A cricketing renaissance

A lot of ink and bits have been spent discussing the evil that is Twenty20 and the IPL. However these primarily identify the effects of Twenty20 cricket, good or bad, on the players and the business of cricket. The focus here is different; understand the effect of Twenty20s on the game of cricket. Not the business of cricket.

Batting The batting equation has changed considerably. Ten wickets and twenty overs, instead of fifty overs. This has encouraged, or even forced, batsmen to dance on the thin line that separates recklessness and aggression. The most famous addition to the cricketing manual in recent years has been the Dilscoop. While it was pioneered by Tillakaratne Dilshan, it is fast catching on. I have had to sit through Lendl Simmons try, and miserably fail, to play the shot at least five times during the Champions League Twenty20.

The reverse-sweep, which has been the pariah of cricketing shots, is now legit and has been endowed citizenship status. Even as late as 2007, a batsman getting out on the reverse-sweep was morally culpable for any subsequent defeat. Twenty20 cricket has simply increased the percentage in the shot. First, with a number of captains (foolishly, if I might add) deciding to do away with the third man in Twenty20, the reward has increased. This has motivated players to practice the shot in the nets, reducing the risk in the shot.

I see a trend to exploit the vast uncovered expanse behind the wicketkeeper for runs. All recent innovations, the reverse-sweep, the upper-cut and the Dilscoop serve to illustrate my point.

Though Kevin Pietersen played the switch-hit first in an ODI, the key question here is whether he would have developed the shot if there were no Twenty20s. While the best answer to this can only be provided by the man himself, we can speculate. I might be wrong but barring the upper-cut, I can't think of a single new shot that was developed in the period 1990-2005. The Stanford game was announced and in less than a week KP unfurled his switch-hit. While precedence is no proof of causality, it is a strong indicator.

Bowling In gully cricket, we have a brand of bowlers called the Nerus. Nerus bowl with an offspinner’s, or left-arm orthodox bowler’s, action but the ball does not spin. They simply fire it into your legs. The word has its roots in the Tamil word near, which means straight. Nerus are now becoming a regular feature and case in point being Sulieman Benn, Chris Gayle and David Hussey. Real spinners like Harbhajan Singh are resorting to Nerus, the 2007 World Twenty20 semi-finals against Australia being an instance.

In terms of fast bowling, I have noticed two new weapons. The first is the 'oxymoronic' slow bouncer that has been used to good effect by Brett Lee, and with lesser success by Dale Steyn. The second is the slow yorker pioneered by Lasith Malinga that got him the first two in his four in four trick.

Tactical Twenty20 has been criticised for providing an unequal battleground between the bat and the ball. While 'unequal' is fairly subjective, and even if we do manage to agree on a universal definition I fail to see why this is of any concern. It is the same for both the teams.

The biggest effect of Twenty20 cricket, as I see it, is the return of spinners to prominence. During the Champions League, Nathan Hauritz did a Dipak Patel and opened the bowling for New South Wales. Even Dilshan opened the bowling for Delhi Daredevils, and less than a week before that Trinidad & Tobago played with three complete spinners, Sherwin Ganga, Dave Mohammed and Samuel Badree. What the World Twenty20s and the IPL have shown is that spinners are effective in keeping the runs down, either directly or by taking wickets, in the middle overs.

It would be wrong to claim that without Twenty20 cricket we would not have these innovations. Twenty20 has only fast tracked these into the cricketing game, and in the old order, they might have been spread over a decade or so.

As I see it, cricket, is undergoing a cultural movement akin to the Renaissance. In the spirit of individualism, players are realising their worth and shaping their own destiny. Coaching manuals, which were supposed to be scared, are being questioned. As established, we are undoubtedly seeing a period of great innovations. What is missing is a sense of regard for classical antiquity, ie, Test cricket.