Lets start with IPL and the fairy-tale story of Rajasthan Royals (RR) dominating it and eventually winning the tournament under the inspired leadership of Shane Warne. Although many people knew about the impact that Shane creates both as a player and thinker on the game but same wasn't supported by live examples. But we have got one now and we can now see how immensely talented this man is. Although I wasn't able to watch IPL but from the initial perception of RR and the team composition I was of the view that this team wasn't one of the best if not the worst. And the contribution of Shane was a very important aspect, at least according to me.
So IPL is the next big thing in the cricket world and there are talks of it being held twice every year. Now this a good news for the viewers all over and the sponsors, a sort of mix bag for players and certainly a bad news according to the traditional Pundits. The problem with IPL or T20 is that it makes cricket a whole lot different from the way it has been played traditionally, but the same impact was created by 50 overs cricket as well. So why this hue and cry now. The point is that the shorter you make the game the less certain and hence more arbitrary the game becomes, at least according to the traditionalists. On one hand this brings in more excitement from the point of view of viewers but on the other hand the element of orthodoxial fineness goes away. And that is why the traditional Pundits are worried. No matter how they put it but the essence of their view is that cricket should be played in the manner in which it has been played over the years,with technique and patience as the main ingredients of success. They want to preserve what they were a part of and hence the apprehension. The same apprehension was there when 50 overs cricket became popular. But still that required technique and patience to some extent. And now with T20 those elements are certainly becoming less relevant as per the traditionalists.
The whole problem is that people are trying to see all forms of cricket from one eye. There is a need to understand the difference in order to enjoy and appreciate all the forms. Test cricket is the "test" of a player's "traditional technique" and patience; T20 lies to the other extent which requires "improvisation techniques" and "rapid transitions" and 50 overs is mid way between the two. And thus saying that T20 is a game of arbit hits" is totally illogical. Technique is an important factor but this technique is not the same as in test cricket.The objective is to minimize the probability of not getting out in tests while in T20 the objective becomes "to maximize the runs scored/ball". Both forms require immense hard work and commitment and just because the techniques differ does not mean one is inferior to the other. It would be very easy to accept T20 if we can view T20 and tests as two different sports rather then fitting them under one category and then comparing one with he other.
