I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:
1. Time: Amazing time-saver. There used to be a time i used to sit
through the onedayers but not anymore. Many of the games seem
monotonous to me except for some close games. I would rather prefer
a game which gets over in 3 to 4 hours. I would definitely go to the
stadium to watch it.
2. All-round ability: If there's one game thats going to promote
ability in Cricket, thats going to be 20-20. Because of the quick
of the game, you need players who can think well and produce magic
to dismantle hard-hitting players. Taking wickets will assume more
than simple monotonous run-restriction. Most batsmen should be able to
and most bowlers should be able to hit hard in this format.
Though it will degrade fielding abilities(because of so many
which assumed great importance in the early 90s with the rising
of the oneday game then, it will promote boundary saving abilities
than any other game. We can expect to see great dives to save
boundaries that will become more important. And anyway nowadays
fielding has become less
significant in the onedayers what with absolutely flat dead tracks
being produced unlike the 90s because the batsmen can expect to win
more often even with a reqd. RR of over 7 in the middle of the game.
I don't think it should replace the oneday format, it should be
introduced into a series (as 1 or 2 games in the 5 game oneday
series) in a year or so.