To Moses’ right stand “Team Instant Gratification” whose members thirst for a shot of tequila in preference to a slow, warm pint of dark ale. The group who fidget at the movies and get rowdy if there is more than one person ahead of them in the kebab shop queue.

“Team Purist” may well be dominated by children of the last generation. Children that were transfixed with getting dirty. Where mud was a toy, dirt a magnet and open fields were the Playstations of the day. If these children had dextrous thumbs it was likely from climbing trees or squashing frogs but not from tapping on a game controller.

Team “Instant Gratification” on the other hand grew up well after Sir Clive Sinclair launched personal computing power into the bedrooms of children and progressed into adulthood on a diet of Big Macs and Gran Tourismo.

Convincing children of today that sitting still in a cricket ground for seven hours can be fun will have about as much chance of success as hitting Shane Warne for 36 in a single over.

There are silent battles raging in the homes of today, with technology filling the void once occupied by physical exertion. Attracting supporters of cricket requires a different approach and Twenty20 cricket may well be the best thing that has ever happened to seduce attention deficit sufferers that sport can be fun.

The future of cricket has two choices. To hibernate in a cave of self delusion and continually etch the same carving on the wall, “Things always stay the same”. Or to understand the paradigm shift in habits of children and entice them into game through condensed feasts of entertainment.

Twenty20 is exactly that. It’s not rocket science, it has not the least scent of finesse, but as Mark Nicholas would say, “By Golly it’s fun”

There is talk of a Twenty20 world cup. Bring it on. It will be a sell out and among the crowds and armchair viewers will be an ever increasing band of Generation X-boxers that hopefully will be enticed out of their armchairs and into their back yards.

Emulation not Simulation will breed the stars of tomorrow.

Bah & Humbug, Sir.

All that glitters is not gold. Twenty20 World Cup? Pfft.

Why not name the game itself as Twenty20 instead of declaring it a version of cricket? We can let it have a separate identity from cricket as we know it till Fifty50. The option is worth exploring as that way all should be happy.

Same players can still play the 2 games as in billiards and snooker - but they become 2 separate games and a new apex body ITTC will be formed to control it. But there is the issue of resulting imbalance in the financing of the 2 games. Probably ICC will take some convincing to let this happen.

I'm somewhere in between a died-in-the-wool purist and die hard play stay generation, and I consider my self fan of 20 Twenty. I like the concept and the energy, and the atmosphere it generates, but test cricket remains my first preference, and will always do so.

I like 20 Twenty above all because of what it has done to domestic cricket, nothing in the past has been able to raise the profile of the domestic game around the world like has 20 Twenty. And it's a very good thing for the game if we can bring in new fans to it, from that level via it.

However, I remain, at best, wary of how 20Twenty's domestic success will translate at the international level, so far we've only had one-off games, and no competitions between several teams, but given the way different cricket boards have expressed their enthusiasm about a 2020 World Cup, I'm concerned.

An over kill could spoil all the fun; the authorities need to resist the money making temptations such ventures present, and think about the big picture.

Only the other day I was reading Peter English's column on Cricinfo in which he proposed the idea of an in-season holiday period, sighting the hectic schedule Australia are faced with this summer, and the drama over Australia's resting policy.

At such a time, when nearly ever other country is complaining about too much cricket, when teams are so busy that the ICC is finding it tough to stage its main events at a time OK with all its member, at a time when the ICC's future tour's program finds it self in jeopardy, do we really want yet another limited overs competition squeezed in somewhere. Do we really want this? I know I don't.

I like to think of 20 Twenty as a nice, little something to complement (not replace) the real cricket. It might over take One-day cricket in the longer run, but even that would take time. At the moment, I would be against an extra 20 Twenty world cup, considering we already have the regular world cup and the ICC champion's trophy as big ICC events participated in by all countries, I would instead think on the lines of replacing the Champions Trophy with the proposed 20 Twenty world cup.

Other then that, we could have the odd one off match (ala the recent KFC big bash in Australia) but no further tournaments at the international stage please.

And no Mark Nicholas also please, along with the cricket authorities money making desires, Mark Nicholas remains 20 Twenty's other big threat, and indeed cricket's other big threat. Increased exposure to him, could spoil any form of the game.

20/20 should at the moment be kept as publicity events to kick off tours, if you ask me. They serve well in this role, and I think the players are over-worked as it is.

The Olympics, however- you could easily get twenty-plus teams organised.

I must be the one enjoying the new walkway created when the Red Sea parted because I don't feel polarised over Twenty20!

I wouldn't be surprised if Twenty20 cricket branches off the same way Rugby Sevens has into its own world circuit. It certainly hasn't diminished the popularity of 15-a-side rugby.

And as for the statisticians and historians, they should be salivating at the prospect of a new category of the sport to record. After all, you don't need to watch a game to crunch the numbers afterwards!

Rick' s Rugby Sevens post brings up a good point-teams like Fiji, Samoa, Argentina and even Japan and Sri Lanka can put up decent teams at that level-indeed Fiji are masters at it..so let's have a 20/20 "World Cup" for the second tier teams(and try to keep some countries from populating their sides with erstwhile Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans). If my team , Malaysia, did well in an international 20/20 tournament it would do no end of good for the game here.The First Tier teams play too much anyway, and the teams would be packed with sloggers and left arm spinners and trundlers also, rather than the best batsmen and bowlers, for the second tier teams, though, they would play their best teams and games would be short enough to be carried "Live".

I have said elsewhere that I think Zainub's idea of the Champions Trophy being replaced by a twenty-20 World Cup is spot on. Twenty-20 is great for encouraging the game of cricket - more please!

Yeh, great point about the Rugby 7s.

I'm one of the guys that will probably emerge from my "cave" in order to drag my five year old away from the "play station" he wants and will probably, inevitably, get, to take him to a Twenty20 match - but only until he's 10, then he's coming along to the real stuff, to be bored, and get sunburnt on Boxing Day...what was good enough for me... ;-)

"Twenty20 cricket is what the fans want": I'm tired of listening to that argument. You know what: fans also want the latest scoop of Shane Warne sexual advancement - not good for cricket! Fans also want past-midnight-photo-ops with Brett Lee and Freddie Flintoff so they can brag about how they partied with the hottest of all cricketers: not good for cricket!

Look, fans are like your roommate's/friend's hot little sister. She wants it, you want it but you just don't sleep with her! It complicates things! So let's not sleep with the fans and have some respect for the game itself.