KEY POINTS:
It was the morning after the night before, and all was calm.
Nothing stirred at Eden Park, the queues were gone if not forgotten, and cricket's Twenty20 circus was on the road to Christchurch, where it would explode before another bumper crowd of buoyant fans who hardly seem to care who wins or loses.
The Twenty20 match between New Zealand and England at Eden Park - which drew 30,000 spectators - was a great success, although advanced claims of a sell-out proved over-optimistic.
The duels between New Zealand and England have also disproved the theory that Twenty20 always hangs in the balance - it was clear a long time before the final overs that England would win.
So what do we make of it all? Is Twenty20 really a salvation for a game that is struggling in some old strongholds, offering a thrilling new road ahead. Or is it sporting candy, a rush of excitement that invites a subsequent and depressing lull?
A poll of devoted cricket types after the Eden Park match brought a diverse response.
* Fan One went to the game, absolutely loved it, as did his son who attended separately. Twenty20 is here to stay, this fellow enthused.
* Fan Two is a test follower who lumps Twenty20 and one-dayers together. He was upset that Auckland had missed out on hosting a test again and had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to the shorter forms.
* Fan Three announced that he and his cricket-loving mates thought Twenty20 frivolous and stupid, that it forced great batters into ugly shots and would breed slack techniques.
* Fans Four and Five thought it ridiculous that cricket was now played in three forms. Four likened it to rugby introducing nines. He believed the "boring" 50 over game should be scrapped, leaving tests and Twenty20. Fan Five believed that Twenty20 had upped the entertainment factor and extended the scoring horizons in all cricket - a good development.
* Fan Six attended with two women who had never been to a cricket match before and didn't understand the rules. They had "absolutely loved" the Twenty20 action and couldn't wait to go to a one-day game.
* Fan Seven "quite liked" Twenty20, but said the authorities had to make sure it didn't run riot.
Opinions might be divided, but Twenty20 is an unqualified success in one area right now - crowds. A game at Melbourne between Australia and India drew 85,000 and India were greeted by millions of fans when they won the Twenty20 World Cup.
Rugby - the sporting pacesetter in New Zealand - struggles to get 30,000 to Eden Park, and cricket is in no position to turn this financial godsend away although a rash of games might prove counterproductive.
Twenty20 will lure new fans and reinvigorate some old ones, but will they stay the course? Some purists and players are ambivalent - and even opposed to it - despite this wide appeal. While the punters churn through the turnstiles, Twenty20 is here to stay. But what about in two years' time, or five years, or 50 years? And might Twenty20 cricket devour the game which gave it life? Or could it be a flash in the pan, a glitzy newcomer whose charms quickly wear thin and leave a ghetto behind especially with the rich Indian leagues threatening to drag the world's best players to their extravaganzas?
If cricket Fan One from the poll above is to be believed, then the new game will instead find a fabulous and permanent place in the calendar. It might also advance in style and strategy so that the sceptical and suspicious among us discover its charms.
Twenty20 is perhaps too hectic for traditionalists, demanding ceaseless attention while diminishing the values of its skills.
There were, for sure, remarkable shots played at Eden Park yet they lost meaning, to this punter, because they were so quickly followed by another. And another. You also know that batters are free to play shots because there aren't close catchers, the wicket is in pristine condition and it's no great disaster if they fail anyway.
There is little value on batters' wickets which means there is less worth on the shots. There are also too many inelegant swipes. As for the bowlers, even the umpires' view of lbw appears loaded against them. The bowlers are little more than bowling machines.
There should also be major concerns about the rise of Twenty20 in India, the financial stronghold of the game where things most evil in cricket have emanated. Yes, bookmaking.
Twenty20 looks a wonderful bet to become the bookies' favourite. Cricket gambling on the subcontinent is founded on an enormous population making a stream of little bets on parts of the game, and Twenty20 is tailormade to accommodate that.
The game is so contrived that no one is worried about averages and statistics. Instead, it is a money spinner where just about anything goes. Players could easily manufacture their own dismissals or rearrange lineups without an eyebrow being raised.
Twenty20 is a backdoor for swindlers to get their hooks deeper into the whole of cricket. Unscrupulous cricketers who baulk at fiddling more highly regarded forms could succumb to the temptation of rigging parts of Twenty20 with little fear of detection. This could also lead them into fixing one day and test matches.
There has been too much proven, irrefutable skulduggery in cricket for this not to be a major worry.
If the establishment does have concerns about this and other aspects of Twenty20, it is keeping quiet for now. Money drives all of sport and Twenty20 is attracting fans in droves. The public is voting with its feet and its wallet.
A likely outcome: put a wee wager on the views of cricket Fan Four. If Twenty20 continues its drive forward, then the 50 over version is likely to be bounced out of the game.
