Discussion on Twenty20 as a format of cricket

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

I don't think I'll ever take T20 seriously but that's largely because it doesn't itself seriously. Cheerleaders, fireworks, pop music etc.

I can still get invested in it as a game. Of course it's not as complex or intriguing as Tests, but then you have to remember that we're all really weird for liking Test cricket, which is about as spectator-unfriendly as mainstream sport gets. T20 is a form of the game that's closer to the norm, but it's still a lot more complex than say, tennis, or darts, or games of WordFeud (at least one of which I tend to get extremely worked up about).

Yeah agree with all of this.

I definitely think T20s in practice tend to work better than ODIs as a contest. ODIs seem awfully contrived to me, the powerplay rules get stranger and stranger every year. The result is pretty volatile in T20s, which makes it hard to read anything into who wins. But no more so than in, say, football. It's not necessarily a bad thing for a game if the underdog generally has a decent shot at coming through.

[atisha_ro]

You would have never seen 6 hours of cricket in a day on Eurosport if T20 never came around.

It surely brought way more awareness about cricket in Europe than any given Test series or the greatest ODIs ever.

Sure, this doesn't mean people are running to buy bats or balls. But at least they know about the game and... God forbid... might begin to like it.

[nightprowler10]

Yeah as just about everyone else, I've started taking T20 a bit more seriously. Makes our '09 victory seem legit now.

IPL still root of all evil of course.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

I don't think I'll ever take T20 seriously but that's largely because it doesn't itself seriously. Cheerleaders, fireworks, pop music etc.

I can still get invested in it as a game. Of course it's not as complex or intriguing as Tests, but then you have to remember that we're all really weird for liking Test cricket, which is about as spectator-unfriendly as mainstream sport gets. T20 is a form of the game that's closer to the norm, but it's still a lot more complex than say, tennis, or darts, or games of WordFeud (at least one of which I tend to get extremely worked up about).

What do you mean by "don't take seriously"? Do you mean don't take the results to heart, i.e. if your team loses you're at worst mildly disappointed, and at best, couldn't care less? But during the game you will still follow it closely, i.e. "are invested".

Not saying your point doesn't make sense, just trying to figure out how you define not taking something seriously but still being invested in it. Because this probably used to be my way of thinking til about 2007 where I cared about T20 international results moreso than previously - but mainly only at the World T20s. I wasn't too fussed when India got walloped by Aust in Sydney earlier this year in a T20, nor did I rejoice too much when India beat Aust a few days later at the MCG.

[Ruckus]

I'm all for T20, mainly because I think it's yet to reach it's potential as a game and it's also very good draw-card for cricket in general. ODIs need to get the kick though, they don't offer anything different enough that can't be provided by tests or T20. Also, I think T20 will be perceived as a much more 'proper' form of the game as it develops in time. I still get the feeling when watching T20 that a large proportion of the players haven't really worked out an optimal way to play the game - there is still so much indecision and randomness. Obviously that is, to some extent, the nature of the game, but I also think it's down to the fact it's still very much a work in progress. Once it develops more, I think more and more players will start to work out what works and what doesn't, and it will really start to come into it's own as a form of the game.

[Jono]

How can T20 not be cricket when Mahela Jayawardene is so good at it? Surely that is the benchmark? The criteria should be, if Mahela Jayawardene is good at this form of cricket, we should take it seriously.

If someone told you in 2006 that Mahela Jayawardene would be one of the best T20 openers at domestic and international level you'd have kicked that guy in the balls. Everyone thought it was going to be dominated by Afridi, Gibbs, Sehwag, Dhoni etc. but Mahela, Watson and other batsmen have showed that quality batsmen succeed at the format too.

[morgieb]

Still struggle to take it seriously, however I respect the format and feels that it can bring a lot of new fans into the game (has it though?)

[Agent Nationaux]

I do certainly enjoy T20 and get behind Pakistan just as passionately as I would for Tests and ODI's but of course it's not as important.

The only live cricket I have seen is a T20 which was very enjoyable and the atmosphere was great.

[morgieb]

Yeah, I think I was at the first T20 (although it was only a mash-up of NSW players) in Australia.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

The only live cricket I have seen is a T20 which was very enjoyable and the atmosphere was great.

[Senile Sentry]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Absolutely. That's one of the key aspects with T20. You have to push the margins, that brings run-outs and outfielding right into the equation. Field quickly and you'll save the odd run here or there - which will often be crucial in such a short format. Likewise bowlers always have a chance because batsmen are pushing themselves to score quickly.

I don't think anyone should look to compare T20 and Test cricket. Give me T20 over an ODI any day. ODIs are so dependent on a pitch to produce a proper cricket game. ODIs where the bowlers are heavily reduced to a support act aren't good games of cricket, it happens in most ODIs - particularly the World Cup in India. Worse still are the pitches that are not only flat but the sort where the ball doesn't come on, so a mickey mouse bowler at 70-75mph is more effective than a good bowler at 90mph.

Ultimately T20 (and ODIs) means Test cricket can be afforded. People who are new to cricket don't usually skip straight to Tests, they're usually drawn in by shorter formats and then as they get deeper into the game they learn to appreciate Test cricket.

See that you still haven't stopped crying after the WC 2011 eng suffered.

[Spooony]

Test cricket any day. All the talent of a players is display in crickets true form. ODI is better than T20 as well. Pitch up the best ODI's ever vs the best T20 games ever and ODI will cream it and that stake

[Hurricane]

I think this world cup did a lot for me to change my opinion. The format of the cup was excellent. Two games a day during the Super 8 stage. Kept the whole thing moving along quickly.

[Spikey]

i think this was the first T20 WC many of us actually looked forward to

[Spooony]

The format is crap. Very unselfish and not good for the minnows especially cricket development in those countries. Minnows have lest chance to cause a upset in T20 because its harder for them to get quality bowlers than good enough batsman.