20-20

20-20

Any cricket fan would know what I am talking about. It is the hottest topic for debate in the cricketing world right now. Pursits detest it, crowd for the most part love it and cricketers have a divided opinion.

Now my own views regarding to this are my own, but there are some points of criticism rleated to it that I cannot possibly agree with.

What everyone has been saying is that it favours the batsmen too much .

I would like to ask them just question.

How do you decide what good bowling standards are?

Today we frown upon 20-20 because we see bowlers getting smashed around the ground. The best ones going for 8-9 runs an over. But in the 50 over edition don't we call 4 runs an over a good economy rate? There was a time when 4 runs an over was considered expensive. Get my point.Obviously the transition will take some time but then we will arrive on a new set of bowling standards. And then it will be all hunky-dory again :)
Same goes for batsmen. In 20-20 a strike rate of 100 would be normal and anything less would be a cardinal sin.

The only thing I have against 20-20 is that it takes away the variation from the game .There is too less time to try out various things. Everyone will bat the same way, like they are on a mission to rip the ball apart. Bowlers will try and save runs instead of trying to get wickets. Imagine a guy like Warnie trying to be on the defensive !!
I just hope that ICC comes to its senses and understands that this fast food edition of cricket is good only as a money spinner but it wont increase the popularity like they think. They need to promote the game in associate countries more. If they really want to shorten the ODI's the 40 over format of England's former SUNDAY LEAGUE makes more sense. I sincierly hope that ICC wakes up before it is too late and world cricket goes the way that Indian Hockey has.