Why Twenty20 needs other forms of cricket

From Binu Thomas, India
I recently read an article from Aravind Panchal in "Inbox" observing that in Twenty20 cricket, there are no definite favourites. I do not think that anybody can argue against it. But what I want to contend is the proposition that the chance of not having favourites or champions is good for the game. I am not quite so sure.

Surprises as good as long as they remain only as surprises. But more than this simple fact of life, there is one thing about Sports - that unless the game do not consistently reward quality, the game itself cannot compete with other games who nurture quality, over a long period of time. The reason why we celebrate the failure of Australia is: they have a set of players who are proven champions in "OTHER" forms of cricket.

For the time being let us assume that cricket as a game is played only in the Twenty20 version and that there is no Test cricket or ODI (which is very much possible going by Chris Gayle's words). Even though it is too early to judge, the predictable patterns emerging from the world of Twenty20 is that there are no champion cricketers in Twenty20. Every tournament, every match has its own heroes. Twenty20 most probably is not going to throw up a hero for a decade or even five years, forget about a Pele or Maradona or Bradman or Sachin. I am not sure whether a Sporting game can sustain in the long run without the so-called "Legends".

My understanding is that legendary players play an equal role in the growth and sustainability of the game as the attractiveness of the game itself. How many of us can imagine Brazilian soccer without Pele? I am almost sure that eighty percent of school cricketers in India in 1990s dreamt about becoming "a Sachin Tendulkar" rather than "a batsman". If Twenty20 does not produce its legends who perform consistently over a period of time, can it sustain the public imagination across generations? Is Twenty20 capable of producing its legends without the existence of other forms of cricket? I will not say no, but I am pessimistic, because, let me quote "it is easier to play at your top level for three hours" and hence a lesser-skilled is almost equally rewarded as a highly-skilled.

My theory is that as much as cricket needs Twenty20 for its growth, Twenty20 may need Test cricket for its survival. As a game, T20 needs champions and Test cricket is the source where it can hope to get get champions from. In future, Twenty20 may become the basis for entry into cricket, and whoever does well in Twenty20 may have to adapt themselves to become consistent Test Players (I seriously doubt if it is going to happen the other way, which is bad news for the Rahul Dravids of the cricket world). Test cricket, then, is going to produce champion players and teams, and whose failure we are going to celebrate as "upsets" or "surprises".