Considering the success of the IPL and the popularity of the 20-20 format as a whole, it sounds a bit cheeky when people talk about 20-20 being picnic cricket or "not-serious" cricket, and suggest that a cricketer isn't really that good just because he succeeded at this format of the game.

I wasn't a very eager supporter of 20-20 cricket in the beginning, but personal preferences apart, it is important to acknowledge the very purpose of cricket before deciding on the relative importance of any particular format of the game.

Cricket is for the entertainment of the people who come to the grounds and those who religiously follow it through the images on television, internet and the print media. Whether the match be between India / Pakistan, India / Australia or Australia / England, if it entertains the spectators then it is a success else not. Most of the people I know watch cricket because it gives them joy, and helps in getting a temporary release from the routine tensions of life like (un)employment, mortgages and children's education. Temporarily immersing themselves in the happiness of a closely won match or even the feelings involved in their team of choice losing a closely fought match helps in keeping life more relaxed, and life being the way it is, the importance of this cannot be overstated.

Keeping the bigger purpose of cricket's value - entertainment factor - in mind, I would hesitate to brush aside the claims to fame of the likes of Saha, Pathan, Marsh, Tanvir and others who don't have 10,000 test runs or 600 test tickets against their names. They deserve to be feted because they have contributed more than anything else in putting the bums on the seats and smiles on spectator lips. They have bowled hard, batted harder and thrown themselves around so that the people watching the game can go back home feeling that they got their money's worth.

While there are many things I do not like about the Australian cricketers, one thing I specially admire is the way they always point out that keeping the spectators happy is what matters, even when acknowledging a good performance from themselves. I would go so far as to say that it is the only thing that matters.

In India especially, we have a tendency to relate anything and everything to serving the country. Cricket, thus, is one of the ways of serving India. The batsmen serve the country by making their runs, the bowlers do similarly by taking wickets and thus the more runs and wickets, the greater the services rendered to the country. So it is considered necessary to acknowledge the greatness of cricketers like Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Kapil, Gavaskar and Kumble whether talking in the context of 20-20 cricket, 5-day cricket, Formula 1 or the next Shah Rukh Khan blockbuster.

One cannot just say "The young guns have proven themselves adaptable to this new format of the game than the veterans have" but instead the feelings have to be twisted thus "The young guns have shone bright in the 20-20 format but we must keep in mind that serious cricket is on the way in the next series against Australia where the experience of the seniors will decide which way the series goes". "Acknowledge the greats" is the mantra!

Many of the people who talk lightly of 20-20 cricket are inflated windbags who hide behind a generic, indisputable statement like "Test cricket is the true test of a cricketer" to downplay 20-20 cricket because their own favorites didn't really set the field on fire in that format. Simple statement, arguably correct in every sense, and yet it indicates that the likes of Yousuf Pathan, Shikhar Dhawan, Gautam Gambhir and Sean Marsh aren't really that special.

These self-professed judges of the true stature of a cricketer are really trying to protect acknowledged monuments, and it scares them when the nobodies-till-yesterday push themselves into the spotlight. By making such comments, they just want to ensure that these no-name entities are shown their (supposed) rightful place in the game's pecking order.

Test match after test match ending in draws did result in a huge amount of runs being scored but hardly contributed to entertaining people. Teams copying the Australian style of scoring faster and playing aggressive cricket are helping to bring more people back to the test match grounds. 20-20 is like that!

The purists might talk about the value of test matches till they are blue in the face but how many of the cricket fans are purists in the true sense? Since cricket belongs to more than just the "pure cricket" fans, does it really matter if Yuveraj Singh hasn't been so great in test matches? He did tonk Stuart Broad for 6 sixes in an over and what could be more entertaining that that?

Let's not wonder if these 20-20 heroes can make any impact in the test matches or not! If they do, they do else we just wait for them to set the grounds ablaze in the next 20-20 tournament that happens. It will take 18 years to find out if Rohit Sharma can better or even come close to Sachin Tendulkar. Let's enjoy what the lad is doing today in whatever format he is doing well.