I am really astonished and shocked that Murali whom I rated as the “Most Committed Cricketer in the World” has opted to play for his County rather than representing the Country at the World Cup. It is ridiculous and baffling when County games take preference over the Country’s World Cup ambitions. There is no replacement for a genius like Murali since he is very difficult to score of. He can turn the ball on any track and would be a real asset to 20 20 Team but even he has fallen to the guile of extra money. The SL Board must step in and stop this migration of great players. And the 20 20 World Cup had to be taken more seriously and not as a Novelty Sport. I was even more shocked to read somewhere that England shoulsd send a weak team purposely for the World Cup. Shameful day for Cricket really.

I know as usual most people on this forum would not agree with me since they do not like new ideas and thoughts and do not like modernisation of the game bit i always feel "Playing for your Country in the World Cup" is every cricketers dream but after Murali's decision it maybe isnt.

No one cares about 20/20.

I agree. I wish more top cricketers follow Murali's example until this silly "game" that pretends to be cricket dies a natural death.

With all due respect, the reason why Murali has "migrated" is (probably) partly motivated by the higher wages that he is undoubtedly getting, but also because the domestic game in England is stronger than in Sri Lanka. I doubt Murali would fancy running around at breakneck pace, chasing the ball to all parts off everyone else's bowling either.
Silly it may be, but there is no doubt that the format has introduced many more people into cricket, by means of what they perceive to be an easier to watch version. Even if it is an even-more bastardised version of one-day cricket, there will always be a market for it IMO.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

We probably will send what most people will regard as a weakened team but it will include 20:20 specialists like Darren Maddy and James Benning so it will probably do better than the so called stars.Of all the current players in the England side i would only consider Pietersen and Collingwood for a 20:20 side.

Unfortunately, you might be right although I hope not in the long-run. Your description of 20-20 is very apt and it is really sad to see that the game has to go down to such levels to attract fans.

It is sad and to be honest I'm not that keen on 50over ODI's either but 50 over cricket and 20/20 have a part to play in the future of cricket (unfortunatly). As long as we limit the amount of 20/20 played I see no harm in it and it will get young people intersted in the game.

__________________
Mark.

I think there is one question for Murali.......does he enjoy this version of the game or not? If he does not like playing 20-20, he wont be able to do justice to his team.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Surely there's also no reason why someone who represents his country at test level should also do so at Twenty20 level, is there? Just as Twenty20 is a way in to the game for new fans, it could also be a way in for new players at international level. You're certainly right, DomainK, that if someone doesn't enjoy what he is doing he is unlikely to excel at it, so to me it's absolutely fine if professional cricketers say they prefer not to play this form of the game.

Actually, I wonder just how many of these Twenty20 world cups we will see, but that's another line altogether. If the ICC insists on crowding the calendar with all these international competitions (Fifty50 World Cup, ICCCT, Twenty20 World Cup and the tours programme are already there), I see that as much more of the threat to the game than I do the Indian Cricket League, which is being discussed in this thread.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

I don't know the real reason why Murali is not in the Sri Lankan 20-20 squad, but if it is simply because he does not like that format of the game, that is good enough to opt out. If a player feels that a certain form of cricket could be detrimental to his technique, he then should have the option of opting out. Harmison was never comfortable in the 50-over ODI and always moaned about being 'forced' into it; that is his choice and one should accept it. All that nonsense about "standing by one's country" is grossly OTT; we are talking about sport, not war.