All Out Cricket's Discussion of the Week - What legacy will be left Twenty20 specialists?

All Out Cricket contributor Chris Knight questions what legacy, if any at all, will be left by the first generation of Twenty20 specialists:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/the-legacy-of-a-twenty20-specialist

What do you think will be the lasting legacy of T20 cricket? And will Test cricket survive the arrival of its younger, sexier cousin?

test cricket will survive, players wont let it go,
T20 is fun to watch but prefer the drama of the evening seesion of the 5th day than a 20/20 match.

dont know why i havent been here much before as i play cricket in the summer.

T20 is just a tedious bish/bash match, when if it comes off for you (great) and if not, who cares, it is only T20. Test cricket is just as exciting and will outlast T20.

Whilst I don't envisage T20 usurping Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport at any point, I do think it will achieve a lasting legacy of it's own primarily for revolutionising the game by widening it's accessibility to the masses. In short, those that may once have found cricket to be dull and tedious have now been given a crash, bang, wallop version that could well entice them in. Once they're in, there is every chance they'll begin to appreciate the intricacies of the game and possibly alter their views with regard to the longer format. It's an addictive game, as we can all attest to.

It may also be seen as the format that gave rise to the minnows. T20 grants the lesser teams much greater chance of causing an upset, and by doing so can greatly enhance the following of cricket in those countries.

Another effect T20 may have is on the type of shots that batsmen play and the type of deliveries that bowlers strive to add to their arsenal. Will such shots and deliveries then go on to be used in Test cricket and further increase the entertainment value/alter the outlook of the games? Quite possibly, and we've seen it in patches already, what with scoops and switch hits.

Not to mention the revenue achieved by such a format, of course.

Speaking of scoops and switch hits, the pioneers of such shots i.e. Dilshan and Pietersen are likely to leave a lasting legacy of their own in terms of shaping the game throughout it's infancy. T20 is there to entertain, and if the aforementioned newly recruited fans hear that their hero KP is playing in a Test match they might just tune in to watch it.

Clearly, in order for T20 to create a positive legacy it has to be managed accordingly and not over used, as is so often the case with the ODI format. One or two T20's before/after each series is ideal and it should be kept that way. Likewise, it shouldn't be promoted and marketed against Test cricket, rather as an entertaining side show to the pinnacle of the sport. The ultimate objective being to snare new fans before exposing them to everything all forms of cricket have to offer.

I'd like to hear the views of some of the more seasoned cricket supporters on this one and see if and how their views differ to my own.

Good article, and a very interesting topic for discussion.

You make some excellent points Fists. The point about people seeing KP or a Morgan lash a 30 ball 70 in T20 might get them hooked on cricket and think "I want to see some more of this guy" and will hopefully get them interested in Test matches aswell. I got into cricket because of watching Tres play and I just wanted to watch him bat in whatever situation.

I wonder what the participation figures are in cricket since T20 began in 2003. I would imagine they have increased greatly. Of course this could be down to many things like England being good! And of course great Test series in 05 and 10/11 against Australia which even non cricket fan here about will have got people watching, but we shouldn't discount the effect T20 has had.

In my opinion, T20 will never surpass Test cricket as the pinnacle of the game, but there is plenty of room for people to leave a legacy in it. Look at Michael Bevan, never a great Test player but he will be remembered as the great ODI specialist and I see no reason why a Pollard cannot be remembered like this for T20's.

T20 is far more than a bish-bash Deuce.

I agree broadly with a lot said by Fists and JD. I shall expand on this more tomorrow (bed awaits) but in my view T20 is a fantastic expansion which will eventually make cricket more global, approachable and skilful.

Something I failed to touch on in my previous post is the T20 specialists i.e. the Pollard's and Christian's of this world that literally do pretty much only play T20 cricket.

I don't think they'll leave much of a lasting legacy, in honesty, other than the odd mention that they had the ability to entertain. The aforementioned Pietersen's and Dilshan's will leave much more of a footprint - genuinely world class players that excel in the Test and ODI arenas, and were known to extend their abilities down to the shortest format where they could really cut loose and go through their full repertoire of shots with slightly less pressure on them not giving up their wicket.

