Short and Sweet - How the World Twenty20 Proved the Doubters Wrong

It comes to an end today in unusual ­circumstances for an ICC ­tournament. There will be many in this ­country, as well as millions of television ­viewers around the world, who will be ­sighing: "What a shame." In the past the polite and printable reaction to the last match of one of the ICC's ­tournaments has often been "Thank heavens for that". Twenty20 is now cool, chic yet ­respectable, the spectre of Stanford ­disappearing fast over the horizon.

There are obvious lessons to be learned from the World Twenty20, though whether those running the game, always so anxious to eke out the last ­dollar, will take heed is another ­matter. But "leave them ­wanting more" is a ­concept that Steve ­Elworthy, the ­admirable ­tournament director, understands. His main concern was to ­sustain the ­relentless momentum of the ­tournament. And he succeeded.

Most obviously, the ICC should take note when turning its attention to the next 50-over World Cup, which is due to take place in India, Sri Lanka and ­Bangladesh in 2011. There have already been headaches since Pakistan has been deemed ­unable to host any matches. There are ­delicate political issues and huge ­logistical problems to resolve. They could do worse than enlist Elworthy as a ­consultant.

A high priority, which will be ­devilishly difficult to achieve, should be to mirror this tournament by avoiding a glut of matches and minimizing the amount of traveling involved. To offer more games to create more advertising slots for ­television companies is a ­temptation that cricket must learn to repel.

But it is not just the ICC who should be taking notes. So, too, should those ­running the game in the UK, who are wrestling with domestic and inter­national schedules. Here was another reminder that less can be more. For ­example it may not be in our ­interests to have two domestic Twenty20 ­competitions next summer rather than one good one, or to pile international ­fixtures relentlessly on top of one another. Leave them wanting more.

There is also much to learn from how the players have gone about their business on the field. At the start we all assumed that Twenty20 would be the antithesis of Test cricket, a boorish ­off-shoot for those unable to grasp the complexities of the longer game. We were wrong. We discover that more often than not the same qualities are required for both games.

The traditional skills, much lamented, of wicketkeeping and wrist-spin bowling are now deemed essential in Twenty20. For England we have witnessed James Foster whisking off the bails for vital stumpings and Adil Rashid has given us glimpses of his wrist-spinning talent. Suddenly these two are being touted as possible inclusions for the first Ashes Test – after a handful of Twenty20 ­internationals.

The purists pine for Foster especially, but, barring an injury to Matt Prior, the Essex man will not be in Cardiff on 8 July. There is some logic to the selectors' thinking. We know the equation: Foster is the ­superior keeper, Prior the superior batsman. In Twenty20 cricket it makes even more sense to go for the better gloveman. The keeper is bound to spend the majority of the time up at the stumps and, since there are only 20 overs to bat, the ­incentive to play the best batsman is reduced. In a Test match Prior – theoretically – is ­entitled to bat for a hundred overs or more. He is the man in possession and will remain so.

For Rashid to graduate to Test cricket after 13 overs and three wickets in the Twenty20 would be pretty remarkable. He may have a better chance of a trip to Wales than Foster, but this is partly due to Monty Panesar experiencing something of a drought in championship cricket at the moment. But it is striking how Twenty20 is abetting the renaissance of wrist/mystery spinners. We know of Murali, Mendis and Afridi. We are now familiar with Saeed Amjal. But around England young wrist-spinners have popped up via Twenty20 cricket: Will Beer, aged 20, at Sussex; Max Waller, 21, at Somerset. They have made their mark in Twenty20 cricket before graduating to the longer game. No one predicted that trend when Twenty20 was launched.

We have also found confirmation that, among the batsmen, quality still counts in international Twenty20. It has not been a great tournament for the unknown biffer. Long-established masters have prevailed. England lacked sufficient quality. Kevin Pietersen and Ravi Bopara always threatened major innings and Luke Wright bludgeoned to good effect at the start of the tournament, but he was exposed against bowlers of higher quality.

And there was no shortage of those. "Twenty20 is a batsman's game", we have been constantly told, but the ­bowlers, backed by increasingly athletic fielders and innovative captains, fought back. To be successful they had to think and they had to duel. Intricate plans were hatched, but last-second intuition was also essential.

Sheer pace was not enough, as Brett Lee (8-0-95-3) discovered. To survive, the fast bowlers had to learn to take the pace of the ball and very often the batsmen were as befuddled as Jimmy Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final. His cerebral opponent, Arthur Ashe, declined to give him any pace to work with and suddenly Connors was emasculated.

We learned to appreciate the slow bouncer (many of my colleagues seemed to bowl a lot of those in years gone by, yet the batsmen were never ­bamboozled), the wide yorker and that trusty ­perennial, perfected by Umar Gul, the straight yorker. By and large brains have defeated brawn. Spinners, who have the capacity to turn the ball both ways, have caused confusion. How does a batsman set himself to find the boundary when he does not know which way the ball will bounce? He sweeps and hopes. Even the orthodox ­finger spinners, ­supposedly a dying species, have been effective, ­relying upon their accuracy and their survival instincts.

One final virtue of Twenty20 cricket in an era when it becomes ever more straight­forward to pluck out winners – just ­follow the money – is that it offers an alluring unpredictability. Pakistan, thrashed by England, in the final? No chance.