World Twenty20 Has Given Cricket the Wake-up Call It So Badly Needed
Duncan Fletcher: With its innovation and levels of excitement, Twenty20 is enriching the game beyond all expectations
What a couple of weeks it's been for cricket. To see the excitement, the crowds, and the close finishes convinces me this format has a huge future, so long as we don't overdo it. In 50-over cricket you can watch the beginning of the match, then come back several overs later to catch the end. But the games in the World Twenty20 have been so gripping you hardly dare leave your seat. Cricket needs to compete with other sports, and Twenty20's development is the wake-up call the game needs to do just that.
It's been interesting to note, despite all the talk, that specialist Twenty20 players haven't really materialized. Sure, there are always different types of shot that come into the game – although Tillakaratne Dilshan's scoop has been played before in Australia – and you need them to unsettle the bowler from time to time. But the players who have succeeded most are the ones with the soundest techniques. Even in Twenty20 you need to be able to hit straight down the ground.
In fact, batters are forced to improve their technique because they have to score on both sides of the wicket. In a Test you can get away with scoring predominantly on one side, because it's all about wearing the bowlers down. But Twenty20 doesn't allow that luxury. You're forced to attack lines of bowling that you could otherwise ignore. And you can only do that with a sound technique. It was no surprise to me that Jacques Kallis did so well before South Africa's tactics went awry on Friday.
I wasn't too disappointed with England, because their team fabric looks good and they were playing with real enthusiasm. Paul Collingwood's captaincy is improving, although I'm worried about the effect it has on his batting. But overall some of England's decision-making was poor, and I believe that goes back to county cricket, where the lack of intensity means there's no real need to develop that side of your game. It was also clear, both against Holland and West Indies, that they lacked hitters down the order. Luke Wright impresses me with his verve and freshness, but his explosiveness should be used lower down, not wasted up front. It seemed crazy that Dimitri Mascarenhas wasn't picked against West Indies, when he's exactly the kind of guy who can do a job down the order.
I would not have had James Foster in that side, either. I'm a big Foster fan, because his grit and fight are what every team needs. But England lost matches because of the lack of runs down the order. Why move Matt Prior up the order in 50-over cricket, then leave him out in Twenty20? As Chris Gayle himself said, it's illogical. Foster's two stumpings were smart, but most keepers would have pulled off at least one of them. People fall too easily into the trap of getting carried away with the details and not looking at the bigger picture.
One player I was impressed with was Adil Rashid. I wouldn't necessarily have picked him for this tournament, because leg-spinners need to learn how to flight the ball and use the crease without being under too much pressure. Twenty20 doesn't allow you the space to develop those crafts, but Rashid at least showed he's an exciting prospect who can field well and bat too. If England play two spinners in any of the Ashes Tests, Rashid should play with Graeme Swann ahead of Monty Panesar.
So where does Twenty20 go from here? I believe the format will have a knock-on effect on other forms of the game and I hope the administrators think clearly about how best to harness the excitement and the fact that new fans are coming through the gates. I've written before about how Test cricket could become a limited-overs format, but I think the first obvious effect could be on the 50-over game.
There are a number of possibilities. They could make it 40 overs a side, or split the 50 overs into two lots of 25. They could even allow teams to divide up the overs into two innings as they see fit. The scope then for new tactics would bring an extra dimension to the game.
What is clear is that there is a place for Twenty20 in the public appetite. We went right the way through the Indian Premier League and straight into this tournament, but still the crowds are pouring in. Forget the old-fashioned types: Twenty20 can enrich cricket beyond all our expectations.
It's been interesting to note, despite all the talk, that specialist Twenty20 players haven't really materialized. Sure, there are always different types of shot that come into the game – although Tillakaratne Dilshan's scoop has been played before in Australia – and you need them to unsettle the bowler from time to time. But the players who have succeeded most are the ones with the soundest techniques. Even in Twenty20 you need to be able to hit straight down the ground.
In fact, batters are forced to improve their technique because they have to score on both sides of the wicket. In a Test you can get away with scoring predominantly on one side, because it's all about wearing the bowlers down. But Twenty20 doesn't allow that luxury. You're forced to attack lines of bowling that you could otherwise ignore. And you can only do that with a sound technique. It was no surprise to me that Jacques Kallis did so well before South Africa's tactics went awry on Friday.
I wasn't too disappointed with England, because their team fabric looks good and they were playing with real enthusiasm. Paul Collingwood's captaincy is improving, although I'm worried about the effect it has on his batting. But overall some of England's decision-making was poor, and I believe that goes back to county cricket, where the lack of intensity means there's no real need to develop that side of your game. It was also clear, both against Holland and West Indies, that they lacked hitters down the order. Luke Wright impresses me with his verve and freshness, but his explosiveness should be used lower down, not wasted up front. It seemed crazy that Dimitri Mascarenhas wasn't picked against West Indies, when he's exactly the kind of guy who can do a job down the order.
I would not have had James Foster in that side, either. I'm a big Foster fan, because his grit and fight are what every team needs. But England lost matches because of the lack of runs down the order. Why move Matt Prior up the order in 50-over cricket, then leave him out in Twenty20? As Chris Gayle himself said, it's illogical. Foster's two stumpings were smart, but most keepers would have pulled off at least one of them. People fall too easily into the trap of getting carried away with the details and not looking at the bigger picture.
One player I was impressed with was Adil Rashid. I wouldn't necessarily have picked him for this tournament, because leg-spinners need to learn how to flight the ball and use the crease without being under too much pressure. Twenty20 doesn't allow you the space to develop those crafts, but Rashid at least showed he's an exciting prospect who can field well and bat too. If England play two spinners in any of the Ashes Tests, Rashid should play with Graeme Swann ahead of Monty Panesar.
So where does Twenty20 go from here? I believe the format will have a knock-on effect on other forms of the game and I hope the administrators think clearly about how best to harness the excitement and the fact that new fans are coming through the gates. I've written before about how Test cricket could become a limited-overs format, but I think the first obvious effect could be on the 50-over game.
There are a number of possibilities. They could make it 40 overs a side, or split the 50 overs into two lots of 25. They could even allow teams to divide up the overs into two innings as they see fit. The scope then for new tactics would bring an extra dimension to the game.
What is clear is that there is a place for Twenty20 in the public appetite. We went right the way through the Indian Premier League and straight into this tournament, but still the crowds are pouring in. Forget the old-fashioned types: Twenty20 can enrich cricket beyond all our expectations.

Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.

Use the form below to email this article to your friends.

- Australia: Back to Earth in Perth (And so not liking it)
- Twenty20 Cricket Championship: Beyond Pain, Humiliation and Defeat
- Cricket: Schofield Career Revived With Shock Call-up to England Squad
- World Twenty20 Sets a New Benchmark
- India's World Twenty20 Defence Fell Flat Thanks to Ipl Fatigue
- Twenty20's Revolutionary Skills Rip Up the Rule Book
- Australia's World Twenty20 Exit Will Have Little Bearing on the Ashes
- Ireland Qualify for World Twenty20 Super Eights After Victory Over Bangladesh
- Will England and Australia's Twenty20 Hopes Be Reduced to Ashes?
- Timid England Must Conquer Fear to Avoid Twenty20 Exit
- Andrew Symonds Thrown Out of Australia's World Twenty20 Squad
- Let's Pray England's Staging of the World Twenty20 Isn't Too Embarrassing
- Stuart Broad High on Confidence Ahead of World Twenty20 and Ashes
- Counties Fretting Over Fall in Twenty20 Cup Ticket Sales
- Security Review Planned for World Twenty20 Tournament
- ECB Forced to Scrap Twenty20 Overseas Teams
- Players Rubbish Stanford Series As a 'garden Party'
- India in Talks to Recognise Rebel Twenty20 Tournament
- Stanford Twenty20 Game Given Go-ahead
- Stanford Super Series Set to Go Ahead



