Short Formats of Sport May End Up Being The Short Straw For Some

Sport should be black and white, as after all there are usually winners and there are losers; occasionally honours are shared.

In some sports where the result is based on a judges opinion it can be subjective, and history is full of situations where a crowd favourite and an athlete deemed to have performed the best is not declared the winner.

Yet which sports are winners in terms of having variations of the traditional sport?

As any consumer knows a good salesperson can sell you pretty much anything. Hence the expression he/she could sell ice to the eskimos, or coals to Newcastle. Meaning that even though both parties are perceived to have plenty of ice or coal a good salesperson will come away with a deal.

One of the myths that has been perpetrated on sports fans the world over is that we, the general public, have a shorter span of attention than we did previously. This was covered in “Time to Pay Attention” in 2019.

From this one perpetrated myth has been born another, that numerous sports need to create shorter versions of themselves to attract fans, viewers and participants.

In that piece from 2019 we quoted an article from the BBC in which Dr Gemma Briggs, a psychology lecturer at the Open University stated “How we apply our attention to different tasks depends very much about what the individual brings to that situation. We’ve got a wealth of information in our heads about what normally happens in given situations, what we can expect. And those expectations and our experience directly mould what we see and how we process information in any given time.”

This is a a very important point to remember. It is one of the key reasons that some sports are losing viewers on television. If the commentary team are not telling the viewer anything beyond what they are able to see with their own two eyes, then the viewer’s engagement is going to become distracted. Equally if the game is a deadset stinker and the commentary team are trying to promote it as a riveting contest, you are again going to lose the viewer. Viewers understand and are better informed than ever before so they are able to work that out for themselves.

It is incredible how dull the coverage of cricket has become. One would think that the game was only created in 1990, as there are little to no references to any games prior to then, as the current team of commentators in the main clearly has no grasp of the game’s history and the great players and achievements of yesteryear. In fact often they give the viewer incorrect information.

The sports that have created shorter versions of their game and have spent a fortune on marketing have promoted ‘the excitement’ as being one major factor as to why people should tune in or attend. They have created a rod for their own back as they have tried to promise something that they cannot guarantee. Shorter versions cannot guarantee excitement every time. That is simply one of the things that makes sport what it is, sometimes one team is far too good for their opponent, and the contest is a one-sided affair, sometimes one team will perform horrendously and be thrashed. There are no guarantees.

Football’s five-a-side version has been around for longer than anyone can remember. Futsal is now universally regarded as the official shortened version of the game, even though there are six-a-side and seven-a-side tournaments played around the world. Futsal was created almost 100 years ago in 1930 in Montevideo, Uruguay. Not Brazil as many imagine! The first rule book was created in 1933.

Most footballers would chose to play the 11-a-side format of the game, not just for the money, but for the opportunity to play in front of big crowds, in major tournaments and possibly for their country. Many will start off dreaming of such a career and soon realise that it is not going to happen. Many who have talent but are not going to ever represent their nation at 11-a-side will then switch to Futsal in order to fulfil that dream. They will still have to work hard in a highly competitive arena in order to achieve that goal, and the rewards will not be as great financially for most, but if you reach the top you can still make a very good living.

The two versions do not compete against each other. Both co-exist together. Some countries such as Brazil believe that Futsal at a young age can compliment a player’s progression into 11-a-side as players learn close ball skills and balance that they may take longer to learn simply playing the larger format of the game. Is Futsal hyped up? There is no need, it is established and the educated fans know what to expect. It goes back to Dr Briggs comment, “those expectations and our experience directly mould what we see.”

Rugby Sevens is a shorter version of Rugby Union. Again it has been around for a very long time. It originated in Scotland in the 1880’s at the Melrose Rugby Club. The first Melrose Sevens tournament was held in 1883. Although the first International tournament only took place at Murrayfield in Scotland in 1973. In the 1970’s the Hong Kong Sevens rose to prominence. The first World Cup was contested in 1993.

Sevens is a gruelling game to play, and was always seen as a bit of fun, however it was a great indicator as to how players could think and perform under pressure and when fatigued.

When Rugby Union turned professional in the 1990’s, the Sevens side of the game suddenly garnered a bit more importance and respect. In 1999 World Rugby – they were the IRB then – launched the World Rugby Sevens Series. This saw 32 teams play in 8 countries, although only 12 of those nations played in every tournament.