Fans appreciate that much more than someone that just has the ability to smash sixes and not much else. It is about innovation, technique and the ability to adjust, something which the true world class players have in spades. Pollard and Christian are mighty effective T20 players, but given the choice between watching them or watching Kevin Pietersen in full flow there is absolutely no contest - KP blows them out of the water in terms of style, flair, ability, technique and x-factor every single time.

No contest? In terms of X factor and flair I think Pollard easily matches KP in the shorter form of the game. And as for technique and ability, in the longer forms of the game he certainly does but I think Pollard has just as much T20 ability as KP in a more all round package as he offers a bowling option and is a superb fielder.

No doubt KP will go down as all round a better player, in Tests and ODI's aswell as T20's, but again I look at Michale Bevan and think that if a player like him can be remembered solely as one of the greateast ODI batsmen ever I see no reason why someone like a Pollard or a Malinga (although Lasith has done it in the ODI arena aswell) cannot be remembered as a great T20 specialist. I imagine if someone was was picking an all time ODI XI itw ould contain Bevan most of the time and I can see a similar scenarios where in 10 years time someone picking an all time great T20 XI would have a mixture of all round players like KP and Dilshan, and then some specialists like Pollard who would solely be remembered for T20 exploits, but would be remembered as a great nonetheless.

Pollard can hit big slogs, sure, but you won't see him playing those immensely powerful sweeps that KP plays, you won't see him switch hitting people out of the park, and you won't see him timing those shots through mid-wicket that almost have a vapor trail coming from the ball. Quite simply, he just isn't as good a batsman as Kevin Pietersen.

X-factor may have been the wrong word, as Pollard undoubtedbly brings excitement each and every time he walks out to bat, but his agicultural slogs aren't quite as brilliant to watch as some of KP's more outrageous strokes that not many others even have dreams of playing, let alone the ability to play them.

Plus, KP's stats are significantly better than Pollard's in the format, which suggest he has more ability to influence game, not just to excite.

Each to their own, but I prefer watching Pollard bat in T20's over Pietersen. The sense of not knowing what is coming next, that any ball can be dispatched out of the park for a six is a feeling you don't quite get with KP. Sure, he plays some great shots and enjoy watching him bat but nothing gets the pulse racing like watching big Kieron stride to the crease. But I can see why you prefer watching KP play.

KP is a better batsman than Pollard in T20's and in every form, but that is a little bit of a harsh comparison as they play different roles. KP normally comes in at 3 and has time to bat whilst Pollard comes in at 6/7 at has to hit out at the death. I don't think KP could do Pollard's role aswell as Pollard, nor do I think Pollard could come in at bat 3 aswell as KP but to compare them solely on batting is harsh, as they play at different times. Like comparing Kieswetter and Trott in ODI's. Different roles.

And Pollard also offers a bowling option, which is very effective in T20's whihc KP doesn't and in addition Pollard is a superb outfielder. Probably one of the best pair of hands in world cricket in the deep.

All a matter of personal preference, I guess, and I see your points.

KP is a very good fielder himself, you have to remember, though more in the gully region than a boundary rider.

right wading into this debate now.

1. Test cricket will survive, don't worry about that. For nearly all the players (except Gayle) it's still the pinnacle of the game. Don't forget that when ODIs first appeared we worried that they would replace tests, but in fact it's now ODIs which are seen as a bit dull and formulaic.

2. T20s are great! Not only have they been very good at bringing in more spectators (after all it's much easier to go and watch a three hour match than watch five days) but they've also changed the game itself in subtle ways. Batsmen now have more variety in their shots than ever, and run chases have become much easier as a rule. Bowlers have had to learn new tricks, fielding has had to be spot on as every run really does count in a T20 match. They're also very good for the expansion of the game to other countries (France is launching a domestic T20 comp next year for instance).

