So India finally had something to cheer about. Beating our "friendly" neighbors in a 3 1/2 hour long battle aided by some inspired performances and by some inspired non-performers. However beating 4 top nations in a cricket world championship (be it the shortest version) is a no mean task. The cricketers are basking in the glory of this victory and so they should, although with one eye firmly on the upcoming series, of what promises to be the most thrilling encounters in recent times, against the Aussies. Dhoni and his boys deserve all the praise and appreciation for this win as it has rekindled the waning flame of cricket in India. Not that I would want other sports in the country to suffer, but lets be honest to ourselves. How many of us actually stayed up to watch India win the final of the men's Asia Cup hockey tournament, or to see the Indian football team beat Syria to lift the Nehru cup for the first time ever. Not many I guess. In a country lacking sports heroes people look up to cricketers as being those unlikely heroes. And hence if successful their accomplishments are cheered more than, at times, what they deserve. But that is all-together a different topic of discussion. Lets get back to cricket and particularly the T20.
A country so reluctant in accepting the T20 version of cricket is suddenly welcoming it with open arms. T20 has impacted the game in a phenomenal way. Increased viewership, shorter duration, extinction of the "underdog" tag, youthful zest and big moolah are some of the biggest impacts T20 has had on the game. T20 is being viewed by most cricket administrators as the future of cricket. The ICL, the Stanford League and even the BCCI formed PCL (along with ECB, ACB and PCB) are all focusing on the T20 format of cricket. However the opinions on the format have been quite evenly polarized. The purists believe that T20 is just a slap-dash form of cricket suited to hard-hitting sloggers rather than the more orthodox and traditional cricketers. They believe that the finer nuances of this highly technical sport is lost in this version. While others disagree saying that the better cricketers will always be consistent no matter what format of cricket they are playing, which to some extent is absolutely true. The T20 World championship proved that you do not need to be an Afridi to score runs. In fact the highest run scorer in the tournament was Matthew Hayden who I consider to be technically one of the most sound and imposing cricketer of the current lot. People have also argued that the bowlers, especially the spinners, have no place in this format.
However with all due respect to everyone for or against this format, here's my take on this. The T20 championship was an enthralling one and a great advertisement for the sport. Many who were never avid followers of the game got engrossed in the nail-biting battles between great teams. But the contest was over in a flash. 27 matches in 14 days and before we knew it, it was over. By the time the tournament entered the last round of super eights I was drawing a blank as to what had happened in the earlier games, barring the schocker for the Aussies and the Indo-Pak bowl-out. To all those detractors, fyi, the spinners bowled as well as the seamers. The good batsmen always got the runs and the pinch-hitters had their moment of glory as well. Fielding in any form of cricket will always remain the most integral part of the game. These events have reinforced my belief that the ability of a true cricketer is a measure of his adaptability to various situations. So whether its Test cricket, ODI's or T20 a good cricketer will always come through. There is just one point that may render a good cricketer, in Tests and to some extent ODI's, impotent in T20, and that is his athleticism. As one grows older his interest and enthusiasm for the game may linger but this body might start withering. But if at 33 a Hussey or a Jayasuriya can be one of the most energetic players of his team, I guess the theory that older people should not play T20 can take a toss out the window.
However the official and players must not get carried away with the instant success of T20. Anything in excess is not good and the same holds true for this format as well. Lets hope the administrators are smart enough not to make this their first choice format for cricket and embed it with the other versions much to the satisfaction of one and all. As the cliche goes, do it for the greater good of cricket and cricket lovers the world over.
A country so reluctant in accepting the T20 version of cricket is suddenly welcoming it with open arms. T20 has impacted the game in a phenomenal way. Increased viewership, shorter duration, extinction of the "underdog" tag, youthful zest and big moolah are some of the biggest impacts T20 has had on the game. T20 is being viewed by most cricket administrators as the future of cricket. The ICL, the Stanford League and even the BCCI formed PCL (along with ECB, ACB and PCB) are all focusing on the T20 format of cricket. However the opinions on the format have been quite evenly polarized. The purists believe that T20 is just a slap-dash form of cricket suited to hard-hitting sloggers rather than the more orthodox and traditional cricketers. They believe that the finer nuances of this highly technical sport is lost in this version. While others disagree saying that the better cricketers will always be consistent no matter what format of cricket they are playing, which to some extent is absolutely true. The T20 World championship proved that you do not need to be an Afridi to score runs. In fact the highest run scorer in the tournament was Matthew Hayden who I consider to be technically one of the most sound and imposing cricketer of the current lot. People have also argued that the bowlers, especially the spinners, have no place in this format.
However with all due respect to everyone for or against this format, here's my take on this. The T20 championship was an enthralling one and a great advertisement for the sport. Many who were never avid followers of the game got engrossed in the nail-biting battles between great teams. But the contest was over in a flash. 27 matches in 14 days and before we knew it, it was over. By the time the tournament entered the last round of super eights I was drawing a blank as to what had happened in the earlier games, barring the schocker for the Aussies and the Indo-Pak bowl-out. To all those detractors, fyi, the spinners bowled as well as the seamers. The good batsmen always got the runs and the pinch-hitters had their moment of glory as well. Fielding in any form of cricket will always remain the most integral part of the game. These events have reinforced my belief that the ability of a true cricketer is a measure of his adaptability to various situations. So whether its Test cricket, ODI's or T20 a good cricketer will always come through. There is just one point that may render a good cricketer, in Tests and to some extent ODI's, impotent in T20, and that is his athleticism. As one grows older his interest and enthusiasm for the game may linger but this body might start withering. But if at 33 a Hussey or a Jayasuriya can be one of the most energetic players of his team, I guess the theory that older people should not play T20 can take a toss out the window.
However the official and players must not get carried away with the instant success of T20. Anything in excess is not good and the same holds true for this format as well. Lets hope the administrators are smart enough not to make this their first choice format for cricket and embed it with the other versions much to the satisfaction of one and all. As the cliche goes, do it for the greater good of cricket and cricket lovers the world over.
