Fatal Attraction with Twenty20 Cricket

Shorter the format of Cricket, more role random events play in determining the course of the game, rather than the skills of the players. For instance, in T20 it does not matter if you are a regular bowler or just some part-timer. We do know the difference between Glen McGrath and Ashish Nehra, but that difference was brought out by longer versions of Cricket (Tests and ODI).

Sports are great equalizers, players come from different backgrounds, and are treated alike (process of mixing) to find out a new order in the players (process of re-ordering), which is skill based not background based. And the players in the new order emerge as the Heroes and inspirations to others. It is absolutely important for a game to perform the two processes and provide heroes to the public, and thus to remain an important activity in the public opinion.

But every game has its own dynamics and every game needs some minimum amount of time to do the process of mixing and re-ordering. If two people compete for a very short duration, there is no way to determine who is better.

Imagine if tennis matches were to last for only game, instead of there/five sets, would we have great tennis players such as Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Andre Aagasi, Boris Becker, Roger Fedrer, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf. In all likelihood the answer is no...

Same applies to Cricket, if a game were to last for one over each (just because its short and will attarct more audience) would soon fall out the public imagination as it will not be able to find out the best among the better player. We can do the statistics to see if the Twenty20 has produced any hero who was not already considered a great in the longer form of the game. In fact all the most successful players of the Twenty20 cricket are excellent players of the longer form of cricket.

If a game is reduced to some arbitrary short duration, it will not be able to do mixing and re-ordering. How can it do it, if the inherent randomness are stronger than the players influence. In Engineering we call such a situation as low signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). If a game does not allow players sufficient time to really influence the course of the game, the game will be severely deprived of its heroes.

So in the shorter form of cricket (Twenty20) about which everyone (including the former players and administrators) so excited about, and suggesting that soon all forms of cricket be replaced by the 20 over format, in fact, is unlikely to produce Heroes and hence I conjecture would fall out of the public imagination.

It is possible a dis-interest in cricket triggered by the Twenty20 format, might bring back the longer forms of the game. However, Cricket is not an easy sports, it takes generation to develop a nurturing culture for Cricket. There is a reason why ICC is struggling to generate interest in traditionally non-cricket playing nations about Cricket.

So, in a more likely scenario current attraction with Twenty20 is in fact start of the eventual demise of Cricket. This time around there wont be any Ashes left this time around to play for.