Twenty20 vs. Test Cricket

Chris Gayle’s comments regarding Test cricket has re-ignited the discussion regarding Twenty20 vs. Test cricket.

I like to compare them to the other form of entertainment that I enjoy – movies. While Test cricket can be compared to Drama Films (plot-driven, engaging story lines, well-developed characters), T20 is more like a Summer Blockbuster (big budget, special effects, outrageous action). While the genre of movies one likes is a matter of personal choice, the genre itself doesn’t guarantee entertainment. There are as many boring dramas as brilliant blockbusters. So, while I personally prefer an interesting drama, I am not necessarily against blockbusters. I absolutely love the choice offered by the variety of genres.

Similarly, I love Test cricket. To me, an intense over of Dravid’s defense against Warne’s guile on a fourth day pitch has  more drama than Pathan’s heaves for sixes DLF maximums. Then again, my initial apprehensions about T20 are slowly withering away. It does seem to be as much about skill as (though maybe not necessarily traditional cricketing skills) luck. Otherwise, how do you explain the consistent success of some quality Test players in T20? Now, after a couple of seasons of IPL, I do enjoy the twists, thrills and exciting finishes (however artificial they might be) of an occasional T20 game. I am thrilled by the choice of another genre in cricket.

As with movies, there will be passionate debates over which genre is better and which is not. And, while the debate rages on, the genres would still co-exist – similar to Hollywood dramas holding their own against flashy blockbusters.

Or, at least that’s what I hope for.