A few myths busted in T20

My learning curve about Twenty20 cricket since the World Championships in 2007 goes like this:
Age no bar: Believed to be a game for the 20-somethings, but over the past 18 months, through two editions each of the ICL and the IPL, 35-plus players have shown themselves to not only be adept but also perhaps indispensable. In this tournament Hayden, Gibbs, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Dravid, Warne have matched youngsters like De Villiers, Malinga, Rohit Sharma, the Pathan brothers, Yusuf Abdulla, Duminy etc in ability, zest and ambition. The fact that older batsmen and younger bowlers have been more successful this season opens up a new vista for discussion, but while the age factor may remain live as a subject for academic debate, class settles the issue in the field of play.

Yet mavericks may still hold the key: The frenetic pace of the game makes mavericks dangerous and invaluable, all said and done. Yusuf Pathan over two seasons, and Lasith Malinga in this edition, have been stellar performers for their respective teams. An off-beat technique perhaps helps, but also the guts to attempt the unusual. Pathan’s derring-do with the bat borders on the manic, and Malinga’s extraordinary control in a doubly extraordinary slinging action makes him almost impossible to hit. Will they be the role model cricketers of the future?

Money no guarantee of performance: No direct co-relation evident between money and performance; at least as yet. The two highest-paid players in this tournament, Flintoff and Pietersen, were tepid at best. Chris Gayle was lukewarm and Jacques Kallis has appeared hotter under the collar than in the middle in two seasons. Compare this with ‘low cost’ talent like Malinga, Fidel Edwards, Yusuf Abdulla, Yusuf Pathan, Kamran Khan, and the value for money equation assumes a dramatically different dimension.

Of course, a big component of the money paid is for ‘star’ status of a player though one reckons this will see a correction very soon — in perception as well as monetary value.

Spin bowling will die: Spinners have thrived. It was (wrongly) assumed that slow bowlers are easy to hit in the Twenty20 format. The compulsive need for batsmen to score off every delivery increases the margin of error, which in turn allows spinners to experiment even more. If anything, young spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Pragyan Ojha have been able to make a deep enough impact to be considered for other forms of cricket too.

Owners will call the shots: Many players, coaches, managers are still struggling to come to terms with this, but owners are the undisputed bosses of teams. It can be argued that they should surrender the running of a team to experts, but that has not been proved to be foolproof either. Their desire, prestige and ambition runs concurrently with that of players. Moreover, it’s their millions of dollars at stake so they must have the last say. That’s fair dinkum.

Can’t enjoy, can’t win: And finally, matches will not be won or lost on the drawing board. Considering the stakes, the pressure of expectations on teams is enormous. But ultimately, this is a sport, and with all the attendant glorious uncertainties that have boggled theorists for more than a century. Indeed, excessive theorizing may be counter-productive. While strategy is crucial in a hugely format where the overs have been hugely reduced, it cannot be a substitute for a happy dressing room. That is one of the time-tested truisms of sport: don’t enjoy, can’t win.