So i was listening to the ABC Radio Cricket Coverage yesterday afternoon on the way home from work and Glenn Mitchell & Jamie Cox were discussing the affect that T20 cricket may/would/will have on ODI & Test cricket. During the Conversation Jamie Cox brought up the idea that T20 cricket could well end up being a blessing in disguise for bowlers for the reasons that they're being forced to find new ways to keep the batsmens scoring at a minimum.
It's an interesting thought, and imo quite a valid one. So far this CB Tri-Series in australia we've seen the bowlers dominate/on-top in all innings barring Englands first bowling attempt against Australia, something which many could see as proof that ODI bowling standards are increasing around the World.
The obvious counter argument provided was that instead of T20 having a negative affect on the bowlers, and a positive on the batsmen, and that we'd see the 400 barrier broken a little more frequently in the near future (mind you thats still not very often). Both arguments are valid ones, and have proof to support their argument. My question to you is..
Are Bowlers going to reap the long term Benefits of T20 cricket, or is it only assisting in turning Cricket into a batsmens game?