Adam Parore: Short game has longest advantage

Changes to cricket as we know it are upon us; this week's Indian Premier League auction rammed that point home.

When the top whack of US$750,000 ($1.05 million) - plus a silent bid top-up understood to possibly have reached US$2.5 million - is paid for a nondescript West Indian allrounder you know the game is changing fast.

Kieron Pollard is an example of the stereotypical Twenty20 player; he gives the ball a decent thump and bowls some medium pace.

So being the best players in the traditional three, four or five-day forms of the game does not guarantee you will be wanted by a Twenty20 franchise.

The days when young players' aspirations from the time they showed promise at secondary school was ultimately to play test cricket for New Zealand, take wickets and score centuries for their country, are coming to an end.

Why? Because the cricket that will increasingly fill our screens, and their minds, will be the shortest version, which also happens to be the most lucrative.

And when it happens we should not be surprised.

My pick is that in time test cricket won't be the No 1 version of the game. It will always exist because it is undoubtedly the best measure of a player's skills.

But ODIs are in grave danger. Waning crowd interest and the rapid rise of Twenty20 will see to that, perhaps as little as five years from now.

At the same time, expect IPL-type tournaments to sprout round the globe. They are the moneyspinners and right now the more of them the merrier.

Eventually they might become tiresome simply because there are so many of them. This is one of the factors which has damaged the ODI format. But market forces, as in so many other aspects of life, call the tune.

I can see teams touring and playing, say, three Twenty20s and two tests a couple of times a year.

International cricket will go the same way as international soccer and league.

That is, country v country cricket will still be played, but I see the sport becoming increasingly dominated by franchises or clubs, in the same way soccer and league are.

Put it this way: you see England or Brazil play perhaps 10 or 12 soccer internationals a year; but you can watch their best players turn out 40 or 50 times for Real Madrid or Chelsea.

And look for a change in attitude from the leading players.

New Zealand Cricket is negotiating a new collective agreement with the Players' Association. You can be absolutely certain that the top players will not be willing to settle for a one-year retainer which could prevent them cashing in on lucrative Twenty20 deals round the world.

It might sound depressing to traditional ears, but you can hear players telling NZC: "I'll let you know when I'm available." That is a sea change in contractual terms from the old position of players often being grateful for what they received from the national body. They know they have little time to cash in.

Cricket needs to get a bit realistic. It is competing for eyes on the TV screen. Right now, in those terms Twenty20 is the game's best option.

If the ruling bodies mess it up, in time it's simply not going to exist any more as we've known it.