The summer game - Blues Brothers at Cricinfo

Not all of this was predicted. A number of well-meaning cricket fans from England and Australia and even within India were genuinely surprised at projections of IPL’s success, wondering if there was enough money to back the idea. In sum, what IPL may have done is created a new, complementary cricket market for the summer months. It will not necessarily take away from the traditional cricket season that runs from October/November to March.

It is best to see T20 and traditional cricket as two separate sports or, perhaps, separate enterprises. In the United States, basketball, American football, baseball, golf and a few other sports are all sustainable. The Indian economy isn’t as big as the American one but it’s grown large enough to support more than one sport.

Unfortunately, for a complex mix of reasons, India is essentially a single-sport society. There is only game in India that has mass following, engages a critical consumer population and invites corporate support. Thus far the sport was (traditional, Test/ODI) cricket. With IPL, the cricket business has multiplied and created another product to vacuum the money that remains.

Whatever the sceptics may say, the fact is IPL is working. It’s carved a new audience for cricket. True, some of the T20 fans may not be around to watch the Test matches when Australia tours India later this year, but never mind. As along as there is enough for each segment, each type of cricket fan – and as long as there’re no moronic two-match Test series – nobody will complain.

Before the IPL season began, I had my doubts whether it would have any implications on the selection of the Indian Test team. Over the past week or two, I’ve had to re-edit that thought.

Having seen Rohit Sharma bat in the T20 World Cup, the ODI series in Australia and now the IPL has been a pleasure. As soon as there’s place in the Indian middle order – which means, when either Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly or Dravid walks back to the pavilion for the final time – Sharma should be playing Test cricket. He looks more capable for the longer game than, for instance, Yuvraj Singh.

Next, Gautam Gambhir has now batted with enough fluency in all types of cricket to merit selection over Wasim Jaffer. He should be opening for India in Test cricket.

Three cricketers I hadn’t seen much of before the IPL have also left an impression. S. Badrinath (Chennai Super Kings) is ready for India. Ashok Dinda (Kolkata Knight Riders) and Manpreet Singh Gony (Chennai) could add to India’s fast bowling options in Tests/ODIs. David Hussey will be 31 in two months and it’s difficult to believe he’s never been selected for Australia in an ODI.

There’re names I’ve missed, of course, given the many new stars IPL has thrown up. Whichever way you look at it, it hasn’t been a bad deal for what was meant to be an off-seasonal gimmick. Let’s give IPL its due.

There is Nothing Sweeter than seeing India proving all the cynical cartel of backward loking dinosaurs of England, Australia and a group of lackeys within (Mukul Kesavan, you listening?) completely wrong.

The unprecedented success of the IPL in generating wealth, frenzy and mass attention and opening new frontiers is something that the above could never dream of. In fact their duplicitous statements which smacked of a strong resentment at the success of a former colony only highlights the present conditions of the world.

The MCC is passe. It is India that now carries the cricketing world into newer Markets of the erstwhile Impregnable US, China, which the leviathans in their tweed coats and in their archaic pontifications could never in a CENTURY penetrate.

As Malik Saab observed, it is a self generating mechanism that sustains the IPL from within. IPL has Eclipsed than Superseries with Aussies, and has provided a forum for the Best in the World to face off. This is REAL CRICKET.

Completely agree about Rohit Sharma. One wouldn't have imagined that T20 would have propelled him to stardom; rather I expected someone like him to rise through the ranks via the longer form of the game. His strokes are always elegant, never rushed, and timed perfectly more often than not. One particular square drive he played in Australia made me think of him as a hybrid player - combining the easy on the eye technique of Dravid with the power of a Sehwag (well, perhaps not doing both perfectly, but well enough to impress veterans of the game). I look forward to plenty of Test runs from his blade.

Not so sure about Dinda though. Gony, definitely.

If, as so arrogantly asserted by Rana Pratap Singh, this is REAL CRICKET, then I fear I am no longer a cricket fan. Test matches mean something, 20/20 is meaningless to me and to most cricket fans with a concentration span beyond that of a five year old.

I have watched several IPL games and tried to get myself involved but it is all so pointless. If I could decide on a team to support it may add to my interest, but the enjoyment I would get from seeing that team win the tournament would be absolutely nothing compared to seeing my country win yet another World Cup or major test series.

Having said that, it would be fantastic if the IPL could be used to introduce cricket to countries such as USA and China.

