Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Ten positives of the ICC World Twenty20

7. Sanath Jayasuriya’s undimmed ebullience. Given the lesser physical demands, perhaps this will be the stage that enables the oldies to carry on entertaining us? It probably wouldn’t be beyond Shane Warne to bowl four decent overs when he’s 64. We might even be able to tempt Sir Viv back to the boards.

8. The extra risks batsmen are required to take means more chances for bowlers – and about bloody time too. Ask Brett Lee or Shaun Pollock whether they have any objections to cheap wickets.

9. An annual Twenty20 World Cup featuring 16 teams would enable the 50-over version to slim down to more manageable proportions, the better to enhance the quality-drama nexus.

10. If it’s this good now, think how much more fun it would be if each side had two innings. Now THAT’S the way I’d like it.

One Reason to be (slightly) Fearful.

When I professed that pathetically boyish enthusiasm to my best mate, whose preferred tipples are tennis and soccer, he wondered whether the brevity of it all went hand-in-hand with a reduced premium on skill. I can see what he was getting at. Luck certainly plays a more integral role in terms of run-making, which is in no-one’s best interests. On the other hand, guile, ingenuity, nous, variety and courage are arguably even more obligatory for bowlers than they are in the longer forms. I’d still drop the restriction on the number of overs available to each bowler, the better to further correct that imbalance between bat and ball.

Ah, but is this all just another profoundly regrettable example of the 21st century’s infuriating penchant for dumbing-down? Not really. After all, this is cricket at its leanest and meanest, not to mention the form most familiar to millions of club players the planet over. Besides, if this is what it takes to refresh the parts other formats struggle to reach (especially the holy grail that is Dubya Land), and hence preserve Test matches into the next millennium, who cares?

Still, let’s go the whole hog and trade in “Twenty20” for “Cricket 2.0”. Who knows: that nice Mr Jobs might cough up some sponsorship.

I agree with Peter Roebuck - its entertainment but its awful. Once the novelty wears off, hopefully people will realise this form lacks the depth to engage us the way Tests and ODIs do. But perhaps by then the TV companies and the boards would have fallen in love with the money it makes. Oops, that's already happened, hasn't it?

Dumbed-down slam-bang clap-trap. Somehow, I cannot share the enthusiam looking ahead at this format's impact on the game - how it is played, and how it is run.

I too agree with Roebuck. I am enjoying this tournament, but I would like T20 restricted to domestic T20, a world championship every 1 or 2 years and at an associate level (and below). I don't really see the point of bi-lateral T20 matches - winning provides only a fleeting joy and losing doesn't hurt.

Your suggestion of removing the restriction on the number of overs per bowler is a good one I think.

Whatever be the justifications, this format, to me looks like it is here to eat up the more entertaining version of 50-50. With the bowl-out method we saw yesterday, the so-called governing body has once again highlighted their smartness at copying from other games - i thought cricket had better ways to decide a match-winner. Forget about the rivalry of the two countries - both were anyway into the 2nd round. And one more question that has been pondering me for so long, why was the ICC award night kept on the eve of 20-20 WC? Was it to reduce costs of travel at some other point in time - or was it to doubly underline that AUSTRALIA alone has the right to be the world champions? No one would agree to the first, but if anyone thinks like me - i would stand up and salute Zimbabwe.

Yes, 20 over cricket is awful, right down to the name.
As for your claim that it is closest to what club cricketers play, well, that is laughable. Most club cricket is played as a 2-day/70 over affair or as a 40 or 50 1-day match.
Club cricketers hate 20 over matches. A bowler gets to bowl no more than 4 overs (likely to be a hiding, too). A batsman has no chance to build an innings and must throw the bat willy-nilly from the start.
Club cricketers would rather give up a whole day for a chance of a proper match, than give up half or more of a day for a slogNhope.
If you live more than an hour from the ground, it's simply not worth getting out of bed for.

I fail to see how the ICC's staging of baseball tournaments (I do not recognise these slugfests as cricket) will "preserve Test matches into the next millennium". Cramming more games into the schedules of guys like Ponting, Flintoff and Vettori will only shorten the careers of these great test match performers. In terms of attracting new fans, it is unlikely to succeed. Cricket is a game of batsmen versus bowlers and fielders. The tournament currently being played pits the top seven from one team against the top seven from another team to see who can hit a piece of a dead cow the furthest. The people who enjoy this inane contest are not likely to appreciate the subtle skill involved in tempting a batsman into a drive against a swinging ball or frustrating a bowler with intelligent footwork.

All I can see in this game now being touted as 'the future' is (yet another) cynical cash grab from the ICC and administrators who are more concerned with their bank balances than with the state of the game.

The eleventh one- The eleventh positive of this T20 world cup was the ressurection of the bowlers. Sounds silly, but read on. At the outset I admit that I have never been so mistaken in my life in any matter related to cricket. But my agony was little bit lessened when I saw the whole world also did so. All people said this is a bigger graveyard for the Bowlers. This statement have been repeated even by Vettori (of all people). The same was said when in mid eighties rules for ODIs were also altered every now and then. But let us think very clearly. I see T-20 is a chance for resurgence of the bowlers. Let us not bother about the figure / statistics in RPO; the benchmark cannot be same (and should not be compared with ODI and tests). This is because in T20- you cannot bat out an opposition. Chris Gayle could not do it. All the T20 matches in this World cup, has been won by good bowling, and this is going to stay. Batsmen have almost reached saturation, unless you take cricket back to the "gulleys" via tennis and badminton courts.
So my dear bowlers, enjoy the grass under the sun- your expiry date is still some time away.

Twenty20 is a very good form of cricket.It has also made players active as in a T20 match the time duration is just 3 hours.It has attrected many people of countries where people donot even recognize a cricket ball towards cricket.But stll narrow-minded people think it is too jazzy.And the ICC has encouraged such people by limiting a country to play maximum 7 T20 matches in a season.If ICC changes this rule many more countries will be attracted towards cricket and then almost all the prime countries in the world will play cricket.Then cricket in every sense will be called the king of sports.