'Cricket could lose its traditional values' - Readers respond

"I am astonished that the tired arguments which abounded during the 1970s with the introduction of one-day cricket are being reiterated by the current crop of 'experts' regarding Twenty20. To suggest that Twenty20 doesn't have the 'subtle nuances' of the one-day game is frankly ridiculous and very much missing the point. As one-day cricket is to Tests, so Twenty20 is to ODIs - it's not a threat to the status quo, merely an addition. Moreover it's an addition which is promising to draw a more diverse group of supporters towards the game. However, without exception subcontinental crowds are far from concerned with the subtleties of the five-day game, preferring to watch a form of the game which a large number of 1970s players and commentators still refer to as 'hit and giggle'. That these very fans seem to have shunned the longer version of the game would suggest to me that they care very little for the lack of space for feeling 'that bond between spectator and spectacle that can never be generated by a top-down exercise in consumer demographics'. Humbug! Mike Marquesee is a fanatic, imbued with the zeal of the born-again, and Sambit Bal earns his living from watching and writing about cricket. Very few are fortunate enough to be in that position, most simply don't have time to watch even a one-day game let alone immerse themselves in 'epic contests between bat and ball'. Forms or games of cricket are as important as people want them to be, it's not the form of the game that matters. It is how people perceive it. I think it comes down to how you want cricket to evolve." Jim Ribbans

"Every article I've recently read on Twenty20 matches failed to point out the one major drawback in adapting this mutated form of the ODI game internationally: the risk of cricket losing its traditional values, which is the reason why hard-core fans cherish the game so much. The only slightly positive impact of Twenty20 is its marketability for sports fans in North America. Living in a country where people get their kicks watching people run on ice and ram each other against plastic side-boards, I can see how sports fans here could be attracted to Twenty20. But even if that happened, I don't think they would be able to grasp what made this game popular in the first place, and why it has a cult following in other parts of the world." Wael Ahad

"As one of the spectators present at the Ten10 game played between New Zealand and the World XI, I have to say that while a spot of pinch-hitting is entertaining enough, it really doesn't make for a great contest at all. One of the joys of cricket - particularly the one-day game - has always been when the score has been ticking over and suddenly the batsman, out of nowhere, strikes the bowler for six. In Twenty20, that sort of strokeplay is expected by the crowd, which rather dulls the entertainment when the ball does sail over the sightscreen. Considering that 50-over matches have increasingly become a batsman's game, it would seem silly to overemphasise Twenty20 when that form is almost exclusively a batsman's game, reducing the bowlers to simply ball-deliverers serving it up for the batsman's next attempt at a slog." Mark Paterson

"I do feel that Twenty20 is a great idea, because people do tend to have shorter attention spans. Twenty20 can be a great way to capture new audiences. I believe if Twenty20 is used to create a general buzz about cricket, it could be really effective. However, if cricket was all about Twenty20 I believe I would not watch cricket any more." A Shaikh

"I watched the Twenty20 match between Australia A and Pakistan a few weeks ago, and while it was more exciting than a normal ODI, it was obvious that one thing cannot be avoided - matches can and will fizzle out and become boring once the result is a foregone conclusion." Sam Luff

"Twenty20 is a very different beast to 50-over cricket. While watching Pakistan play Australia A a couple of weeks ago, I concluded that it had all the exciting parts of cricket, but none of the interesting parts. It would be interesting to see how successful a Twenty20 match would be on a fresh English spring pitch, when the bowlers have assistance?" David Sirl

"I believe that the impact of Twenty20 is being overestimated. I am an American, whose first exposure to cricket was via American Professional Cricket (a variation on the Twenty20 theme) and, like Sambit Bal, I believe that half-day cricket has its place in the scheme Of things. However, I don't see it replacing any other form of cricket. Rather, I see it as bringing in new blood, and perhaps serving as a first-level filter on cricket fans - some will go on to one-day cricket and/or first-class matches; others will be satisfied with the flash-bang of half-day cricket. Without half-day cricket, I simply would not have had the opportunity for the initial exposure to cricket, and cricket would have one less fan because of that." Jeff Zeitlin

"Though my gut feeling is that you are right regarding Twenty20, I also feel that most of your objections are similar to the ones raised about one-day cricket when it was first thought about. Maybe the world isn't just right for old-fashioned people like me." Natarajan

"If somebody thinks that Twenty20 is the answer, why stop there? I think that Super Sixes would be more exciting or, even better, how about a one-over-a-side game. Why bother at all? Just toss the coin to decide the winner." Manu George Kappan

"One-day cricket is fine the way it is. Twenty20 is just a free-for-all that really doesn't come close to showing what cricket is all about. Bad players can be good at it and good players can be bad at it." Christopher Casha

"Finally someone had the courage to spell out the truth. Just like millions of others, I feel bad about the bowlers who undergo such brutality in today's one-day game. It's outrageous that they have to go through even worse in Twenty20. In the end it has to boil down to a battle between bat and ball, not between bat and bat." Imran