Sevens now became a place where many budding international 15-a-side players would play for a couple of years before breaking into the national squad or team. Others would remain specialist Sevens players, but would no doubt still love to play internationally at 15-a-side.

The number of core teams has increased to 15, but now there is promotion and relegation to the World Series. You finish last and you are out and another team will replace you. The core team number was due to rise to 16 in 2020 but the World Series was like many sports impacted by Covid.

The highest number of Countries that the World series has travelled to in one year is nine, it has also gone as low as six. So the number of events are not being inflated.

In 2009 Sevens was also granted a place back at the Olympic Games and debuted in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

Once again, with Rugby those running the sport understand how important Sevens is as a marketing tool for the game. Once again the hype is about enjoying the games when you come and watch, that it is a festival of rugby in a carnival atmosphere. There is no promotion based around guarantees of excitement and thrilling matches. It is a given that when you watch the games some will be one-sided, but you are likely to witness some outrageous skills along with some dreadful mistakes. Everyone knows what to expect.

In both of these sports the shorter version of the sport it can be argued has had a positive impact on the game as a whole.

Indoor Field Hockey has been around since the 1950’s and is extremely strong in Europe but has for some strange reason not become as global as many would have expected. If the crowds, the atmosphere and the skills could be replicated in other countries you would expect this format to become a must-see event.

So important is indoor hoskey in some countries that in Germany, The Netherlands and Austria the hockey season is divided evenly into a Summer season and an indoor winter hockey season.

Since the Indoor World Cup was introduced in 2003 only these nations in both the men’s and women’s competitions have lifted the quadrennial trophy. All of these nations see the Indoor version of the game as a benefit to the outdoor 11-a-side version as some the skills compliment the outdoor game. What was encouraging at the past two Men’s World Cups was the form of Iran, not a renowned hockey playing nation, but one that had focussed on developing through indoor hockey, who finished fourth and then third.

Where hockey now finds itself in a battle is with the emergence of Floorball in predominantly the Scandinavian and former Eastern bloc countries. There is much debate as to where the sport started but it is clear that it began as an activity in school gym classes in the 1960’s and 1970’s. In the 1980’s National associations started to form and in 1986 an International Federation was formed. In 1990 the sport was recognised by the International Federation in seven countries. By 1996 that number had risen to 20 and has continued to grow to now 75 member Countries.

Like Football many young players may have an ambition to play internationally in field or even ice Hockey, but realise that is not going to happen, as an alternative they can switch to indoor hockey or Floorball, and many have.

Hockey has talked about and is pushing ahead with a new version called Hockey Fives. (At Sixes and Sevens Or Should That Be Sixes and Fives)The concern is that the sport will end up diluting the talent pool even further. Is this really necessary?

There are however many lessons to be learned from the sport of cricket as to what not to do. Where the game sits at the moment is a lesson for any sports administrator on setting your product up to fail.

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) in 2003 created an inter-county Twenty20 competition. In a Twenty20 game, the two teams have a single innings each, which is restricted to a maximum of 20 overs. The game lasts approximately three hours.

Initially this was promoted as a bit of fun. The players saw it as a bit of giggle, a chance to let loose. The crowds flocked to it because it was entertaining.

Seeing the turnstiles in a constant spin as fans pushed through, the administrators eyes lit up with dollar signs. Sadly they failed to realise that all that glitters is not gold.

In 2004 there was a tournament in Pakistan. In January 2005 Australia’s first Twenty20 game was played at the WACA Ground when the Western Warriors played the Victorian Bushrangers. It drew a sell-out crowd of 20,000. Again the administrators heard the Ker-ching of cash registers.

It was only a matter of time before we saw the first Twenty20 International match. This was held on 5 August 2004 between the England and New Zealand women’s teams. On 17 February 2005 Australia defeated New Zealand in the first men’s international Twenty20 match, played at Eden Park in Auckland. The game was again not taken too seriously. It was played in a light-hearted manner and both sides wore kit similar to that worn in the 1980s One Day Internationals.

Suddenly though the game switched from being a laugh and a light-hearted affair and Cricket had a third international format and in 2007 a T20 World Cup for men. Despite playing the first T20 International the Women’s T20 World Cup was played two years later.

There have now been established T20 Leagues in18 countries. Is it any wonder that some players have turned their back on playing for their country and simply follow the T20 caravan around the globe?

