Chris Adams made a throwaway comment whilst watching the carnage of our batting in the first Twenty20 game last week.

He said: "Just think, in five years time this will be the only cricket we'll be playing." I chuckled but deep down I thought he had a point.

If the crowds have been anything to go by, then the Twenty20 competition has been a huge success.

Nine thousand people watched us at The Rose Bowl. It pleased the players to play in front of so many people and get a glimpse of the kind of atmosphere usually reserved for international matches.

It would have pleased Hampshire too, as they received possibly record gate receipts.

It also must have pleased the smooth ECB PR machine that had been working overtime since the start of the year trying to promote the exciting new format.

But what of the most important people of all? The spectators. Were they truly entertained? There were certainly more children than are usually present at a cricket match. They seemed to have smiles on their faces, even if some of them were more interested in the bouncy castle than the cover drives.

There were definitely more women around too. The lack of young female spectators is often regretfully pointed out by some members of the team, but at the two games we have played so far there was no shortage of talent both on and off the pitch (allegedly).

I have been monitoring people's responses to the Twenty20 format closely and am happy to note that the vast majority of them have been entirely positive.

Some have said that this is exactly what cricket needs (a kick up the backside to make it more spectator-friendly) and they knew they were going to like it. Others have said they hadn't expected to approve but had to admit it was rather enjoyable.

The kids seem to enjoy the peripheral entertainments and the women seem to enjoy the fact they can watch the whole game before they get bored. Only one person has so far told me it is ridiculous and he refuses to watch it.

From a players point of view it is popular, this despite losing our first two games. Having to bowl our 20 overs in less than an hour and a quarter means it is pretty hectic, with bowlers often having to jog back to their mark and fielders constantly running to get into the correct position at the start of each over.

But it is good to know that you will only be on the park for a fraction of the normal time and you can therefore concentrate your energies on the game that much more. With the bat in hand, it is equally hectic, with very little time to think between each ball about where you are going to try and hit the next one.

On the whole, I think the batsmen are enjoying the format more than the bowlers, for obvious reasons, but if the bowlers puts the ball in the right place then he can be as economical as always.

Witness, also, the success our two spinners, Mark Davis and Mushtaq Ahmed, have had. Everyone assumed it would be the slow bowlers whose bowling analyses would suffer the most. In taking the pace off the ball, it can be harder to hit and these two have done that brilliantly.

Perhaps it is too early to judge the success of Twenty20 cricket. Certainly, I expect the crowd levels to be maintained for the remaining games this summer as the novelty and fun remains intact. The proof of the pudding, though, will be whether people (and in particular women and children) are still eating it next year.

Thursday June 19