Ten positives of the ICC World Twenty20

Four days into the first major event to showcase cricket at its most bastardised and most, if not quite all, the signs are encouraging. Please forgive the shameless boyish enthusiasm.

Ten Reasons to be Disgustingly Cheerful

1. A conspicuous narrowing of that Grand Canyonesque chasm between Davids and Goliaths. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe’s defeat of West Indies and Australia meant two seismic shocks in the first half-week; the World Cup manages one every one-and-a-half months.

2. Humble Aussies.

3. Horrendous mismatches, bane of the 50-over World Cup albeit no less apparent in today’s Sri Lanka-Kenya Judy-Beats-Punch-To-Pulp affair, are done and dusted nearly three times quicker. If only painkillers brought more rapid relief.

4. Things We Never Thought We’d See Again: Chris Schofield bowling a flipper in a representative match. Things We Thought We'd Never See At All: Schofield starting with a dot-ball to Adam Gilchrist and dismissing him the next.

5. The first Twenty20 international century did not prove to be a match-winning one.

6. Kevin Pietersen’s rising aptitude for creative left-handed biffing is bringing us ever closer to the arrival of the game’s first bonafide switch-hitter, which would be the biggest evolutionary leap since Christina Willes decided bowling overarm was the solution to having to play in a dress.

7. Sanath Jayasuriya’s undimmed ebullience. Given the lesser physical demands, perhaps this will be the stage that enables the oldies to carry on entertaining us? It probably wouldn’t be beyond Shane Warne to bowl four decent overs when he’s 64. We might even be able to tempt Sir Viv back to the boards.

8. The extra risks batsmen are required to take means more chances for bowlers – and about bloody time too. Ask Brett Lee or Shaun Pollock whether they have any objections to cheap wickets.

9. An annual Twenty20 World Cup featuring 16 teams would enable the 50-over version to slim down to more manageable proportions, the better to enhance the quality-drama nexus.

10. If it’s this good now, think how much more fun it would be if each side had two innings. Now THAT’S the way I’d like it.

One Reason to be (slightly) Fearful.

When I professed that pathetically boyish enthusiasm to my best mate, whose preferred tipples are tennis and soccer, he wondered whether the brevity of it all went hand-in-hand with a reduced premium on skill. I can see what he was getting at. Luck certainly plays a more integral role in terms of run-making, which is in no-one’s best interests. On the other hand, guile, ingenuity, nous, variety and courage are arguably even more obligatory for bowlers than they are in the longer forms. I’d still drop the restriction on the number of overs available to each bowler, the better to further correct that imbalance between bat and ball.

Ah, but is this all just another profoundly regrettable example of the 21st century’s infuriating penchant for dumbing-down? Not really. After all, this is cricket at its leanest and meanest, not to mention the form most familiar to millions of club players the planet over. Besides, if this is what it takes to refresh the parts other formats struggle to reach (especially the holy grail that is Dubya Land), and hence preserve Test matches into the next millennium, who cares?

Still, let’s go the whole hog and trade in “Twenty20” for “Cricket 2.0”. Who knows: that nice Mr Jobs might cough up some sponsorship.