Well, the 2010 World Twenty20 Cup is over and England are deserving winners. They played a stupendous, fearless brand of cricket all the way to the final, and finally managed to bring the Australian juggernaut to a screeching halt.
Before this season, when England’s one-day itinerary seemed a mere distraction from their Test obsession, a common factor of most British reviews would be that England were uninventive and lacked “players who can hit sixes”, however amateurish that may sound (most international players, even the grubbiest tailender, can put his weight behind a slog after all). It isn’t their apparently newfound ability to clear the rope, though, that has won them the event, it’s the fact that they have finally begun to think outside of the box.
In the early years of limited-overs cricket, with fairly skittish pitches and a perhaps more risk-free premium, the norm was to protect one’s wicket at all costs early on, accumulate in the middle, and swing out towards the end. It was a mantra that generally worked as well, though if one part of the setup didn’t work it tended to go awry–for example, the openers blocking it out for 20 overs only to fall in quick succession and leave the new batsmen with a whole lot on their play. Gradually different teams from different environments found their own strengths, and went by them.
In subcontinental conditions pinch-hitters and dibbly-dobblers were a welcome variance, for instance, and Michael Atherton is oft-quoted in saying after Sanath Jayasuriya’s 1996 semifinal rampage that, contrary to the old mantra, openers would now try and take advantage of the early fielding restrictions rather than just block. Attack became the new defence, but, unfortunately, that didn’t always work either. In English conditions it’s generally unwise to lash out at the new ball from the word go, but though that tactic hardly paid off it had become fashionable.
Now, finally, England have found some real adaptability. They consolidate when required and tee off when they can; the most refreshing aspect of their cricket of late has been that flexibility, encapsulated by the likes of Eoin Morgan. The new-ball bowlers have attacked, the likes of Kevin Pietersen have been dashing but nearly risk-free, and this new positivity is the best news to come out of England’s one-day plans for a while.
But if England have cause to celebrate, so too does another much-maligned body. It’s rare that the ICC gets any congratulations, yet the format and organization of this tournament was superb. There had been doubts after the 50-over World Cup in 2007, which made even its succeeding Twenty20 inaugural championship look good, but this tournament has featured free-flowing but disciplined crowds, plenty of noise and, best of all, exciting cricket.
The shorter timespan of a 20-over match helps, of course; it’s lovely, particularly if you’re in the same time-zone, to have a morning match followed by an afternoon one at the same venue, just half an hour shy of one another and by the teams in the same group. The itinerary was fairly simple, the pitches very conducive to competitiveness, and the duration just about perfect for a world event. By all rights the tournament should have been a drag–it was, after all, the third Twenty20 championship since the last 50-over world cup–but, thanks to fluid scheduling and some very balanced pitches, it was a close and absorbing contest. If the 50-over organizers for next year’s subcontinental tournament want it to be a success, they could do far worse than pick up a few pointers from this, and the 2009, event.
Some commentators, such as cricketer-cum-writer Aakash Chopra, are saying that the ICC’s Twenty20 scheduling is “neither here nor there”, and that they should either fill in more Twenty20 exclusives or be done with the international format (outside its world cup) altogether. I beg to differ; the schedule seems fine as it is. There have only been to date three top-class, exclusively Twenty20 tours to date (Canada’s 2008 quadrangular, the UAE’s 2010 Pakistan-England double-header, and now its US, Sri Lanka-New Zealand successor) for a reason. Twenty20 on its own can make for a repetetive bilateral tournament, and with whatever due respect club matches are really not up to standard. Leaving the schedule as it is–with Test tours, one-day tours, the odd Twenty20 here and there before the World Cup–would perhaps be wise.
