during the IPL matches.

Player priorities

T20 cricket today is synonymous with big money, both spent and earned. The IPL has a staggering salary cap of $9 million, the Bangladesh Premier League has a $2 million cap while for the Big Bash it is $1 million. There’s plenty of money to be earned and so it comes as no surprise that players are travelling far and wide, playing T20 competitions in England, South Africa, New Zealand and Zimbabwe.

To balance the stark difference in the salaries of T20 and Tests/ODIs, the ICC must standardise Test and ODI payments around the world and make it financially rewarding for players to play international cricket for their country.

Moreover, it might make sense for cricketing boards to make a rule that any player who wants to play in any T20 competition in the world should necessarily have played international cricket first. This way the international players will remain under contract, and the board can decide when or if the players can have clearance or access to play in other T20 competitions. Rewarding Test and ODI cricket will draw players towards these formats, thus ensuring equal importance to all three cricketing styles.

A fitting analogy to describe the three formats is to think of them as brothers. Test cricket is the eldest one, the disciplined and responsible leader – one who shows the way for the others. T20 is the young upstart, spoiled and molly-coddled, given more attention than it probably deserves, its every whim catered to. One-day cricket is the middle, confused one – stuck between its dependable older sibling and the brash youngster.

It is difficult to choose the best between the three brothers because each one comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. The best way, maybe, is a happy co-existence where each has its own time and space. In the absence of that a Darwinian struggle might ensue, wherein only the fittest format(s) will survive. Time will tell.