Every single foreign player (non-Indian) who has scored big runs in IPL so far has, on being interviewed after the innings, commented on the good batting conditions, fast outfields and the short boundaries.
One can see that in most matches the on-the-ground hoardings are a few meters inside the fence and the boundary ropes further few meters inside the hoardings. Not only does it mean that many shots (including mis-hits as well as big edges) will go over the ropes, but also it makes the batsmen much more adventurous and play more shots (including those which would have cleared normal grounds) that they may have hesitated to play if the out-fielders were further back.
Of course none of the anchors and commentators, many of whom were openly talking, before the tournament started and they got signed on by IPL, of striking a balance between bat and ball to make the contests more appealing for the true cricket enthusiast, are saying a word about this when raving about the same innings.
Its amazing to hear Hussey, Hayden, McCullum, Symonds etc try to be modest about their big innings and put it in perspective and for none of the commentators to touch on this aspect even when, they discuss the same interview soon after
Clearly, BCCI and the Franchisees would not like any of the sheen to be taken away from the 'dazzling' batting on display and it wont surprise me if there are some ground rules on what line to adopt when glorifying these record breaking innings and the amazing numbers of sixes being hit in this new format where suddenly every batsman seems to have discovered his bloodline to Jessop and Thronton.
I would have enjoyed watching the T20 a bit more if edges were taken by deep thirdman (if he was in place) rather than sail over the fence and add towards the batsman's chances of getting Rs 100,000 at the end of the day as award.
I may not be very fond of T20 but one would have understood the need for some sections of the public (potential public) for shorter snappier games but where was the need to further tilt the balance EVEN FURTHER in favour of the batsman. That was already done by the 50-50 format. Cutting down the number of overs was incentive enough for the batsmen to go for higher strike rate since ,theoretically they could afford to lose a wicket every 12 balls to last 20 overs as against a wicket every 30 balls in the 50 over format.
When McGrath was bowling those tidy spells pitching on or just outside the off stump and moving away, I would have loved to see a Tendulkar or a Ponting trying to get some decent runs out of him by playing good strokes that could counter the line and length bowling. But the shorter boundaries mean that a Venugopal Rao will come and try to hit everyone of them over kid wicket in the fond hope that a mis-hit will still get him runs.
I think McGrath would have got him earlier in his innings by bowling on middle and off rather than outside off stump but even that great bowler realised that the short boundaries made it a risk not worth taking and we had this terrible spectacle of great bowling confronted by ludicrously inept batting and yet the batsman surviving.
This is not to pick out one instance from the eight matches so far to cast a slur on lots of good batting one has seen but to point out that those who made good runs, like Hussey, Hayden, McCullum, Sehwag and Symonds did not need those shorter boundaries. But those hapless bowlers do need the longer ones.
The Hussey's and Haydens will still hit the top bowlers to and over the boundaries but lets not see bowlers think this is not a place for them to be. No one has said so but Harbhajan did by not bowling 2 of his 4 bowlers in the last game they lost.
It would have been great for the game to see India's finest off spinner trying to stem the flow of runs. But it was not to be. If we put our new found love for a thrill (read six) a minute aside we will realise that this cant be good for the game - any format.
