Twenty20

India and Pakistan have reached the finals of the first ever Twenty20 cricket world cup and the mood in the subcontinent is nothing short of ecstatic. India beat Australia yesterday in yet another nail biting finish of the tournament. I however found myself sitting in my room, editing an article on the Hindi Wikipedia occasionally checking cricinfo to find out if things were all right. There is no denying the popularity of this new bundled up version of Cricket, but Twenty20 has also attracted criticism from many quarters. I am one such cynic.

I have been following cricket since I was a toddler. For many years cricket was the only important thing in my life. I had memorized all the record statistics and could list the batting averages of many a players on my finger tips. Those who think that this behaviour is a bit extreme they have never felt the excitement of cricket first hand. This behaviour is deemed more than appropriate in this part of the world. I was mesmerized by both forms of the game - Test and one day . Test cricket is aptly named as it is a grueling test of the nerves. The fielding side tries to play on the nerves of the batsman, surrounding him from every side, and the batsman on his part tries to stay put at the crease defying all their efforts. This goes on for five days with the teams alternately batting and bowling twice. The one-day version is usually played as a 50 overs per innings game and though shorter, it is in no way inferior to the longer version. This version tests not patience of the players but their resourcefulness and energy while leaving sufficient scope for the both the bowlers and the batsmen to showcase their talents.

Why is an ardent follower of the gentleman’s game like me not excited by it's new avataar? For the basic reason that in it's new incarnation it ceases to remain exactly that - "A gentleman's game".

Apart from Cricket, I am also an avid football fan. I generally keep myself informed of the latest happenings in the European leagues and also enjoy watching all the big fixtures. What attracts me to football is the raw energy and sheer pace of the game. Small though it is (just 90 minutes), it keeps changing rapidly and is one of the most dynamic sports today. Imagine what would happen if suddenly FIFA starts organizing test matches of football, which would be played over 5 days. It is quite simply unfathomable. Twenty20 in my opinion is analogous to a five day football match.

Cricket is not just a contest between bat and ball, but between the minds of the batsmen and the fielding side. Reducing it to a quick mockery which gets finished before it has begun is nothing short of blasphemy. True, twenty20 offers much in the form of excitement to those who just enjoy batsmen pelting the ball to all corners of the park, but it leaves the fans of that tussle of wits which is the hallmark of cricket, sadly disappointed.

I am not a purist. Neither will I deny that I was shouting "sixer! sixer!", before the last bowl of that historic Broad over in which Yuvraj Singh struck six sixes, along with all my hostel mates. My problem is that these matches just do not leave the appetites of seasoned fans like me satiated. The bowlers are reduced to mere jumping jacks, stripping the game of all the traditional flavours of Cricket. This is no equal contest between bat and ball, but a macabre mass murder of the most feared species of cricketers, the wicket-takers. The whole game is massively stacked against the poor guys and leaves them with no chance of salvaging their dignity.

I am not against Twenty20 as a form of entertainment. I will certainly watch the Indo-Pak final. What I am against is Twenty20 being developed as a form of sport. With the IPL vs. ICL war hotting up, the capitalist pressures may hold sway, and the day may not be far when domestic cricket would get fully Twenty20-ized and then the quality of international cricket would get degraded into an abyss.