The new format divided opinion. The administrators told us it was great for the game, it was “a more athletic and explosive form of cricket.” This was the future. It was the game that was going to bring the public flooding back to cricket, we were going to see these new fans attending other forms of the game and we were going to see participation numbers rise. When Cricket Australia found that this was definitely not the case in their backyard, was it any wonder that the report confirming this was buried?

What is worrying is after reading this information rather than trimming this format of the game back, the administrators have increased the number of games.

When the ECB started their T20 competition in 2003 the tournament saw 48 matches played. By 2019 that was up to 133 matches. Australia’s Big Bash League started in 2011-12 and saw eight teams play 31 matches. In 2020/21 there were still eight teams but there were now 61 matches. Even the Caribbean Premier League started in 2013 with six teams playing 24 games, has seen the team number remain the same but the number of games increase to 33. Interestingly the Indian Premier League has not increased its number of games. Their league started in 2008 with eight teams playing 59 games and in 2021 saw eight teams playing 60 games.

When you consider that the best players often play all formats of the game you have to look at how many T20 Internationals are being played. From 2005 -2021 Australia has played 153 T20 Internationals, England has played 143, India 153. The other Test playing nations have played as follows: Afghanistan 2010-2021 – 89, Bangladesh 2006-2021 – 123 matches, Ireland 2008-2021 -114, New Zealand 2005-2021 – 160, Pakistan 2006-2021 – 189, South Africa 2005-2021 – 147, Sri Lanka 2006 -2021 – 148, West Indies 2006-2021 – 152 and Zimbabwe 2006-2021 – 96.

The attendance figures at many of these games are beginning to drop. The spin is that this is because of Covid.

The spin justifying the shorter format was that it suited the public’s supposed shorter attention span, which has been revealed as being a complete myth.

Is it a case of killing the Golden Goose? When it was a novelty and there were less games people were more inclined to attend as they knew that there would only be so many opportunities. Now with so many games have the public become more laid back about attending? In others words it doesn’t matter if you miss a game, you will go to the next, but then you say that for the next game too… Is it pricing? This may be a reason as to why paying customers are not attending but why are TV viewers leaving too?

Is it a coincidence that the Indian Premier League has not increased its fixtures and it is seen as being the most successful T20 competition?

Is it the sales pitch constantly being rammed down your throat? Having the Big Bash being spoken about constantly when you are watching an Ashes Test match steeped in history is frequently not relevant, and clearly a marketing ploy? It is for those not interested in the circus that is T20 annoying as there is little or no correlation between the two formats. Are viewers switching channels because they are sick of constantly being told that something is ‘outstanding,’ ‘incredible,’ or ‘remarkable,’ when it isn’t?

Or is it simply that we are becoming far more selective about the content we consume compared to two years ago?

Irrespective as to why people are walking away from watching the game what has T20 done to the game? Why is cricket struggling to grow globally? Why is Cricket, a sport viewed by many as the national sport of Australia only coming in 14th in participation statistics if the Big Bash League was achieving its mission?

In 2019 Will Glenwright, head of global development at the ICC, was quoted as saying that “We are positioning T20 as the area for growth for the international game.” Why? Is it really working and are we seeing growth?

Former Australian captain Ricky Ponting, has criticized T20 as being detrimental to Test cricket, which has been clear for all to see in the lack of quality in the current Ashes series. He claimed that this version of the game rather than enhancing in fact actually hampered a batsmen’s scoring skills and concentration. Greg Chappell another former Australian captain echoed that view and has said that he felt young players would end up playing too much T20 and would not develop their batting skills fully.

There are plenty of ex-players who warned about the harm this format would do to the traditional formats, but no one listened, they were too busy trying to sell us the idea that the game would benefit financially and it would help grow the sport.

Cricket is now a lesson in point as to the damage that can be done with a shortened format of a sport. The damage that can be done if that other format does not compliment the showpiece game. The damage that can be done if you only look at the finance of the venture. Other sports considering such a move should look at cricket very closely to ensure that they do not make the same mistakes.

Rugby and Football have seen two formats work in perfect harmony, and both formats benefit from each other. Cricket was in that position with Test Cricket and One Day Internationals, but opted to try and bring in a third version. How much has that third version now ended up damaging not only the other two, but the whole game and what it stood for? Cricket has backed itself into a corner and now it is faced with having to change tack again to protect the future of the sport as a whole. Something that sadly it appears the administrators are loathe to do.