And Rana, if you choose to be so unnecessarily vitriolic and derogatory towards other people and cultures, you need to make sure your own points are well made. Get over your inferiority complex and tell me what on earth a 'backward loking dinosaur' is.

test cricket became dead when the Aussie, English and kiwi cricket board pressurized the ICC to introduce the one bouncer rule as a result we see now sloggers like Hayden and Symonds score runs. All this was done to destroy Caribbean cricket which has been successfully done. So personally then i feel 20-20 is a better option.

I still miss those times when Sunny Gavaskar on a vicious pitch made a century and chased 406 in the fourth innings in Barbados against west indies. If it were Australia/ england/ kiwis they would have straight away blamed the pitch.

As far as supporting teams in IPL its same as EPL. What does it bother anyone outside England if Chelsea or man united won. So pal relax and enjoy the good cricket.

saptarshi i have never heard an Australian blame a pitch though i have heard many times of Indian's blaming the pitch most recently laxman so don't start ditching or making out that Australians are more whiners than the Indians and i think the one bouncer rule is good it means more tactics less scaring of opponents very few can hit a bouncer

nice article ashok i like it better than your earlier ones it was very positive not negative which is a good thing i like its better than hearing complaints. I like the youngsters that are showing their talents, I think Shane Watson is showing his footing again he has to keep himself from being injured though that being his main problem and Shaun Marsh is showing he could be good though i think he needs a little more improvement though he is young still in a couple of years if he is good by all means. Put him in at the moment the Aussie team is too good also people try not to be to judgmental, Australian come on this site too and so do many cultures .

I am not so sure of making a mere extrapolation of T20 success to success in Test cricket. I firmly believe that India can now experiment with having THREE seperate teams; for T20, ODI's and tests. There are some players like Yusuf Pathan and Joginder Sharma who are naturals at T20 and an extended run in this format could see them pushing for a place in the ODI side.

Players like Badrinath, Gambhir, Chawla should be part of the ODI side so that their potential can be gauged for the Test side. Misbah ul Haq's meteoric rise from T20 to test regular could become the prototype for future players rather than an exception. Each format of the game exposed a different facet of his game.

Saptarshi, the 406 chase was at Port-of-Spain not Bridgetown. I don't recall the pitch being "vicious." The chase was memorable alright, but even more memorable was the fact that it was after this match, Clive Lloyd lost all faith in spinners and resorted to an all-pace attack.

Trevor Bailey, Lloyd's biographer, recalls that after the match, Lloyd told his spinners "Gentlemen, I gave you 400 runs. How many do you need? 500, 600?" The results of the changed strategy were clear in the final match (at Jamaica?) when India declared its 2nd innings at 97/5 because the remaining batsmen were injured by a combination of vicious short-pitched bowling and inept batting.

Secondly, whining is not specially an Australian or English trait. If you are going to condemn other people's whining, make sure that your (our) team is above board in this regard. As Jondavluc's comments show, others have good memories regarding the less savory aspects of the behavior of Indian cricket teams.

Maybe this is unrelated to this blog. But it is information for the T20 fans. In Bombay( now Mumbai) ,the Kolis (Fisherfolk), the original inhabitants were adept at the Cricket which is played in IPL. In Bombay soft ball cricket was extremely popular.

The matches would be of 8 to 10 overs. The mantra" hit out or get out".The best teams were from the Koli villages spread over Bombay. Playing in shorts , they had an uncanny knack of picking up the ball early and hoisting it beyond the boundary. Mind you it is extremely difficult to hoist a soft ball across that distance.

The teams would comprise of youngsters and pot bellied middle aged men who used to be the most attacking batsmen.They were household names and there would be a buzz when they arrived at the crease.

The rich Kolis would organise and sponsor the tournaments which drew huge crowds from the neighborhood. Invariably the Koli teams would win the tournament.This cricket was frowned upon by the mainstream cricket fraternity

watching ipl 20/20 it will hard to going back to watch 50/50 cricket.

i think reducing 50/50 over cricket to 40/40 overs might get rid of 10 overs of boring cricket.

give 4 bowlers 10 overs each,it will get rid of boring part time bowlers and spinners who bowl darts only to have 6 singles off the over.

50/50 over cricket needs to have a close look at how its going to compete with 20/20 over cricket if 50/50 over cricket wants to survive.

i think 20/20 could reduce 5 bowlers bowling 4 overs to 4 bowlers bowling 5 overs.

being a bowler thier is nothing worse than watching part timers bowl.thier is nothing better than watching a part time bowler getting smashed out of the park.cricket would be off with out part time bowlers in both 20/20 cricket and 50/50 cricket.

lets hope that icc keeps the international calandar free next year so the best players can play the whole season.

its intresting to note that strike rates in the most recent test series are 50-60 runs per 100 balls