Twenty20 cricket has been a phenomenal success the world over. Yet as a cricket fan I am still a little surprised it has been the success it has. In some ways it explains the world we live in.

Today's society thrives on the instant gratification. When our parents wanted something they saved up for it. The belief was that if you wanted something badly enough it was worth some pain to get it. They saved for a long time and then went out and bought it with the cash that they saved. Having saved so long they then took care of what they had purchased. Compare that to today in our ‘throw away' society. If you see something you like, you buy it. It doesn't really matter whether or not you can afford it because there are countless financial institutions willing to lend you the money to pay for it. You then pay it back at your leisure except sometimes you never really get there because long before you reach that point something else is purchased, a newer super duper version of something you bought not that long ago. In fact if you think about it, iPods, PCs, Game Consoles, DVD players, Mobile Phones etc it doesn't do a lot more than your original. But we have been programmed to believe because of marketing that the newer version is light years better and it's new and shiny and your friends will want one too and they will be so jealous because you have it first and so on and so on. Twenty/20 cricket is new and exciting and the best thing to happen to cricket for years etc. Well, possibly.

Years ago I played Twenty/20 cricket in the North West in the Faughan Valley Cup. Back then we called them 20 over matches. Yes, I know it's not quite as catchy but it was the same cricket. We all wore white clothing. Yes I know it isn't quite as fetching as the coloured strips but it was practical because we could use the same clothes as we did on a Saturday but the cricket was the same. Yes I know we didn't exactly use orange or white balls but we didn't need to because we wore white clothing and red ones did just fine, and we didn't need to put sheets over the sight screen. But the cricket was the same, wasn't it? Was it? And sure, back then players just came out to bat and they didn't have fancy music to walk out to. But the cricket wasn't that different, was it? You see I'm not so sure now. Presentation is everything. But ultimately when you take off the wrapper it is still the cricket that matters and it is what you appreciate. Yet anything that will bring families to enjoy the cricket has to be good for the game.

That's why, despite my disappointment the matches are scheduled on a Sunday, (meaning I can't play because my club won't play) I feel the new format for the NCU competition will be a real success. Twenty/20 cricket is over quickly. Its purpose is to provide boundaries, immediately. Nobody is interested in what bowlers do or what traps they might lay. ‘What do you mean; you want a fielder out there because he's going to hit it in the air? You're not allowed one.' The point is to score as many runs as you can, as quickly as possible. Losing wickets doesn't really matter as the game is so short. Instant gratification.

Years ago teams used to go to 2 maybe 3 replays in the FA Cup but times change. Nobody wants to see the fairest way to decide who the best is, they just want the result. That was why penalty kicks were introduced. Therefore a competition that thrives on big crowds and immediate results needs a format where the teams going through from the group are decided immediately not over three and four weeks. That's why dividing the Twenty/20 competition into 4 groups of 3 teams, where each group is decided at one venue on the same day is a fabulous idea.

I'm sure the organisers have already thought of this but I have a few suggestions of how this could work to squeeze the maximum benefit from it. At any venue there will be a host club and two visitors. The idea is to bring 3 sets of supporters. If the first fixture at each venue is between the 2 visiting teams it ensures the teams with the travelling support are there first. The host team then would play the loser of the first fixture. The third match would be between the host club and the winner of the first fixture. Thus every single match in every group will go to the last game and will include the host. Indeed only if one of the visiting teams loses both of the opening fixtures will they be out of the competition and have no interest in the result as otherwise they could go through on run rate. This format is perfect for the Twenty/20.

The other accusation that has been levelled at the competition is that it is elitist as it has invited only the top 12 teams in the NCU. However in reality this is not the case. The organisers were planning to see if there was an appetite for a Shield competition. Even assuming that there isn't, it still is reasonably straight forward to include all of the Section 1 and Section 2 teams into this format. Instead of inviting the top 12 you would simply seed the 8 surviving teams from Section 1 into the quarterfinals meaning you had 8 of the 12 required for the groups. The 2 relegated teams along with the previous years Section 2 teams would have their own 4 groups of 3 qualifying events to see who gets to mix it with the big boys. I believe this would really appeal to most Section 2 clubs. What could be better in today's society to have a tournament that involves all 20 teams in the top flight of NCU cricket playing 27 matches across 9 venues and it's all over in three days? Instant gratification.