Haydos and televising Twenty20 cricket

I know the readership of this blog, and given the title of this post, you're probably groaning. (Or have already moved on to a different website.) So I promise to keep this short.*

*Okay, in retrospect, it didn't quite work out that way. But I think this still makes for a (somewhat) interesting read.

First. On Tuesday, Matthew Hayden (nicknamed Haydos) retired from representing the Australian cricket team. Considered one of the greatest batsmen in Australian cricket history, he was the first player to capture my attention when I came here 16 months ago. In fact, when I went to Day 4 of the Sydney Test match between Australia and India early last year, he scored his 29th Test century. I know that means nothing to most of you. But believe me -- it's impressive.*

*Ultimately, he ended with 30 Test centuries, which places him sixth on the all time list.



Haydos has been part of my cricket consciousness for just over a year. And I'll still miss him.

Second. The South African team is currently touring Australia, with the two countries squaring off in a series of matches. First were the three Test matches, which the underdog Proteas* surprisingly won, 2-1. Then came the Twenty20 matches, which Australia won, 2-0.

*This is the nickname of the South African cricket team. I have no idea what its origins are or what it means.

I'll save the lesson on Test cricket versus Twenty20 cricket versus One Day Internationals for another day. (Or probably never.) For the purposes of this conversation, however, let's use a bit of an analogy; you know, like an SAT question. Test cricket is to Twenty20 cricket as Walter Cronkite is to Bart Simpson* (with the One Day Internationals falling somewhere in between). Or perhaps more aptly, Test cricket is the NFL and Twenty20 is the XFL.

In other words -- because let's be honest, a master of analogies I am not -- Test cricket stands for tradition, for history, for days when men were gentlemen, for plain, white uniforms. Twenty20 cricket, on the other hand, is the new, exciting, irreverent kid on the block, white uniforms be damned. The same etiquette and rules of engagement very much do not apply.

*Not sure how well Bart Simpson works in this analogy, but that's the best I could come up with in the two minutes I was willing to devote to it. Other ideas: Charlie Sheen? (He's too old, right? Although I guess in a sense, Bart Simpson is as well.) Matt Stone and Trey Parker? (You can't use two people, right? But you also can't separate those two guys; they have to appear with each other, like peanut butter and jelly, Batman and Robin, Charlie Sheen and brothels.) Nick Cannon? Conan O'Brien? Paris Hilton???? (Okay, I've officially derailed here.)

I don't know, this was a serious brain fart on my part. Or, perhaps more likely, it's a frightening indicator that I'm disgustingly out of touch with American culture. So if you have a better example, by all means, please make a suggestion in the comments.

One of the greatest disparities between these two versions -- and to get right to the point, what I want to focus on here -- is how they're televised. Test cricket, being so steeped in tradition, is presented in a very straightforward, stodgy sort of fashion. No gimmicks. With Twenty20, however, nothing is sacred. The sky's the limit. In India's new India Premier League, for example, each team has freaking cheerleaders! Imagine your favorite baseball team bringing some of those out on the field. Jack Buck would be rolling over in his grave.

What I especially love about Twenty20's telecasts is that they sometimes have players miked up to talk to the broadcast booth during the game. So the announcers are doing some play-by-play or analysis or whatever, and then they send it down to a player and talk to them AS THE MATCH IS HAPPENING! Why do you have the field positioned in such a manner? How do you plan to bowl to this guy? What went wrong with that last ball? How freaking cool is that??!?

I would love to see a sports league in the US experiment with this. Maybe it isn't very feasible for basketball, with its constant and fluid action, but in football and baseball (like in cricket), there are relatively lengthy breaks in between each play that lend themselves perfectly to such situations. The insights that I've gained by listening to players as a match is happening have been invaluable. And I think that we could also learn many things from a pitcher, a quarterback or even a golfer.

If this were ever to be seriously considered in the US, many would question how it might damage the sanctity of sports, and I'd absolutely understand, respect and empathize with that opinion. But I'd still very much welcome the debate and think that it should be had. Because miking up players has the potential to revolutionize sports. The game becomes more accessible. Athletes become more relatable. It all becomes more interesting. And that's something that I think we -- the fans, the players, the owners, the TV networks -- would all welcome.