One of the many repercussions of World Twenty20 is that the sport feels in limbo right now. Test cricket is comforting itself with the thought that no one really wants to get rid of it, even though only England, Australia (sometimes) and India (occasionally) play in front of full houses. One-day international cricket sails blithely on, brushing aside the suspicion that each new series is the equivalent of a Titanic-style deckchair rearrangement. For cricketing fans used to stability and structure, it is just a little uncomfortable. But who has time to stand back and objectivise?
Take yesterday. While England mulled over another one-day defeat to Sri Lanka - their eighth in nine against them, and every bit as demoralising as any part of the 5-0 mauling in 2006 - Australia and India contested the second instalment of their seven-match 50-over series, while Pakistan did battle in a Test match (remember the format?) with South Africa in Karachi.
Yet the overkill has only just begun. Between now and February, South Africa will host New Zealand, who will then travel to Australia before welcoming Bangladesh and England. Australia will host both India and Sri Lanka, who will follow their one-day series against England with three Tests against them. India fit in the small matter of a home series against Pakistan, and West Indies travel to South Africa. Confused? Or just indifferent?
That's a grand total of 51 one-day internationals - or 52 if the best-of-three finals between two of Australia, India and Sri Lanka reach a decider - as well as 21 Tests and all of six Twenty20 internationals. Spread it out, and you could have some international cricket on every day between now and the end of February. Great, eh? Well, no, not really.
In what other climate would a batsman of Mohammad Yousuf's standing decide to step down from a Test match because he didn't feel "match-fit"? Match-fit, in this instance, means he has not played since June: but, hey, the next game is just round the corner, so why worry? In another, less frenetic, age Muttiah Muralitharan might have been risked in the first three one-dayers against England. And Andrew Flintoff might now be a regular on the international scene rather than the increasingly sad bit-part player he has become.
Things will get worse, and that's before extra burdens are placed on some of the world's best players by the money-spinning Twenty20 Champions League in Delhi in a year's time. Malcolm Speed, the chief executive of the ICC who has recently enjoyed the unusual sound of praise ringing in his ears, has sacrificed some of the goodwill by saying that the 50-over cricket will not cede ground to the 20-over game. The reason? "We are committed to the Champions Trophy in 2008 and 2010. We have a problem of fitting Twenty20 into the international calendar."
In other words, one of the greatest hits in the game's history will be held back by a competition - organised, note, by the ICC - that no one cares about. In the meantime, the world's best players - the very reason fans enter grounds - will continue to pick and choose and get injured. Of the many own goals cricket has scored over the years, this might just be the most avoidable.
Extract taken from the Spin, Guardian Unlimited's weekly take on the world of cricket.
