Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[natty]

As Mark Waugh seems to say here..  But is it really junk, compared to the pristine 50 over ODIs?

TALK of two billionaires planning to take Twenty20 cricket to a new dimension by creating rebel competitions seems to be a bit far-fetched.

It's not so much the suggestion that Indian business guru Subhash Chandra and American entrepreneur Allen Stanford might set up rebel competitions, but the fact they intend to make Twenty20 their showpiece.

First, I think both men will have their work cut out trying to recruit the game's top talent because - in Australia, at least - guys such as Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Brett Lee, Andrew Symonds and Matthew Hayden are all contracted to their national body.

But when money talks, I guess anything is possible.

From a purely cricket perspective, I have to wonder why either man would base a competition on Twenty20? It's entertaining, yes, and the novelty of it might even attract a few new fans to the game for a while. It's also attractive for many because a game is over in three hours. But it isn't cricket.

Twenty20's like junk food. It's a quick fix and while it might taste good there is no substance to it. The more people see of it, the more they'll see through it.

It's like rugby sevens. The players don't take it too seriously and don't lose too much sleep if they lose.

Twenty20 is the same - it's hit and giggle.

The International Cricket Council has been careful not to over-saturate its market with the modified version of the game.

There's been a sprinkling of games to whet appetites and they have set down a Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa this year.

I don't think it needs much more than that.

I fear the novelty value of the game will wear off. The best team doesn't always win.

Twenty20 doesn't do the players many favours. The bowlers get only four overs and because of the helter-skelter nature of the game, we don't always see the best of the top batsmen because everything is rushed.

I know a lot of people are saying the World Cup in the West Indies has been disappointing on many levels, but it would be a mistake to say that one-day cricket is dead based on the poor crowds that have turned out - therefore long live Twenty20.

The ICC has a lot to sort through after the World Cup, including why it charged amounts of money for tickets that were clearly out of reach of the average West Indian, and how the unique feel of Caribbean cricket - the steel bands, outrageously dressed characters, smells and sounds - were somehow left out of the mix.

The inclusion of too many "minnow" teams must also be discussed and dissected. Ireland made the final eight, but including Canada, Kenya, the Netherlands, Scotland and Bermuda was too much. Also, at eight weeks the tournament is far too long to build up suspense.

On the World Cup itself Australia is sitting pretty but the tournament is not a one-horse race as Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand also look strong.

Indeed, it is the brand of cricket each of those four teams is playing that inspires me to think the 50-overs game still offers greater appeal than the modified version - and that the format still has plenty of life in it.

[dextrous]

20/20 seems like a game devoid of everything that makes cricket great. Although, I do think it will place minnows on a more equal footing to compete with major teams.