In Praise of Twenty20

For most cricket fans the Test match is the truest form of the sport, and the one-day contest a mere variant. The one-day game embodies the worst excess of commercialism, with a plethora of meaningless contests, played with a priority to fill bank balances.

Logos dominate players’ shirts and equipment, the boundary edge, the umpires’ clothing, the competition they play for and even the hallowed turf. It is distressing but the 50-overs game has become at best predictable and stale, and at worst irrelevant. Strategies such as the floating power-play and the use of substitutions are designed to breathe new life so that the cash cow can continue to be milked.

The best innovation of late has been the Twenty20 competition, although I must declare an interest here. Being a supporter of Leicestershire is fraught with disappointment in all contests bar this one, where they are champions for the second time. This partisanship, however, does not cloud my view of this new format. I see it as one that can be a saviour for the domestic game and finally take international cricket beyond the so-called elite of eight teams.

The idea of the Twenty20 is to provide a contest that would last for about three hours in the early evening, so that it could be enjoyed by workers. In this way the format will be familiar to the club cricketer who plays in the midweek leagues.

Its popularity has staggered even the most optimistic of supporters. Aggregate crowds have grown year on year, and grounds such as Lord’s have sold out. Worcestershire's experience is typical. Whereas an average of 1,600 attended their matches in the old 50 overs competition, over 8,000 have attended their Twenty20 home games. Graham Gooch revealed on Test Match Special last week that one home Twenty20 game brought in the same revenue for Essex as three years worth of gate receipts for the County Championship.

Pleasingly, cricket is appealing to a newer audience. Research has shown that two-thirds of the first year’s attendees were under 34 and a quarter female. When Glamorgan qualified for the quarter-final in 2004, 80% of its ground was made up of non-members.

The format’s success has seen an international in Australia, against South Africa, attracting a record crowd of 38,894 to the Gabba. Domestic tournaments have started up in most of the major-playing countries, while a final in Pakistan last year attracted 35,000 spectators.

The shorter game proves a great leveller, and is cricket’s best opportunity to become global. Countries such as Bermuda, Malaysia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates have all expressed an interest in staging international tournaments. In the recent event in the Caribbean, both Nevis and Grenada made unlikely semi-finalists, then there is the unfashionable and relatively hard-up Leicester, who have made finals day each year.

The complaints about technique and the inability to build an innings, both to the ultimate detriment of Test cricket, have been made before, and the evidence has proved them wrong. Test cricket in this country is more popular today than it has been for a while, and maybe the Twenty20 will bring new fans and wanabee stars to the sport.

The one sticking-point is India, where the one-day contest generates huge profits for the Board. A shorter game reduces the breaks between innings and wickets and therefore the potential for advertising revenue, upsetting the forces of commercialism. What better reason to give this format your support?