Twenty20 can't be the main event

A former Australian captain and the doyen of commentators, Richie Benaud often describes cricket as "the most controversial game of all". The long list of the major conflicts in the game down the years confirms his assertion, and if you delve into history, a lot of the upheaval has played an important role in the game's evolution. However, beginning with the change from underarm bowling (not the 1981 delivery), right through to World Series Cricket, though there has been much arm-wrestling between players and administrators, rarely has any of it done as much harm to the game as was feared at the time.

Most of the skirmishes have been prompted by the players - the bowlers' dogged determination was responsible for cricket going from underarm to side-arm and then to the high-arm mode of delivery - or entrepreneurs, as in the case of Kerry Packer and WSC. The emergence of the ICL mirrors that of the WSC in that a media baron started his own league because he was disenchanted with a television rights process.

However, the IPL is unique in that it was initiated by administrators. Consequently that eliminates one of the main concerns the cricket establishment has about entrepreneurs raiding the sport: the money that accrues from those endeavours isn't ploughed back into the development of the game. Nevertheless, in this case the ICC has chosen a course of moderate resistance by not giving the IPL tournament a window in the international schedule, while at the same time banning players contracted to the opposition ICL from competing in traditional matches.

Typically, as is usual when the game is in a state of upheaval, the players currently have conflicting emotions. On the one hand some ICL players who have just completed a second season of purely Twenty20 competition say they are craving longer games and are bemused that they can't play traditional cricket when those contracted to the IPL can. At the same time, a recent survey conducted by the Australian Cricketers' Association reveals that almost half of the players contracted to the national board and state associations would consider early retirement to play in either the IPL or the ICL.

With all the money and the hype surrounding the two Twenty20 leagues that's not surprising. However, I'll bet Michael Clarke isn't one of the 50%. During the World Twenty20 tournament in South Africa last year, Clarke faced just four balls in five matches. Being denied serious involvement in a match is a cricketer's worst nightmare but players can cope if they also compete in longer games where they have a chance to participate meaningfully.

The million-dollar Twenty20 question is: what effect will a steady diet of the shortest form of the game eventually have on players?

If players are weaned on only Twenty20 cricket, the game would eventually be in danger of becoming a passing fad. In contrast, a mixed menu of long and short versions of cricket would satisfy a range of tastes.

If players aren't honing their all-round skills in longer games, the fans will eventually notice a steady erosion of the aesthetically pleasing aspects of cricket watching. A regular diet of slogged sixes without some exquisite cover-drives, elegant leg-glances and productive hook shots would be of long-term interest only to fickle fans. A game dominated by big hitting would lack the much-needed competitive balance between bat and ball and remain hugely dependent on close finishes to satisfy customers.

However, if more senior players retire to participate in either of the two Twenty20 competitions it's not all bad news. For a start, it would assist the culling process, as selectors seem to find it more difficult to blood youth in the professional era. Also, with numerous academies churning out players who expect a full-time job in cricket, a couple of extra avenues of employment would be most welcome to the young hopefuls.

There are many possible positives from this upheaval but the one with the most upside has the smallest chance of occurring. A revamp of the way cricket is administered would require a major revolt by the players or a complete back-flip by the officials - both about as likely as Zimbabwe beating Australia in a Test match. If such an upheaval were to occur, it would lend further support to Benaud's opinion but it would also be another important step in the evolution of the game. Any amount of controversy would be worth it to see the game finally administered in a way that befits the 21st century.