3. The legacy of T20 "specialists". I'm more with Fists on this one, I think we'll always remember the legacy of players who are successful at test level more, and someone like Pollard will be remembered more as a great entertainer than as a great player. KP will be remembered as both. Again, Mike Bevan is arguably the best ODI batsman of all time (probably the best who isn't currently still playing), but rarely gets a mention when discussing cricketing greats.

Agree with pretty much everything that has been said so far by everyone. Test cricket will survive, there is no doubt about that, and for my mind it will always be the pinncale of the game. And T20 definitely has a role to play in expanding cricket's audience into more of a worldwide sport.

And I guess we will have this debate again when Bevan's name comes in oue Hall of Fame debates! I will be firmly in the yes camp for that one!

''This 'instant cricket' is very far from being a gimmick and there is a place in it for all the arts of cricket.''

I tend to go along with that view even though it was written by E W Swanton almost fifty years ago about the first Gillette Cup final.

That's interesting, Guildford. Really not overly clued up on the Gillette Cup - care to explain a little? I'll have a read up on it tonight.

Find it surprising, actually, that such a comment was made back then, and shows that none all were dinosaurs stuck in their ways!

as people know im not t20's biggest fan. ( a bit like gregers and KP

however i can see the attraction of t20 to some players, in countries who get paid less for the financial side of it. However test cricket will always be the pinnacle of the game. Even kieron pollard said he wants to play test cricket. he wont because he dosent have the temperament, and his bowling is nothing special.

Also the other thing with being a t20 specialist. Its hard to keep form going. As pollard,symonds,gilchrist, etc all know

another thing i would add is dan christian isnt a t20 specalist, look at his f/c record

my final thought : t20 does my head in and im not a fan, however in some countries you can see the attraction to some players.

Fists - very quickly as I'm about to leave for a meeting in London (yuk!).

The Gillette Cup - so named as it was sponsored by the famous razor manufacturers - was the first serious limited overs competition in this country (and, I suspect, the world but don't have time to check). Introduced in 1963 and originally a 65 overs per side contest. Interesting the best bowlers then had an advantage compared to today in that they could bowl a max of 15 overs each (you can work out the percentage but it's clearly more than the 20% of total overs bowled they're restricted to now!). Soon the competition was reduced to 60 overs per side and stayed that way for many years.

It was always the most prestigious of the one day competitions in this country running for quite a while alongside the John Player League (40 over game always on a Sunday) and the Benson & Hedges Cup (55 overs). It always seemed odd and unnecessary to have both 60 and 55 over competitions.

From the early '80s new sponsors took over but it continued to be called the Gillette (or 'Gilly' Cup) by many for some time. The number of overs per side gradually got cut back and we ended up losing both the two longer limited overs competions - leaving us for now with CB40 and the fairly recent T20.

The quote I gave from the cricket writer E W Swanton was actually taken from an article emphasising that, although very much of the old (public) school, he was far from being 'a dinosaur' - a point which clearly came across to you!

To be honest I don't like T20. I do understand that in this day and age supporters want fast thrills and T20 provides that.

When the second season of IPL was hosted in South Africa many of us enjoyed going to the matches and perhaps because it was still new there was a certain attraction to it. However the last two seasons I hardly watched any matches.

The problem for me is T20 is about an individual that shines on the night, it isn't so much a team sport anymore. One or two batsmen get it right or ride their luck and it comes off and 200 runs can be posted.

That is where the 50 over format is more interesting to me, there are enough overs for a team to get into trouble but still somehow put a competitive score on to defend.

Test cricket will always remain my favourite.

Having said all that, because of the money available in the IPL and other competitions specifically driven for this format, there will be players specialising in T20 only and it will provide some legacies in the future.

Thanks, Guildford.

Biltong, I think we are all of a similar mindset with regard to T20 and its place in cricket, but clearly the benefits of it are numerous, and as such it should be managed carefully to maximise the exposure to all forms of cricket through this more accessible format to the casual/new fan.

True, we just need the ICC to stand strong when it comes to tests. They did themselves no favours by pushing the date for the test championship back a few years though.

Indeed, but it is encouraging to see solid evidence that the players and fans alike still see Tests as the holy grail, for the most part.

lol im suprised no one ripped my point to shreds