Twenty20: the weekday wonder

In Chicago in early 2002, some members of the Midwest Cricket Conference decided that one 40-over game per week, on either Saturday or Sunday, wasn't sufficient cricket. So they decided on a week-night, 25-overs a side tournament, running parallel to the weekend 40-over competition. Thus was born the Night Tournament, which in 2005 was named after Abid Laheri, a beloved player in the league who passed away after suffering a heart attack on the field during a pre-season practice game. The venue was a floodlit community ground in the western suburb of Hanover Park. Matches would start at 5.30 pm, after the work day was over, and last until 9.30. Of course, with night cricket came coloured uniforms and white balls, which distinguished the parallel tournament from the white clothing, red ball, weekend games, and gave it that extra oomph.

The Twenty20 format became popular in international cricket only in the second half of the 2000s, by when the Midwest Cricket Conference in Chicago was already experiencing the Twenty20 revolution. In 2005, the 25-over competition was reduced to 20 overs a side. By then it had become immensely popular and continues to be so. It was perhaps the first league in the US to have an inter-club Twenty20 competition (it started off as 25-overs a side, but still) and that too, played at night!

The ALNT even drew crowds of 50-100 per game, mostly other players in the league, the most one can hope for in amateur cricket anywhere. In contrast, the only spectators at the weekend league games were the poor wives of the newly-weds. This was because on a weekend, most players had their own game to play, at one of the dozen venues around Chicago. The few that had a bye weekend had better things to do than sit in the sun and watch others play. On week nights though, there was only one game in town, since there was only one floodlit venue available. There wasn't anything else to do for the other cricket-lovers, apart from watch sitcoms or depressing news from Iraq.

Cricket-lovers in the city (and the wives of the newly-weds, of course) preferred to come to Hanover Park and watch an action-packed Twenty20 game. Night cricket, white balls, colored uniforms, a 'crowd' of 50 to 100, and the Twenty20 format, combined for an irresistible formula. As a newly-wed, I took my wife on 'date night' to watch the final of the 2006 ALNT. I left Chicago in 2007, after four years playing in the Midwest Cricket Conference, and still miss the ALNT. There are 40/45/50-over weekend leagues all over the US and Canada but the ALNT was special.

As a finger-spinner, and not the quickest fielder, I am myself surprised at how much I like the Twenty20 format. One of the reasons is that there is only one game plan: when batting, look to take risks and score, and when bowling save runs rather than buy wickets. I played two-day cricket in India in the 1990s, and frankly don't recall much. (As an aside, a two- or three-day unlimited-overs game is something many of us in the US really want a chance to play. There are a few annual 2-day games in the country, and perhaps I'll get a chance to be a part of one someday.)

Anyway, most of our games are 40- or 50-overs. In such games, I am always in a dilemma whether to attack or defend. Every spell in these games is an equal-parts mixture of the two. In fact, often in the same over, I try to buy a wicket for a few deliveries, and then save runs for the rest. At the end of the day, if I finish with 1/25, I wonder if I could have taken a couple more wickets if I attacked more. If I concede 10-12 off an over, I wonder later if I should have fired it in flat and fast that particular over. With Twenty20s, though, the mind is clear: save runs, the wickets will come automatically. It's a contest of pure skill, rather than both strategy and skill. Twenty20s are thus more exciting, whereas success in the one-day format is definitely more satisfying.

Since batsmen are looking to take risks in Twenty20s, wickets come more frequently. And since wickets do wonders for a bowler's confidence, I am usually quite confident when bowling in Twenty20s. In one-day games, wickets can be hard to come by, which is what makes these games mentally tougher. But Twenty20 is actually mentally easier. One doesn't feel too depressed at the end of the day, if a couple of sixes and fours were conceded, since it's part of the game in Twenty20. But when the inevitable wickets come, one feels like a million dollars. I've felt strangely happier with stats of 5/70 over two Twenty20 games than with 8-2-18-0 in one spanning 40 overs. When a bowler takes a wicket, he feels he is bowling better than he actually is. If you get a batsman stumped, you think you beat him in flight, when in reality it was a wild slog. I once clean bowled a batsman in a Twenty20 with what I thought was a good arm ball, as he was trying to cut. I felt happy at how the ball hurried off the track and beat the shot. Until a friend said, "He was trying to manufacture a cut off a ball on the stumps. If it weren't a Twenty20, he would've patted it straight down the pitch, and the ball would've been forgotten." So much for my arm ball high.

Another reason I like Twenty20s is because fielders concentrate harder. Batsmen are going to play shots, catches are always likely. In a 50-over game, fielders sometimes zone out in the middle overs. A finger spinner depends a lot on the fielders. He can't beat the batsman with pace, he doesn't get as much turn as a wrist-spinner, making it harder to beat the bat with turn. And if the ball is bound to hit the bat, then the only way to take wickets is through catches. In the middle overs, batsmen aren't taking risks, the fielders switch off mentally, and that's bad for me.

Overall, I've grown to really love the Twenty20 format. It’s a long way from when, during my time in the ALNT back in Chicago, I considered it a poor cousin of the “main” weekend league, a mere excuse to play cricket on weekdays.