For players like Broad and Bopara, the money is not going to be life-changing, but will still represent a superb return for six weeks of cricket; it will certainly be enough to keep the likes of Cook, Ian Bell and Andrew Strauss jealous, for they will not be getting a piece of the cash cow. It is not that they cannot adapt their game from Test and first-class cricket - all three are capable of scoring at five an over in 50-over cricket - but that they do not have the right midset or ability to improvise when their favourite scoring areas are restricted, as they inevitably will be in Twenty20 by men on the boundary. As a result, it is difficult to see how any of them could score at ten runs per over. There is also a question over Bell's ability to change the game on his own, a prerequisite for batting in the top six in this format. Michael Vaughan has the swivel-pull in front of square for six, but otherwise does not clear the boundary with sufficient regularity, and does not have the ability to find the gaps when hitting along the ground. Phil Mustard and Matt Prior probably don't have the ability to successfully attack the world's best bowlers for periods longer than, say, five minutes. Tim Ambrose is unproven at the top level and his limited-overs record at county level is unimpressive. Other hopefuls for selection for the one-day side, such as Rob Key, Owais Shah end Ed Joyce, can forget about packing their bags for India; despite being in a similar position regarding national selection, they are not nearly as skilful as Shaun Marsh or Luke Pomersbach. Ian Blackwell has the ability to hit big, but one half-century in 34 one-day internationals reminds us that he too is only an Englishman, not an Australian.
No franchise owner is going to risk money on Steve Harmison sending wides to a hypothetical second slip. Matthew Hoggard, for all his guile and ability to find swing, has traditionally struggled with the white ball - and the IPL isn't the right scene for the archetypal down-to-earth, nice and honest cricketer. Sajid Mahmood was offered a contract for 2008, but his case is even more of a mystery than that of Bopara - he has 6 wickets in 12 Twenty20 matches at 55 runs apiece, and was obliterated by the Sri Lankans in 2006 in a manner rarely seen at international level. The case of Monty Panesar is an interesting one; despite being as good as any other finger-spinner in world cricket when at his best, he is unlikely to make the IPL. His much-discussed lack of variation, as well as his batting and fielding, make Panesar more of a liability than an asset in this format. As a result, he didn't even make the England Twenty20 World Cup squad. Instead, Chris Schofield and Jeremy Snape were selected ahead of him - far from towers of genius or effectiveness, they are closer to being anthills of mediocrity. At best, they could probably stretch to a bungalow between them, and the IPL does not want to involve players, such as Panesar, who are outdone by bungalows; they want the oft-quoted "razzmatazz" that is generally found in imperial palaces. He might sneak a contract on commercial rather than cricketing grounds; his enthusiasm needs no selling, and remains a crowd favourite wherever he goes. He is doomed, at best, to being the token turban amongst a crowd of Australian matchwinners.
If Twenty20 does end up being the future of cricket, England needs to start producing a different kind of player if it is to be a real force in the game. (That is, unless IPL franchises are going to start throwing money at every English player of the standard of Sajid Mahmood, in which case there will be a large number of rich cricketers in England's green and pleasant land. ) If that means preparing pitches that pose fewer risks to batsmen so that they have the confidence to play more shots, then so be it. It might even encourage bowlers to learn the arts of accurate fast bowling and wrist spin, both of which are lacking in the English game. (1,806 words)
