Will Twenty20 ACTUALLY bring more people to the real game?

[Langeveldt]

I agree with people who say Twenty20 is great if it brings more people to the game of cricket, but will these people be interested in what 50 over and 5 day cricket has to offer? I mean, when there are no dancing girls and people actually have to watch what is going on, won't they realize that cricket is a long, often boring, intricate and subtle game about rivalries between batsmen and bowlers that last for hours, and some of the best games ending in draws..

Just looking for thoughts about whether we're going to see crowds rise in any of the 'real' cricket matches going on.. Or in a few years time, will people be calling this dumbed down stuff 'the real thing'?

 

[Scaly piscine]

It will eventually, mostly from the young 'uns going to watch Twenty20, wanting to play cricket themselves then as they mature and get more into cricket they'll appreciate Test cricket more.

 

[stumpski]

It is a young person's game tbh, I'm sure if I were 13 I'd prefer Twenty20, but the point about the timing of the competition in England is it's aimed at people who are more likely to go to football if it were staged in August. That and the lighter evenings. So you could say that many of those people are never going to 'get' four and five day cricket, except to jump on the next Ashes bandwagon of course.

 

[Goughy]

Im sure there will be an effect. Just as important is the revenue it brings in and helps subsidise the other forms of the game.

 

[Sanz]

Overheard wifey, She was talking cricket the other day, with her friend. Got impressed that Twenty20 is indeed bringing new fans. And then she said she liked 'Bowl Out' and that it was intersting.

 

[Richard]

It will eventually, mostly from the young 'uns going to watch Twenty20, wanting to play cricket themselves then as they mature and get more into cricket they'll appreciate Test cricket more.

Idealistic IMO.

Not remotely likely.

 

[DCC_legend]

Idealistic IMO.

Not remotely likely.

Hardly completely unlikely that they wont ever appreciate the longer forms of cricket. If they have the desire to play cricket at a decent level they'll have to play cricket at 40,45 or 50 overs. Maybe not so much the test matches, but they might be more aware of the longer form.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I doubt it. Obviously the odd few will, but mostly I think it'll just end-up with people following it for a time, maybe a long time or maybe dropping it after a few seasons. I don't see people who'd not have been interested in one-day cricket becoming so because of Twenty20.

As I've said before - in a great part Twenty20 is cricket for people who don't like cricket.

 

[Goughy]

Simply it broadens the base of crickets pyramid.

Obviously not all (or maybe even most) newcomers will develop to appreciate the finer aspects of cricket. However it follows in anything that the more people that are exposed at an accessable level then more people will progress to a more refined level.

To say they will not is pure folly. Its simple numbers

Its increased exposure and inevitably some will endevour to find out more.

For a geekish analogy

Hobbit = Twenty/20

LOTR = ODI

The Silmarillion = Tests

Many will have stopped after reading the Hobbit as kid but that childlike book encouraged others to delve deeper into more complex works.

The same will be true for 20/20

 

[Richard]

What if worse happens? What if those who would have just started on LOTR or The Silmarillion are instead satisfied with The Hobbit and don't bother with anything else because The Hobbit sates all their needs?

That's the worry I have, and recent events suggest it's certainly not inconceivable.

If Twenty20 could do potential good and no potential harm I'd just take no notice of it myself and be done with it. But I don't think that's the case.

 

[Goughy]

What if worse happens? What if those who would have just started on LOTR or The Silmarillion are instead satisfied with The Hobbit and don't bother with anything else because The Hobbit sates all their needs?

The Hobbit will sate most peoples needs but those that move on from the Hobbit to the Silmarillion is far more than would ever have started with the Silmarillion.

Its a numbers game, that as I said widens the base of the cricket pyramid which has to increase the numbers at the top. .

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't think Twenty20 needs to bring people to the sport to justify its existence. As far as I see it's a pleasant distraction from more serious cricket, big entertainment for a much wider audience, and a huge source of revenue. It's essentially the players playing to sponsor the game. The game being cricket, not Twenty20.

However, I know a lot of people who have gained a lot of respect for cricket as a sport because of Twenty20. Because let's face it, most cricket lovers agree that Test cricket is the finest exponent of the game, but for most of the world, Test cricket just does not move quickly enough for them that it be considered entertainment. And at the heart of it all, sport is intended to be entertainment for spectators.

I have very little time for people who cast aside Twenty20 fans as frivolous. Because most of them have no pretension of being serious fans of the sport.

 

[Richard]

The Hobbit will sate most peoples needs but those that move on from the Hobbit to the Silmarillion is far more than would ever have started with the Silmarillion.

Its a numbers game, that as I said widens the base of the cricket pyramid which has to increase the numbers at the top. .

What I fear is that it will just mean people are more inclined to feel their work's done by dumping their load and contributing to the base, without bothering to climb higher up.

Anyway - the only way we'll find-out is to wait and see. Otherwise this is likely to go around in circles TBH.

 

[Perm]

It will eventually, mostly from the young 'uns going to watch Twenty20, wanting to play cricket themselves then as they mature and get more into cricket they'll appreciate Test cricket more.

Agree with this. Well, I hope this is the case.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

No.