Monty, Stuart Broad and English cricket

Monty Panesar will become one of the top 3 spinners in the world someday, capable of winning matches against teams other than New Zealand and South Africa (and, ok, Pakistan, who are the archetype of blow hot, blow cold).

Stuart Broad can do the sustained Steve-Harmison-at-his-best performances consistantly, and there are good chances that he will end up with more test hundreds than Wasim Akram.

Kevin Pietersen is an idiot, a braggart, and an insensitive jerk, but he is a once-in-a-lifetime player, or atleast has the genuine potential of ending up as one.

Alistair Cook is the kind of player countries build their batting line-ups around. (Note, I am talking about test cricket here)

And yet, I am pretty sure English cricket, like English football, will never be the sustained world no 1 for any decent length of time, next decade. It’s about the lack of a positive attitude, it’s about the media, and it’s about the lack of wonderment about the game. A great English performance is more often than not, a struggle. An English team has to be 110% of the team it is playing against on that day, to have a chance of winning. While most top teams, if they are at about 95% of the other team on a day, fancy their chances. A winning attitude, a belief. That is missing.

Cometh the moment, cometh the man!

I think he is a selfish, insensitive lout, but oh yeah, is he a good batsman!

South Africa is always tricky for this ex-South African, and there would have been Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Makhaya firing in all cylinders, but he stood out, in his cocky, brash, devil-may-care way.

To survive, the game needs characters, and this man is a rare showman who can really play, and play well enough to go on and become a legend.

As if following his inspiration, Ian Bell made an even bigger hundred, and missed out on the double by a run..

But this is to Kevin Pietersen! Stud par excellence….

About why One-Day cricket will go, and Test cricket will survive in the Twenty-20 world…

Does anyone give even a rat’s a*s about this tournament? Kitply cup? While I am tracking Australia vs. West Indies. FYI, Chanderpaul is being massive as usual for West Indies, Clark won Australia the first test, and I think the three West Indian quicks are making a contest out of this series.

It just seems to me that people are only still watching One-day cricket because it is what they are used to. And because human beings are creatures of habit. And because they are showing cricket on TV so why the hell not, one has already paid for the cable anyway ….. People, IMHO, don’t really care about the One-day game any more. It’s not as fast-paced as Twenty-20, not as skillful or technical as Test cricket, so what does it really have to offer?

IMHO, nothing. Nothing at all.

And that is good. One-day cricket, not Test cricket, should go.

Look, are there any real fans of One-day cricket specifically? Really, what are the hallmarks of the One-day game that set it apart? It is fun, finishes quickly, and has big hits. Tell me, which of these traits does Twenty-20 not have, and in equal or greater measure?

What will serve Test cricket well is that it is an almost completely different game to Twenty-20. The charm of Test cricket is completely different from that of Twenty-20. And if Test cricket has survived One-day cricket (and has come out stronger, may I add), it will survive Twenty-20 as well.

And there are some of you who will argue that One-day cricket is the best blend of the two extreme forms of cricket that are Test cricket and Twenty-20, and thus offers the viewer the best of both.

I would tell you, are you kidding me? One day cricket offers viewers the worst of both of these extreme forms. It provides a diluted version of Test cricket mixed with a diluted version of Twenty-20…. and in my opinion, that is just too much water.

One day cricket does not have the every-minute excitement of Twenty-20. The middle overs can be excruciatingly boring, and a one-sided match really has nothing to offer. Will you watch an Australia v.s. Bangladesh One-day match? No. While you might not mind watching a Twenty-20 between the two countries. Why? Because it is thrill-a-minute, Ashraful will still hit a six of two, and it finishes in three hours. Hell, if for nothing else, for the pom-pom girls at least..

One-day cricket does not have the technical nous of Test cricket. That does not require explanation, does it? Can a One-day game ever have a Ponting-Ishant nine-over bareknuckle battle? Can the One-day game accommodate Michael Atherton, the archetypal test player and such a joy to watch? Battles of that kind, players of that kind make Test cricket what it is, and that’s what One-day cricket can never capture. And yes, I hear your question, and that being – will you watch an Australia vs. Bangladesh test match? Well, here’s my answer. Did you ever? Nothing has changed. Test cricket has survived Australia vs. Bangladesh Test matches, and will continue to do so until Bangladesh becomes a decent Test-playing nation.

Therefore, One-day cricket should go. It has done its bit*, and it has nothing more to offer. Tell me, mail me, does One-day cricket really have anything more to offer? Anything new? Anything different?

(* – Increased the scoring rates, improved fielding, ensured more results)