Why T20 is not the Magic Solution for Cricket

There is no doubt that the explosion of T20 cricket in recent years has changed the game.  It has brought it to a wider audience, legitimised a less technical approach and increased the breadth of the game's appeal.  It has not, however, become the game, and it is simplistic to think that it is the only future shape it might have.

Contrary to belief in some quarters, the twenty over-a-side game has not been recently invented.  It has existed as a low profile version of cricket in midweek club leagues and after school matches for decades.  It has been popularised, and captured the attention of the world as a briefer, all action form which addresses historic concerns that the game is too long and slow moving.  It fits neatly into TV slots, provides perfectly packaged evening spectator opportunities and is a convenient form for knockout competitions.

There are structural shortcomings in the game, notably that it is difficult for everyone in a team of eleven to have a meaningful opportunity to contribute.  More significantly, it erodes the soul of cricket - which has been the balance between bat and ball.  Everything about T20 favours the batsman, leaving the bowlers to be savaged.  A heavier weapon, shorter boundaries and less significance in losing wickets all contribute to a game which appeals to the same instincts as baseball.

T20 is a mechanism for widening the appeal of the game, not for redefining it.  It removes some of the barriers to entry for players and spectators, and requires less technical knowledge to either play or appreciate. It is instant and easy to understand.  If that attracts people who would not otherwise be engaged by the game, then that is indisputably positive.  The same applied to the development of Kwik Cricket and other soft ball forms.  These brought the game within reach of a constituency which had neither access to, nor enthusiasm for, the hard ball game with its requirement for prepared wickets and protective equipment. 

T20 widens the experience of the game for committed cricketers, and provides access to it, for audiences as diverse as schools and global television.  But it should never be a replacement for the longer game.  T20 is a low hanging fruit to engage people in cricket, and some will have no appetite for anything else. But those who promote the game, at all levels, should not be seduced by these easy successes and be distracted from working to maintain the 200 year old appeal of a game that has a far richer potential.  Longer versions of cricket have a deeper appeal, and therefore will have a smaller following; this does not mean that they are either doomed or irrelevant.  Fewer people read Shakespeare than popular novels, but that does not make it obsolete. 

More complex skills and strategies, patience and self denial, oscillating spells of attack and defence and a game which evolves over a longer period has been part of the appeal of cricket to its followers for centuries.  This has not changed overnight.  But its future depends on those who appreciate this attraction maintaining an ambassadorial role to introduce this to those of the next generation who are potentially like minded.  Without this influence, they might never discover that the game has more to offer than the baseball-like attempt to hit every ball out of the stadium, with little value placed on the batsman's wicket.  The life lessons which cricket may be able to deliver - focus, patience, selflessness and application - are more closely associated with the fuller forms of the game.

Cricket must promote itself in all its formats, and must be more aware than ever before of the need to educate some of its audience with its deeper appeals.  This following may be a minority - as it probably always has been, but it is a significant one.  T20 has given the game a new lease of life.  However, it is still only another tool in the bag of winning engagement to cricket.  It may be a power tool - but it should never become the only tool.