Fundas on the IPL

In the cacophony of media hype about the IPL and Twenty20 cricket, one crucial point almost everybody seems to have forgotten: this is not a new idea.

The only interesting media piece so far which sets Twenty20 in historical perspective is here.

Admittedly, the fact that test cricket was invented by an upper-class MCC establishment trying to defend its power base when challenged by a professional league playing an exciting, abbreviated version of the game is news even to a die-hard and relatively well read cricket fan like me. Hope the facts are right.

Another bit of historical perspective is from CLR James in Beyond the Boundary. He watches Learie Constantine playing limited overs cricket in Lancashire in the 1950s, notes that the game is both pure and innovative, and calls it the future.

The other bit of nonsense that keeps cropping up is that Twenty20 is a batsman's game. Cricket has always been a batsman's game. Arthur Mailey, the Australian leggie from the 1920s, noted that "the last bowler to be knighted was Sir Francis Drake".

There is a clear role reversal for bowlers in tests and limited overs. In tests, the bowlers are the attack. In limited overs they play defence. But in that, Twenty20 isn't really different from 50 over cricket. There are silly features like shorter boundaries that can be scrapped, but that doesn't really change the big picture.

My initial worry with the IPL was that the stars would take their money and play in cruise control mode. That worry was unfounded. Now that the top players are showing up to work, we have a great tournament on our hands.