Is grassroots cricket entering a period of transition that will ultimately lead to the death of traditional formats? Should the non-cricketer now be our primary market? Rich Evans dissects the Twitter ‘discussion’
This article was first published in issue 18 of Wisden Cricket Monthly. Subscribe here
Read more club cricket stories
“All club cricket should be T20 or The Hundred. It would lead to increased participation at grassroots level. More exciting for younger generations and done and dusted in three hours, so people who work long hours can enjoy family time at weekends alongside it”
– Harry Gurney, Nottinghamshire & T20 franchise bowler
Last month’s club debate on the Surrey Slam, the funky T20 competition, was read by Nottinghamshire and former England bowler, Harry Gurney. His response – a call to cull all traditional 40- and 50-over weekend cricket – sent a tremor through the cricket-doting Twittersphere.
Nasser Hussain suggested that Gurney’s view was “pretty much spot on”, while Gurney’s Nottinghamshire teammate and pub landlord partner Stuart Broad lent his support on air during Sky Sports’ coverage of the first T20I between England and Windies, insisting you get “everything you want” from a T20 match – “The socialising, enjoyment, the win-loss factor, and it’s not taking up your whole day”. But it’s not everyone’s paradise. Mark Butcher chirped: “I’d be very concerned if all club cricket was based around barbecues”.
All club cricket should be t20 or “hundred” etc. It would lead to increased participation at grass roots level.
More exciting for younger generations and done and dusted in 3 hours so people who work long hours can enjoy family time at weekends alongside it.? https://t.co/vCgm6SnzOU
— Harry Gurney (@gurneyhf) 28 February 2019
In recreational circles, Gurney’s comments prompted an inevitable backlash, but he also had many sympathisers. Echoing the ECB’s intentions with The Hundred, should grassroots leagues be targeting non- or occasional cricketers over diehard clubbies? Is the future of club cricket almost exclusively short-form cricket? Club debates don’t get much bigger than this.
***
Days after igniting the debate, Gurney’s stance had softened. “I stand by my tweet in that ultimately it’s where club cricket – and all cricket – will go,” he tells WCM from Dubai, where he’s turning out for Quetta Gladiators in the Pakistan Super League. “T20 is the future and that movement will happen, but in hindsight I accept it’s radical and an immediate change might not be appropriate. There needs to be a transition.” Many respondents decried a professional having the audacity to judge their game, suggesting in typically demur Twitter terms that he should stop shouting from his ivory tower and focus on running his pubs. Gurney, to his credit, actually retweeted a few of the swipes.
***
For now, short-form cricket is likely to spread into Sunday cricket, which will hopefully boost the coffers, create a buzz and reengage the families. But how harmoniously it coexists alongside traditional cricket remains to be seen. It’s a relationship that requires careful management – one format can’t be impervious to the requirements of the other, and we must focus on the qualities of both approaches to enhance club cricket’s failing feedback loop. We’re entering a period of transition and opinion is divided, but we cannot foster a gulf between the various formats.
Despite radical proposals, the guardians of traditional cricket needn’t be too glum. Right now, there is too much appetite for the longer form for Gurney’s blueprint to come to immediate fruition. The future is uncertain but as life gets increasingly hectic, maybe our longing for the purity and slower sound of the village green will deepen, with one format mirroring its environment and the other providing escape from it.
While the traditional form feeds the converted, T20 and The Hundred must provide an accessible introduction and abbreviation that isn’t relegated to midweek. The abridged format deserves more respect and ammunition, but club cricket requires only a halfway revolution. There’s no one-size-fits-all format.
Club Debate Letters: Your views on last month’s Club Debate:
Should other leagues adopt the Surrey Slam model?
READ THE DEBATE
“I don’t feel I have my ‘head in the sand’. It’s great that this competition has forged inroads into the decline of youth take-up, and there’s space for the commercialised and fast-paced game, but it shouldn’t be to the detriment of cricket. It’s fantastic that the Surrey Slam’s numbers have increased – they’ve clearly found a market for that product – but my son and I have a very different idea of cricket. There needs to be room for both formats. We both need to be aware of that.” Annie Chave, Guerilla Cricket commentator
“Absolutely – this is a supplement, not a substitute. Of course, arresting the youth drop-off is important, but it’s also important to note that this cricket offering is keeping thirtysomethings in the game.” Matt Camp, Surrey Slam competition manager
“The trouble is Harry Gurney and co. have taken the Surrey Slam and its success as proof that all club cricket should be T20. It’s a lovely competition because we can play it a midweek or on Sunday if we prefer, but it’s not the future of Saturday league cricket.” Greg Barber, groundsman at Chipstead Coulsdon & Walcountians CC
