Irony, T20 Style

To say I have never been a fan of the shortened forms of the game would be understating your claim in the same way Neville Chamberlain assured England of Hitler's honourable intentions. I have hated the concept and delivery of 50 over cricket because of the endless courses served up on cricket's table in the hope that the cricket public will gorge itself to gluttony. After a while, between the burps, farts and vomiting, you start to forget what you're eating until, only those whose palette still retains taste buds start to realise the meal has become about the chef and not the diner.

Twenty20 cricket just seemed the same again only everything was deep fried and full of cholesterol. If ODI were cricket on crack, then Twenty20 was cricket on crank.

But a funny thing happened whilst watching the Champions League T20 because as the Royal Chargers imploded batting second in the final, it dawned on me that irony could be found in even this form of the game, abridged as if Reader's Digest had the promotional contract.

Irony can be found in most sports but in cricket, it has a permanent home as so much of the game is about subduing the importance of personal performance in order that the team can succeed. Some irony is rich and takes many years to dawn, such as Bradman's last ball duck when only one of the thousands of 4's he had hit in his career needed to be reproduced to give him the perfect batting average. That the Game denied him was not only ironic but reminds us all that the Game is more important than the individual. Life imitates the art of the game often but generally, the chance for this to happen in the helter skelter and mayhem of games played on perpetual Manic Mondays seemed unlikely, if not impossible. That, of course, was denying cricket's ability to change, evolve and retain its mystery, even if covered from twenty five cameras and analysed by statisticians from the Antony Green School of Non Exhausting Decimals.

It should have been enough that the Mumbai Indians franchise had managed to contain two egos in the one team who previously had argued simeon similarities loudly and with such resilience to bring the Game, aided by its administerial inadequacies, to its knees. Name Callers are not Gladiators, just naughty boys with agents. Yet Captain and Super Sub sat on the same benches, slapped high fives and hugged as winners do, without once monkeying around. That's irony.

More importantly, this game of bash for the best regional teams in world cricket was evolving the T20 format in a manner not intended. At inception, T20 was designed as a cricket cash cow to drag impatient bums onto seats for entertainment contained to three and a half hours of an evening. The finer points of the game were not invited. Sloggers, sixes, ten runs an over and loud music were the recipe ingredients and bowlers were unnecessary. Many commentators suggested a bowling machine and batting from one end would more easily satisfy the requirements. Teams were chosen with a batting bias, often seven of eight batsmen being picked, with a few that could send down some overs.

Dilshan yorked by Malinga

Things have and are still changing. At Chidambaram Stadium, Mumbai put runs on the board, New Zealander James Franklin top scoring with a slightly less than run a ball 41. Less than run a ball is too slow in this game but Mumbai had 'em and the Chargers had to get 'em. Tillarkaratne Dilshan did what he struggled to do in the recent Test series against Australia, freeing his arms and driving and the Chargers looked set up for a win until something odd happened. Mumbai skipper Harbhajan kept Malinga on for a third over, against conventional theory and he cleaned up Dilshan with a corker yorker. He came on himself and replaced Malinga with leg spinner Chahal and between them they took 5-29 in seven overs.

Harbhajan celebrates

Meanwhile, the Chargers forgot how to bat ... I mean completely forgot what was needed was seven runs an over and that could be made with five singles and a two. Instead, one after another they tried to smash the cover off the ball and found fieldsmen, not gaps. Frustrated by their inability to score, those shots eventually flew in the air in a dumb display of cricket from players who seem to have forgotten the fundamentals. Mumbai, bowled good lengths and lines and held the generous up and unders on offer.

Harbhajan won the game for his Mumbai Indians with the basic premise that bowlers who can take ten wickets will still win more games than those who can defend a scoreline. It seems that "real" bowlers have a role in this game of premature cricket after all and if the  Bangalore Boys had played their cricket with half as much application to basic principles, the final could have been close.

All of this from a game I hate.

Now, that is irony!