Convincing as Twenty20 cricket has become, it would be dangerous for the game at large to lose sight of the attraction and advantages that are still clear in 50-over cricket. It was once unimaginable to say it but the options, subtleties and basic requirements of technique and tenacity in the 50-over format seem rather appealing. The players have to make choices and we see more of their character because of this.

They dictate the play more than is possible in Twenty20, which basically does the dictating itself because it is so short. The sooner that 50-over cricket is put on an elite pedestal, with a shorter, more meaningful World Cup as its showpiece, the sooner Twenty20 can become the game's sole vehicle for unconditional globalisation.

Twenty20 is exciting because it is condensed. It is the natural heir to the 40-over cricket that quickly established itself in the late Sixties as the "new black" – hip, fast, accessible and satisfying. Previously unseen audiences were as seduced then as they are now. Forty years on, it is obvious to everyone except the people who run the game in England day-to-day, that the 40-over format is a white elephant. In fact, it is more dangerous than that. It is an energy sapper, an injury-sucker and a diversion from the accepted formats that are played everywhere else in the world.

And all for a few bob more. By heaven, how money plays havoc with the thinking of those in power. One day, when many have passed on and the rest are in slippers, it will be crystal clear that English cricket suffered at the hands of greed. For now, we go blindly on, pursuing everything and anything at the expense of our best players – by that I mean that Andrew Flintoff is physically knackered and Kevin Pietersen mentally knackered – at a time when the national team have an opportunity to be rather good.

Former Test captain and the previous Indian coach Greg Chappell has been watching the lantana-like spread of Twenty20 with some concern.

He says that while he is happy with the new game being played as a fundraiser at the domestic level, he is concerned that it might affect the focus of our most important breeding grounds for Test players -- the states.

Chappell points out that the one-day game has so distracted most of the other cricketing nations that they have fallen away in the five-day game.

He worries that the simplistic Twenty20 form could do further damage.

For a start, he finds the form is naive and needs development. "It's got limitations as a form, it is very one-dimensional," Chappell says. "It's certainly not the panacea for our ills as some consider it."

Chappell says the Twenty20 game lacks depth, that there is no penalty for losing wickets as it's hard to be bowled out and there is little fielding involved as the ball generally sails off into the crowd.

"At this stage it is just about who can hit the ball the furthest and that is not enough to sustain interest," he says.

Chappell says that Australia has stayed strong at Test cricket because it has understood the value of the four-day game at state level, but if the states are distracted by money on offer for Twenty20, the Test team will suffer.

"I think the idea of generating more money for domestic cricket is fantastic," he says.

"However the disparity between the potential to win $2m playing Twenty20 and what you get to win the Pura Cup is going to affect the way people think about the game. "It will affect programming and so on and it needs to be cleverly thought through.

"The four-day game is a very important part of the development process in cricket and that needs to be understood and it needs to be protected as much as possible"

"Lets face it, if you've got the chance to win $128,000 compared with the chance to win $2m, then there's no choice about what you do from a business point of view," Hughes says.

"I am of a strong view Twenty20 should be left at a state level or a county level, but I don't see any benefit of it for our national team."

Like Chappell, Hughes believes the prizemoney and concentration on Twenty20 could add to the decline of Test skills. "We've seen the deterioration in standard in Test cricket (because of the one-day game)," he says. "Apart from Australia, there is probably only one other side interested in playing at the top level.

"The other nations are happy concentrating on the one-day game and it's their loss.

"One-day cricket is a sheltered game where you get flat wickets, the batsmen are protected, the bowlers can't bowl bouncers and ordinary blokes start to look pretty good.

"Look at the standard of Test cricket in the West Indies -- they are pathetic. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are no good. England has fallen off the pace, India and Pakistan are ordinary.

"Players who can play good Test cricket can play all the other forms, but there are plenty who can play one-day games but they're not within a bull's roar of being Test cricketers. You need to get your priorities right and most nations don't."