I watched only the second half, and even though I am unlikely ever to fall in love with the Australian kit designer, I’ve always been a big fan of 20 Twenty, and cannot help but admit I also enjoyed yesterday’s game, what ever I was able to watch of it.

True, such one-off games don’t achieve much, apart from some money and lots of good laughs and fun for the spectators, but they don’t harm the game in any grave way either, not in my opinion in the least. So I say let them stay. And don’t anyone even say anything about Domestic 20 20, I’ve watched the English, South African, Pakistani and even a small Indian domestic version of it, all on telly, and all have been hugely entertaining. It might not be wrong to say that 20 20 is the best thing that ever happened to domestic cricket.

I am not entirely against the idea of an international Twenty 20 multi team contest either, once every two years or something like that, in fact we could get rid of that largely meaningless champions trophy and incorporate it in the schedule instead of it (on the consideration that all teams agree to using sane kit designers).

How long till the tippy-go-run tournament is started?

I attend most matches at the Gabba and was also at Friday nights 20/20 between Qld and Tasmanio\a (washed out half way through)

My impression was that although there was 38,000 spectator, it basically consided of about 8,000 cricket followers and 30,000 blokes having a beer after work.

I didn’t think the cricket was too bad although the format means that by the time the South Africans had faced 7 overs the game was finished.

The problem is primarily with the fluff around the game. Radio station airheads trying not to show they know nothing of the game interviewing players and spectators between overs, music blaring from the PA almost until the bowler reaches the crease, and jokes to the captains and asking them for answers while they are trying to set a field.

As for the pitch .. the field wasn’t much bigger than my backyard .. you could have had a football match going on between the rope and the fence on the school ground side of the ground.

I think it might have a place in domestic cricket, but since you will fill the same ground this weekend with the one day game, why bother with the 20/20 format for international competition.

I think 20/20 is great too. So what if it seems like it’s 30,000 blokes turning up for a beer after work? It’s a) making money for the game, and b) gets cricket a new audience, where people might actually take following the game up more seriously.

What I didn’t like, though, was putting players nicknames on the backs of their shirt. That seemed a gimmick too far for me.

I have to admit, i like the Twenty20 matches. I know they can be a bit of a gimmick, but they make for good viewing and its definitely a lot more convenient to sit and watch cricket for 40 overs than a whole day, or five days. They’re just fairly entertaining, and non-cricket followers (I know, I know. That sounds ridiculous) probably find it a bit easier to follow. Oh, one question. I apologise in advance for my naiveity, but ummm…is there a particular reason why the Aussies didn’t play more experienced players, like Lee, Warne, Gilchrist etc? Is it not allowed or something, or just a case of wanting to give inexperienced players a go at it?

The Australian strips were absolutely hideous.

Hi Sophie,

From the few games I’ve seen, the odds are well and truly with the batsmen, particularly if you are batting first. I know they are saying Glen Mcgrath was ‘rested’ but his probably just too old and wise to get into a game where the batsmaen are exxpected to score at 8 runs per over or better

I saw Surrey vs. Middlesex at Lords in the Twenty20 competition last summer, and found the game itself rather dull, even though Tim Murtagh took six wickets, the first bowler to do so in the competition. There is no time for any tension to build, or any kind of narrative to develop; watching the ball sail over a heavily shortened boundary loses its appeal after a while. However, the ground was full, the biggest crowd Lords has seen for a domestic game since the golden Compton-Edrich summer of 1947. A substantial portion of those were women and children, and Middlesex must have made a fat profit. For these reasons I think Twenty20 is a great idea in domestic cricket, even though I myself don’t enjoy it. It gives players who never made it internationally the chance to enjoy the buzz of a full stadium, it brings the game to new audiences and it makes the Counties less dependent on television money doled out by the ECB (and we all know where that took us earlier last year). If Twenty20 can help to subsidise First-Class domestic cricket in other countries (and whether you enjoy watching that or not, without it there would be no Test Cricket) then it is unquestionably a good thing. At the international level the logic of having Twenty20 games is less clear, as considered purely as Cricket, it’s pretty worthless in my view.

Does anyone have any news on Gillespie? A friend from the UK just called me in the office to tell me Dizzy dived into a swimming pool that … er …did not have much water in it, and he broke is nose.

Is my mate pulling my leg on this one?

“Is my mate pulling my leg on this one?”

*snerk*. I think so. That’s the sort of thing that finds its way onto t’Internet straight away. He did have nasal surgery, apparently after complications after flu. Of course, that could be a crock.

But it’s funny anyway.

With all the hullaboo (as they call it in this part of the world) about India vs Pakistan cricket,I think the VB series probably is going to be a more interesting cricket series.