luckyeddie said:
It's a bit of 'fun' - and in the end isn't that what cricket is supposed to be?
I find these types of event to be highly entertaining but totally irrelevant - consequently the players perform in an uninhibited manner.
Ability DOES count for a little - Aravinda is quite exceptional in this form of 'cricket'.
Whilst I can see that it's not a game for the purist (did they choke on their Pimm's during Twenty20?), it frequently puts bums on seats - and in these days of GCC/ICC disputes over the odd $50 million, isn't widening the games fan base a good idea?
Depending on what you call "purists" (they say the true "purist" doesn't like proper limited-overs cricket) I could be considered one.
I don't find Twenty20, Cricket Max, International Sixes or anything below 40 overs that appealing, because it just starts to resemble a slog-fest more and more.
I like a balance between bat and ball, too (that means economy as much as wickets) - events of less than 40 overs tend to push the balance towards bat too much for me.
However, Twenty20 has made a small dent in the English debt problem when it was most needed so it, and Hong Kong events, which apparently draw pretty large crowds, are imperatives to cricket, even if they don't help the players play it in a manner I regard as "proper" (ie First-Class or 40-60-overs, though 60 overs is a thing of the past).
They are undoubtedly a good idea, they just don't enthuse me. And I am a little sceptical that they'll massively widen the game's fan-base - very few were attracted to the National Leauge by Twenty20 last season. I don't know what the market for one-day-international cricket in Hong Kong is but if ICC thought it was worth looking-into, I'm sure they'd contribute to suitable stadia.