No compromise on technique

Twenty20 is here to stay. It may not delight the purist, but it would have its own audience. Yes, it is not the real cricket that we were brought up to appreciate. The nuances of the classical approach would be missing from this summarized form of cricket.

But then, the basic structure would be the same: a duel between bat and ball. Twenty20 would reflect different skills, different strategies, different approaches. The emphasis would be entirely on aggression, whether in batting, or in bowling or fielding. The premium on defensive techniques and long-drawn tactical planning, which have their own appeal, would not be available in Twenty20 at all.

When one-day limited-overs cricket first began at the international level in the early Seventies, many die-hard cricket enthusiasts went up in arms. Bill O’Reilly, the great cricketer, and the famous author, Jim Swanton, were among its most vehement critics. They mentioned that the techniques and the temperament of the game of cricket would suffer. They had very good reasons to criticize the new innovations. They were proved right in many ways. Batsmen forgot the art of playing a long innings to save a Test match. So did the top bowlers suffer, as they were not allowed to bowl more than one-fifth of the total overs in an innings. Even close-in catching, particularly at the slips, short leg and silly point, suffered a great deal.

But many other equally devoted cricket followers, like the great international captains, Richie Benaud and Mike Brearley, thought that if club cricket — generally limited-overs one-day cricket — could be successful, why not 60 x 60 overs of international cricket? Today, of course, the importance, status and popularity of limited-overs cricket (the standard 50 x 50 format) can hardly be exaggerated. And with its successful launch and promotion cricket has witnessed unprecedented prosperity.

Similarly, Twenty20 is bound to catch on. It was first launched among the county teams in England a few years ago. The chief reason was that the English spectators were not willing to spend a full day watching cricket. They considered watching cricket a sheer waste of time. They would rather watch soccer, either at the ground or on television — in the evening, or after office and school hours.

To bring the crowds back to cricket, the England and Wales Cricket Board began a tourney involving the county sides to play 20 overs each. This meant 80 minutes of batting followed by a 30-minute-interval and then another 80 minutes — totalling 210 minutes for a complete match. The innovation proved to be a success as people turned up to watch with families and friends after office hours.

Twenty20 would not be a game of attrition. Defensive techniques would not count for much. The whole emphasis would be to attack the ball from the first delivery. The batsman who is willing and has the ability to hit the ball hard and high would reap handsome rewards. But that does not mean he has to resort to wild slogging. Far from it. The best of attacking batsmen have shown that they have impeccable attacking techniques based on sound, classical lines: the full face of the bat to the ball, whether driving, cutting, sweeping or pulling; the high backlift and complete finish of the shot would invite power; and swift footwork would give the body the right balance. Thus the basis of attacking batsmanship would not be sacrificed at all.

In bowling too, the bowler who attacks the stumps would be a constant threat. If he has movement, by way of spin or swing, that would certainly be a bonus. He would need to use his intelligence and skills to vary the length and the pace. Thus the cardinal virtues of attacking bowling would not be affected.

The Twenty20 format would take the athleticism of players to new heights. Slow or weak fieldsmen would have to be sidelined. Fielding, particularly ground work, has already shown tremendous progress in the 50 x 50 overs cricket. In this still-shorter format, the standards of ground fielding and running between the wickets are bound to improve even further.

In the midst of all the excitement that Twenty20 has to offer, there is always a worry that the conventions and etiquette of cricket would be tampered with. During the recent England-Zimbabwe group league match in the Twenty20 World Cup, Kevin Pietersen took his stance with the normal right-handed grip of the bat, but with the delivery on the way he changed his stance to a left-handed grip and swatted the ball repeatedly to the fence. It was not reverse sweep, but a change of grip. I do not know how the international umpires allowed him to get away with it. Even the media did not raise the issue.

It was a travesty of cricket laws. Just as a bowler has to inform the umpire that he intends to change from right-arm to left-arm and vice versa, so should a batsman. In the excitement and hurry of Twenty20, there is every chance that such mistakes would occur. The umpires and the match referees have to be very cool and composed and not be carried away by the diversions of this shorter format.

Twenty20 would generate its own league of fans. Younger people, who are always on the lookout for non-stop excitement, would love the aggressive quality of the summarized form of cricket. The fact that a result is produced in less than four hours of play would also thrill them no end. The sponsors would find reasons to plough in more and more money as long as the crowds keep coming to the ground or watch the game on television. Administrators everywhere would be delighted with all the money flowing in. It is a win-win situation, provided, of course, that the players are able to draw enough crowds to watch them play.

The purists may not enjoy the disappearance of the battles of attrition which take place in the longer version of the game. But they too should take comfort from the knowledge that no matter how much Twenty20 cricket is played, Test cricket would still hold its own at the top of the cricket structure.

If the great success of one-day cricket (50 x 50 overs) has not been able to take away the glory from classical cricket, neither can Twenty20. The longer versions of cricket — with Test cricket as the king — would always be the firm foundation of this grandest of games. The best Twenty20 can hope to be is an indispensable appendage.