A brief history of the Twenty20 Cup

Review of 2003 | 2003 scorecards | Review of 2004 | Winners

For many, the resounding success of 20-over cricket came as a surprise. In its first year, a few seasoned county professionals saw an opportunity for a midsummer battery-recharge, and sat it out. Come 2004, everyone wanted a piece of the high-speed, high-energy action. Those once content to sit back were now clamouring to get picked. After years of playing in echoing, nine-tenths empty grounds, here was a chance to swagger in front of thousands, possibly even tens of thousands. The overriding difference between the first two years of the Twenty20 was that, second time round, everyone took it seriously. Even Surrey, the undisputed masters of that first tournament, had not given the Twenty20 much priority. "Like many, we took it as a bit of a joke to begin with," admits Adam Hollioake, who led his side to victory in the inaugural final. A

Despite the success, many believed that without the novelty factor and good weather, the second year would be less so. They were wrong. Crowds flocked to matches in even greater numbers, so much so that the plan to play games at outgrounds was soon abandoned in favour of staging them at major venues. The biggest success was at Lord's where 27,500 watched Middlesex take on Surrey.

Never one to miss out on a cash cow, the ECB increased the number of matches but for once their marketing men seemed to have got it right and the competition's popularity remained undiminished. And overseas board were quick to embrace the format, starting in South Africa, and the success was repeated. The exception was in India where for mainly commercial raesons - an ODI generates more TV revenue than the shorter game - the board remained defiant.