My Twenty20 vision

[undyingking]

Last night I went to see my first live Twenty20 cricket match. Hopped with friend Andy NOLJ on the train down to Chelmsford, walked to the old County Ground where I used to spend an awful lot of time as a kid, found some seats and some beer, and settled down to watch Essex Eagles take on the Sussex Sharks. Essex were there or thereabouts in the league: Sussex needed to win all their remaining matches to have a chance.

When I'm watching sport as a neutral, a close, exciting game is ideal; with the result in flux, both teams struggling to overcome the other, and so on. When I'm watching one of the teams for whom I have a visceral support, though, I just want them to crush the opposition; and the earlier that result is decided, the better. This only really applies in football and cricket because they're the only sports I've followed since I was small: the ones I've picked up later in life, even if I have a favourite team whom I want to win, I don't feel physically sick if they lose -- as I do with West Ham or Essex.

So last night's game was extremely satisfactory from that point of view; but also should have pleased the neutral, because it contained one of the most amazing displays of hitting that the game has ever seen. Graham Napier scored an astonishing 152 of just 58 deliveries, with 136 of them coming in boundaries (10 4s and an incredible 16 6s). Sussex started off bravely on an impossible run-chase, but lost heart after Goodwin's wicket, and some tidy Essex bowling polished them off for just 114.

• Napier's 152 was the second-highest innings ever in Twenty20, exceeded only by McCullum's 158 for Kolkata (which required 15 more balls);
• Essex's total of 242 was the fourth-highest ever, and their margin of victory (128 runs) the sixth-highest ever;
• The 16 6s is a record by miles in Twenty20, and equals Symonds's record for any form of cricket;
• Mike Yardy's 4-0-67-0 are the worst bowling figures ever recorded in Twenty20.

So that was all very satisfying and lots of fun. But I have to admit that it wasn't quite as satisfying as a similar result in a  longer form of cricket. Twenty20 scores highly for convenience -- it's great to be able to see a whole match in an evening.  But just that fact, that it all evolves so quickly, means you miss the gradual build-up of excitement. The ground was absolutely full, standing-room only, which is the first time I've seen it like that since the Australia vs India match in the 1983 World Cup. A county championship game, by contrast, is lucky to get a few hundred. Essex are planning a big redevelopment and expansion of the ground, purely on the basis of this new income stream (5,000 people at around £20 a head from each of 5 home games is a pretty hefty wedge compared with their usual budget).

Hoping that cricket's administrators aren't foolish enough to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by expanding it too quickly (err... like those unfortunate gavaged geese I mean), Twenty20 is here to stay and it's a question of how the rest of cricket deals with it. Assuming further that there is enough will to retain Test cricket, I guess that means that the 4-day county championship and its overseas equivalents have to stay too, to prepare cricketers for Tests. (They've effectively been funded by the Test setup for quite some time already.) I wonder though whether the 50-over one-day internationals will lose their lustre. My guess is that they will persist for a few years at least, but will be seen as increasingly less important than Twenty20 internationals. So what does that mean for the domestic one-day competitions? The 50-over cup will have to remain as long as one-day internationals do. But I would imagine the 40-over league will be cut pretty soon, as it's been growing increasingly pointless since Sundays stopped being dedicated to it.

The problem is though that the skills required for Twenty20 are much more different from those for first-class and Test cricket than traditional one-day cricket, so it favours a different type of player; and not many people will excel at both. If you were a young player coming into cricket now, and you had to choose whether to optimize your game for one or the other, you'd be crazy not to choose Twenty20, because of the greater financial rewards involved. At the moment the players earning big bucks from T20 (in the Indian Premier League etc) are those who are already Test stars, but the more important T20 domestic games and internationals become, increasingly players will be feted and head-hunted on their performances just in this shortest form of cricket.

Graham Napier has never been even on the remote fringes of the England team. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd had a phone call from India this morning.

Comments

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

Yes, I must admit, Gough has surprised and impressed a lot of us. I mean he was a hero in Yorkshire anyway, but I honestly thought that his constant knee problems meant that he was over the hill, but his time at Essex and Strictly Come Dancing clearly did him some good, because he's been pretty inspirational since he came back as captain.

I didn't see the game (or even listen on TMS) yesterday, but I've read the reports. Collingwood was wrong, but fair play to the guy for putting his hands up to it afterwards and apologising for it. The four match ban was a bit of a surprise, although it is good that the refs are taking slow over rates seriously.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Will be interesting to see how Pietersen handles the captaincy. I suspect the South Africans are already licking their lips with anticipation.

Could go either way: it would be just like him to rise to the appointment, but if the rest of the team don't perform I can see him getting frustrated and cracking.