Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
The real reason I don't like 20/20 is just that I find it kind of boring, more or less for the reason Jono offered in this thread, but in terms of the impact it's likely to have, I think ODI cricket has a much healthier balance between the different skills of the game. Obviously just limiting the number of overs played has an impact on tactics, but I think 50 overs is a better balance than 20, where you can have aggressive bowling and fielding and players who can play long innings (like a Michael Bevan type) succeed, but the tougher requirements in terms of fielding and the pressures on the scoring rate still exist.
There is a place for limited overs cricket, obviously, but everyone would agree that a game of 2 overs would be stupid, so there has to be a limit. Much more than 50 overs wouldn't be different enough from test cricket to warrant being a different format, but 20 for me places far too much emphasis on big hitting and run rates and suffers in terms of what cricket is truly about, which is the contest between bat and ball, with bowlers trying to take wickets and batsmen trying to make runs.
Encapsulates perfectly what I was thinking. If you're going to have limited overs, then think about how many overs you limit the game to, in order to avoid making boundaries monotonous to the point of being meaningless and in order to avoid producing games that have absolutely no ebb and flow; games that have no character.