- says ‘Reds’ Perreira
Despite its obvious benefits which includes generating revenue for cricket development, veteran cricket commentator Joseph `Reds’ Perreira is warning regional authorities of the dangers of too much Twenty20 cricket.
“The Twenty20 is easily accepted by the cricket boards because it is seen as best for a development tool,” Perreira told Stabroek Sport recently.
He disclosed that Twenty20 cricket originated as a means of financing English cricket.
Joseph `Reds’ Perreira
“Nobody was going to English county cricket so Twenty20 cricket was introduced to finance the English county games.
“You go to Surrey to watch Middlesex and Surrey play and there are two men and a dog – 200 people. That is not going to pay for the game.
“So Twenty20 cricket was brought in. It has taken over from one-day cricket, which was for a long time, the money winner for test cricket,” he declared.
Perreira said while he had no objection to anyone wanting to make money, he said that the cricket boards would have to decide on their priorities.
One of the downsides of Twenty20 cricket was the number of average players who did not have the skill to play normally, developing bad techniques in this form of the game which was ideally suited for quality players, opined Perreira.
He said the game was ideal for sponsors since a match would usually be completed in three hours but expressed concern that too much Twenty20 cricket was being played in Guyana and elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Chris Gayle
“Thousands of people are going to turn up because really it is a party,” he said.
“However, the cricketers who are doing well in the Twenty20 matches are the quality players, who play normal cricket shots, who don’t have to swipe, who don’t have to play across the line, who will play elegant shots on the legs through the on-side and hit straight for sixes as they would do in the other longer versions of the game.”
The abundance of Twenty20 cricket has resulted in a lot of bad errors and bad techniques coming into play and Perreira reasoned that a lot of the younger Indian players now playing Twenty20 cricket will not reach the heights that they could reach eventually.
He stated that Twenty20 cricket will de-emphasise test cricket and was of the view that West Indian captain Chris Gayle’s statement on test cricket reflected the thinking of the top players who he said were really interested in going to the bank rather than playing for the nation.
He called on the ICC to be proactive and contended that quality players getting on in life were going to be interested in making more money playing Twenty20 cricket that in playing test cricket.
“Test cricket itself cannot be static,” Perreira said.
He backed a suggestion for test cricket to start at 2:30 pm and play under floodlights to accommodate the working person who wanted to see test cricket and suggested that it be held over three or four days and not five with a limitation on the number of overs, maybe 100, to be bowled on the first innings.
He said he has suggested “almost on my knees” a format of limitations on overs, batting points and fielding restrictions among others to former West Indies Cricket Board CEO Dr Donald Peters but said none of his ideas were taken.
“Imagine a test match being played at Providence starting at 2:00 pm in the afternoon when South Africa comes. Can you imagine the atmosphere and the crowds that would be there after lunch? I don’t know if South Africa is coming to Guyana. I know the team is coming to the West Indies. I hope they come to Guyana,” he said.
No, no, no, and no!
If you impose a limit on the number of overs a team can bat, you completely change the nature of the game. It no longer becomes necessary for the fielding side to take wickets and bowl the batting side out – they just have to contain the batsmen and keep the runs down.
That means that bowlers will no longer need to attack – they will only need to defend. So there will no longer be a place in test sides for attacking bowlers like Warne and Muralitharan – indeed most spinners will become medium pace bowlers, bowling a negative length, a negative line and a negative trajectory.
During the 1970s, there was a 100 over limit in the first innings of county championship matches in England. This did enormous damage to the game in England – the fortunes of the England test team suffered for many years afterwards.
We already have quite enough limited overs cricket – too much for my liking. The last thing that test cricket needs is for it to become more like ODIs and T20.
I am also against any reduction in playing time from five days to three or four. All that this would do is increase the number of draws and protect the weaker side. I want to see a proper game of cricket – not three declerations and a run chase.
At the moment playing conditions in test matches favour the batsman far too much, the recent West Indies v England series in the Caribbean being the perfect example. If people genuinely want a fairer balance between bat and ball, then a good start would be to impose a limit on the weight of the bat – 2lbs 8oz would be about right.
I have always had (and still do have) immense respect and admiration for Mr Perreira, and I’m saddened that I have to disagree with him so profoundly. Test cricket has been “static” for 132 years – that is its beauty. Later this year, grounds in England will be packed to overflowing for the England v Australia test matches, so test cricket must be doing something right.