Opinion
Just five months after one-day cricket descended into farce at the World Cup in the Caribbean, the Twenty20 game is confirming its strong appeal. The success of the Twenty20 world championship in South Africa suggests that the one-day game may struggle to survive.
Domestic Twenty20 cricket has already
proved popular in England, especially, and South Africa. It has prospered because there is never a boring moment. Such, of course, also seemed to be the case when the one-day game began, but dull periods crept in as the players' level of finesse grew.
Tinkering with the rules has sought to address this. But not even a major overhaul seems likely to suffice, given that Twenty20 requires the batting side to chase two runs a ball, twice the rate deemed normal in one-day cricket.
Twenty20 makes compelling viewing, whether at the ground or on television. The action is non-stop, and one over can be crucial. Purists' criticisms are essentially those directed at one-day cricket. Some are ill-founded, none more so than that Twenty20 is solely a game for those wielding the bat. Daniel Vettori's 10 wickets at an economy rate of 5.06 in New Zealand's first four matches at this tournament tell a different story.
Unpredictability has also been a welcome feature of the world championship. Zimbabwe's defeat of Australia was as unexpected as India's tie with Pakistan was exciting. That may moderate as players become more familiar with the format. But, in its freneticism, Twenty20 cricket invites inexplicability as much as incident. And all in a spectator-friendly 3 1/2 hours. If there is room for only one version of the shortened game, Twenty20 looks likely to hit the one-day version for six.
