The remarkable rise of the T20 format has caused a frenzy since the first international game between Australia and New Zealand in 2005. It was truly inconceivable five years ago that an off-spinner who could more accurately be described as a slow bowler would be opening the bowling in a limited overs match. But T20 is here and as the recent expansion of the IPL to 10 franchises indicates, it's here to stay. Personally, the most intriguing consequence of T20 cricket has been the invention of a new shot, or the way I like to think about it, the conquering of a new scoring zone.
As far as I know, the shot was first attempted (and successfully so) by Sri Lankan limited-overs opener Tillakaratne Dilshan in the IPL of 2009, and the moment that ball went up and over the keeper's head for four runs, the final piece of the scoring jigsaw was complete.
If you think about a scoring map, it is easy to imagine the shot that yielded the runs. For example, anything to point was probably a square drive or cut, anything to square leg probably a pull, and anything down the ground almost certainly a straight drive. But there was an area that you could only really guess how the runs were scored. The batsman's no man's land- directly behind the keeper. Prior to 'The Dilshan Scoop', if a batsman scored runs in this area one could only assume it was an edge of some sort; that is, the 'shot' and consequential runs were unintentional.
Dilshan has now made that zone his own; or at least only has to share it with a select few players in the world (Brendan McCullum and Kieron Pollard come to mind).
Just yesterday I was discussing the evolution of shots with a friend. He believes this is just the beginning of the development of new, exciting shots, the invention of which will be not only facilitated but also demanded by the newest, shortest format.
I must say, he definitely has an argument. In the five short years of T20 cricket not only has Dilshan has blown our mind with his artisan-like innovation, but we have seen reverse sweeps being played far more regularly, even appearing the odd time in test matches.
Now, we come to the point of my article. I could be swallowing my words in a matter of weeks with the T20 world cup in the Caribbean beginning shortly, but I do not believe we will see such radical innovation as Dilshan's any time soon as far as playing shots goes.
Why? For one reason- there is no need.
Dilshan's ludicrous disregard for his teeth was born out of an inability to play a certain delivery, and to score in a certain area. In the past five years bowler's have had to master the yorker. It is- or should I say- was, the only ball that, if executed perfectly (and not accounting for a lucky edge) was certain not to be blasted to the boundary in the dying stages of a limited overs' innings. Now, not even the sacred yorker is safe. Players like Dilshan, McCullum and Pollard are now able to intentionally hit a boundary off what use to be considered the 'perfectly pitched' ball. They can simply take a step or two down the track so to get leverage underneath the ball and use their willow as a ramp to the boundary.
The moment Dilshan executed his shot, the bowler's final sanctuary was lost, and what was the batsman's no man's land was conquered. So then, the question I would ask to anyone who, like my friend, believes new shots will continue to be invented is this:
Why would a batsman invent a shot when he, assuming he is reasonably accomplished, can already hit any ball to the boundary?
To summarize, Dilshan's invention was born out of need, out of a desperate urgency to over-come bowlers like Gul and Malinga who their captain's could rely on to restrict the last over of an innings to a miserly 6 runs. With the vanquishing of that need, I do not believe the evolution of shots will continue, however unfortunate that may be for fans.
