T20 is a Cricket too.

In recent times, from newspapers and message boards, in informal conversations, I had begun to get the feeling that 20-overs cricket was the root of all evil in the game And when I said I liked 20-overs cricket, I got curious responses.

"No, you don't!"

"That's Mickey Mouse cricket".

"You have no editorial Judgement"

I have always wondered why it has to be one or the other. Misbah or Afridi? Aqib or Waseem? Rap or classical? Burger or Bun Kabab? 

I'm sorry but I like both Test cricket and 20-overs cricket. And the ODIs. I realise they demand different skills but I am unwilling to create a hierarchy of skills. Because we have been brought up believing one form is superior, or that the skills it demands are superior, it doesn't necessarily imply that other skills are trivial. We weren't allowed to respect different skills equally. 

I fear we look at Test cricket and 20-overs with similarly prejudiced eyes. We grade them, we create our own class system, because that is what we were conditioned to do. 

How many contemporary cricketers can consistently deposit good balls over the boundary rope? If leaving a ball is a sign of good judgement - and it often truly is - hitting a good ball over long-on should be too.

I can hear people saying: but they didn't have to face any chin music, or deal with the ball seaming on a green top. Yes, batting in those conditions requires great skill, but you don't have to be good at everything. There isn't a hierarchy that goes down from sublime to respectable to crass. Twenty-overs cricket requires slightly different skills and not everyone can be good at it either.

I enjoyed the World Cup, loved seeing the intensity with which Pakistan vs Sri lanka  Test match was palyed and for many reasons have enjoyed watching the Faysal Bank T20. Unlike in a good marriage, you don't have to love only one.