Cricket is definitely changing. For the worse, in my opinion. I wonder why the governing bodies of cricket can't see it. Old cricketers would certainly agree with me, but even 10 years ago they might have said cricket used to be better. That's how people are, they think everything was best in their time. Except for opportunities. We always hear how we have it easier. I won't argue against it, because certainly as the world is progressing, more opportunities are being created in careers.I can see why some old cricketers used to feel that cricket was better even though I don’t agree. They feel it because cricket used to be more of a test, the bowlers challenged the batsmen more than they did 10 years ago. And the scales are only shifting further in the batsmen’s favour. Though England is not a heaven for batsmen like most other nations hosting cricket. Even in this day and age, teams can be all out for less than 100, as the recently concluded One-day series between England and Sri Lanka has proved.
I don’t really agree with them, because cricket certainly improved as far as I see it. Both the batting and the bowling improved. And the fielding has evolved the most. The catches that are being taken today were unimaginable a decade ago.
Cricket has been going the same way, agony of the bowlers increasing and the struggle of the batsmen decreasing. Sixes and phenomenal catching are the thing of the day. Why am I unhappy then? If I believed a decade ago that cricket is getting better, why don’t I feel so now?
I’m just unhappy because this new form of cricket, Twenty20 is spoiling the other two formats. At first, I had mixed views about it. My first reaction, “What, 20 over games? Might be good for domestic cricket.” I found it a bit interesting as the first time I heard of it, I saw Stuart Broad bowling for Leicestershire and boy wasn’t he impressive. It was the first time I saw him so naturally my interest was heightened. It was the summer of 2006.
8 years later, I feel Twenty20 is the worst thing to happen to cricket. Even earlier, I didn’t like the idea of a Twenty20 series, 3 of them being played on a tour. I heard the cricketers too first thought of it as a joke. Why wouldn’t they? Children play 5-10 overs games. I -thought grown-ups were made for sturdier stuff than that. The audience has turned a joke into the most popular form of cricket.
What’s sad is that one-day cricket is losing out the most. There are old fellas and also people like me who prefer both Tests and One-day to Twenty20, but at times I’ve found Twenty20 to be more interesting than one-day and that’s because of the interests of cricketers themselves losing interest in one-day.
Who would like one-day now? Some prefer the fast paced 20 over action which only requires you to give as much time as you would to a football game and there are others, who have been fans of Test cricket and the legacy that comes with it for many years. This tells us there are two types of people only. Either those who like history and tough tests or those who like to see sixes and are happy to have the time to watch a full cricket game in 3 hours.
More..
- What makes a team win?
- The screwed up English cricket
- Performance equals power: Kevin Pietersen beats ECB
- Turnaround in Dubai: Tests losers batter Pak in one-day
- India's disastrous tour continues
