what value the lonesome t20i

A blog by ©hinaman:

cricket for the boom times?

the Twenty20 matches;
after all its creation was aimed at the cash-rich and time-poor
to go back to 2001
when international cricket was buoyant, the county game was in steep decline
a Stuart Robertson working as the marketing manager of the England and Wales Cricket Board
commissioned a consumer research into who was coming to cricket matches
but, more importantly, who wasn’t and why

the £200,000 research told them what they should do, to aim at the cash-rich and time-poor

it was meant to be an answer to falling attendance at the gates of the county matches
now every tour, every series has to have at least one Twenty20 match
tucked in somewhere on the fixtures list as an afterthought

I read on devastated over 2020

And Daniel Vettori said he was devastated after losing to Australia last night.
Has 2020 turned?
Is it now more than just entertainment and quick cash, Vettori thinks so.
You don’t get devastated over a game of cricket that you don’t take seriously

JRod explained to me

I know all that Chinaman, but he was more upset yesterday than he was after the loss in the adelaide test. I understand circumstances, but unless it hurt him to lose that match, he wouldn’t have got angry, so the match had to mean something to him.

But I do not think the status of an “international Twenty20″ has changed.
Vettori felt devastated more as a reaction to specifics of the circumstances
They were 2-0 up, he must have glimpsed the chance of winning the ODI series,
but it ended in a 2-2, that too the rain denying the chance of a result in the final match
and because of the draw Australia retained the trophy.

only under these circumstances the “afterthought” Twenty20i took on a meaning.
for a victory in the 20-20 would have salvaged for him / his team some pride
so to lose by 1 run – he felt gutted – so would anyone.

would Vettori have been as upset if
1. he had won the ODI series and then lost the T20 by a 100 runs? I do not think so.
2, if the 1 run T201 defeat been before the five ODI’s? I somehow do not think so either.


what value these “Only” T20i matches?

These “Only” Twenty20 internationals to me seems meanigless.
I think it would be more logical and the T20internationals would have some value if

they are played as a seperate circuit – like the ‘A’ tours.

OR if it has to be a part of an ODI series then the result too should be included
i.e. to have Twenty20 as an integral part of a “shortformat series”
2 ODIs + 1 T20i or
4 ODIs + 1 T20i or
6 ODIs + 1 T20i matches
and to maximise its value, the T20i played as the middle game.

OR play as a mini series of say three T20 series (before lunch before tea and floodlit)

if it is a format here to stay, then at least give it a meaning

cricket for the busts?

if Twenty20 was aimed at the cash-rich and time-poor,
with the world in looming recession
with gradually increase of the time-rich cash-poors -
will it be a return to the longer format, to get the most for their near empty pockets?

should i go down on my knees and pray?


Write a comment:


6 Comments to “what value the lonesome t20i”

  |   (In reverse chronology)

( feed for these comments)


Thanks Megha,

I agree.
A T20 is closer to ODI, than an ODI is to test matches
hence I suggested it be included in a series.

Given a choice I would like to see twenty20 as a completely different series or even a circuit – like the ‘A’ tours.

©hinaman said this on February 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

I agree that one T20 per tour does not make any sense. But I would not like them to be bunched together with ODIs. Not the perfect analogy but you wouldn’t want an ODI in the middle of a Test series, whose outcome is included in the result of the series, would you? T20 is different from a one day match and I would like that distinction to continue. A mini series over a couple of days would be better.

Megha said this on February 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

thanks Leela,
for stopping by and your thoughts.

the way it stands it does seem a bit of nothing does it not?
almost as if it has not been given a status,
someone is yet to decide on it

©hinaman said this on February 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Now that you’ve mentioned it.. it makes sense.
Yes why a stand alone T20i. I agree with you, it should be considered as part of limited-overs cricket… whether 50-50 or 20-20.. what diff. Or even why the diff.
In fact I would seriously like 50-50s reduced, perhaps 2 T20s in a series, and then a proper Test match series– like with minimum 3 matches.

Unlike the Ind-Eng “series” where we had 2 matches!

Leela said this on February 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

thanks for dropping by achettup,

some value can be added to these T20i matches
without much disruption to the FTP or any extra cost.

I maintain a cricket calendar on Silly Points – every time I write in -only T20i – I cannot help thinking of why at all?

©hinaman said this on February 16th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Its a good point… these one off T20 matches don’t seem to make much sense in bilateral series, other than maybe practice for an upcoming tournament. T20s should probably be limited to domestic leagues and world cups… or promotional games to give the associates a sliver of a chance.

achettup said this on February 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm