Michael Holding has made perfectly clear his views on Twenty20 cricket, which I mused about recently: "There is nothing good about Twenty20 cricket. People who disagree don't know what they are talking about." Wow! Harsh words coming from Holding! I'm not as opposed to it as Holding is; he seems to be positively disgusted with the whole thing. But I think he makes valid points, even if there is the unfortunate reality that desperate times may be ahead for cricket's viewership unless there is some sort of major change.

New Zealand and Australia are playing their first international Twenty20 match today, and I, unlike Holding, will be sure to watch it, even though my fingers will be crossed. My pre-match prediction: a slog-fest is bound to ensue, which will provide much excitement and entertainment, but an uneasy feeling that it could saturate the public if it becomes a more common affair. Oh, and as for the victor, Australia will probably win comfortably - no Bond or Oram will mean trouble for New Zealand.

Post-mortem: As expected, Australia did win rather comfortably, though the match itself was..interesting. Clarke and Gilchrist both seemed to try to start off the innings hitting every ball to the boundary, which proved to be short-lived as both got out within three overs. Symonds employed a similar tactic, but with a deft touch, showing off some lovely late cuts. The real star was Ponting though - he too started off trying to play awkward pulls and forcing himself to try to smash the ball, but once four quick wickets were down, he treated it much like a normal ODI. A calm innings for the most part, and then right at the end he picked up the pace, claiming a massive 30 runs off Tuffey's final over. I didn't really expect New Zealand would have a chance of scoring more than 10 an over, and Kasprowicz made sure of it with a fine spell. It seemed almost cruel that Fleming and McCullum had managed to survive the initial burst of McGrath and Lee, the best opening bowling pair in ODIs, and then Fleming fell first ball to the (relatively) tame Kasper!

The commentators seemed to be all in favour of the game (though the fact that they're getting paid to commentate probably has a lot to do with that), but I still reserve my final judgement. The game wasn't as much of a "slog-fest" as I thought - it certainly looked like it was going to be that way when Clarke's first delivery saw him step outside leg stump and try to smash it over cover! Indeed, I could hardly accuse Ponting of "slogging" during his innings - even when he started to score freely at the end, he never resorted to anything you wouldn't see him do in a normal ODI. But the game is definitely squarely in the batsman's favour: evident from the fact that even McGrath was picked off at 12 runs an over!

I'm interested to see how many people were introduced to cricket with this game - and, more importantly, how they will follow-up this initial exposure, if at all. Indeed, Twenty20 was created to serve as a sampler, something to whet your appetite before getting into the "real deal", ODIs and tests. But really, it depends on what people find interesting in Twenty20 - if it's lots of hitting and constant excitement, then they might not be liable to follow up their interest and start watching the established forms of the game, which are a lot slower (yet can be so rewarding).

All said and done, I get the feeling we haven't seen the last of this new craze. Allan Border said it was a bit of fun, and I agree...but at what cost?! Heh. You know, talking about Twenty20 like a purist makes me feel so old. It's been a while since the '92 world cup, more than a decade in fact. Yet, in some ways, those times seem far more real than the ones I seem to be living in now. (There's nothing like ending a post in a bitter rejection of the present, is there?)