Originally Posted by Richard
There are more of the best Test\ODI players involved aren't there? And they're more evenly distributed?
Yeah but the game will probably be better if there isn't. The international game doesn't need Twenty20 - it's already got Tests and ODIs, and indeed there's fair evidence that Twenty20 at international level is going to end-up doing great harm to the game - again we wait (and I mean wait 30 or 40 years) to see whether that ends-up being the case.
On the other hand, the domestic game can do very well indeed out of it.
Would have to look at the IPL sides. There is a 4 man limit to overseas players per side, add in the Indian internationals and I guess close to half the players in each side are Test/ODI plaers...in international T20s not many sides have gone with T20 specialists so most players are ODI players at least. When England sent a side packed with T20 specialists to the WC last year it did not go well.
WRT harm, that is subjective, I guess. What T20Is might do is kill off ODIs which I know you and many others would consider harming the game (not an unreasonable thing to say). But it's progress, wants change, and only if Tests were culled would I consider cricket ruined tttt