There is a lively debate going on in my Club this autumn, as our League seeks opinions on the best form of cricket to encourage younger players to stay in the game after they leave the Colts set-up. Do we go with limited overs, because every one watches IPL and T20 and wants to play that way? Or can we come up with a formula to make "time" cricket more attractive?
I admit to being biased. I grew up playing time games (or "proper" cricket - there's the bias!), and to me the dual challenge of scoring runs and taking wickets almost always makes for a more interesting game than the "simple" run chase of a over-limited match.
I enjoy T20. But I still think that the more consistently successful players are using skills from the longer game. And as a coach, I think young players will learn more varied skills by playing a variety of forms of the game.
But can "time" be made as attractive as T20 to the younger players? I think it can.
