Discussion on Twenty20 as a format of cricket
 

T20 shouldn't even be called cricket, imo. T20 is to cricket what the home run derby is to Baseball. It's an explosive exhibition of a sub-set of skills from the parent game.

Yes, I'm an old fart and things were better in my day... blah... blah...get off my lawn you kids... blah... tied an onion to my belt...

Where do we go now?
 

Agree - T20 is a way of pashing three hours or so, but little to do with ODIs. let alone first class cricket
Mike

Genuine lol @ ppl taking T20s seriously.

Why shouldn't people take T20s seriously?

Like you guys, I will take Test Cricket over T20 any day. But there is more into T20 then I had expected, before the first WC T20 was on.

-First of all, T20 Cricket is better than basketball, football, baseball, hockey or rugby. Don't get me started on swimming, track&field, speed skating, cycling or formula 1.....
-Some departments of cricket are actually better in T20. Some, or possibly many, fielding actions are unseen in Test Cricket. Spectacular boundary catches for instance. Or both successful and unsuccessful run-out opportunities. The pressure on batsmen to keep the scoreboard ticking over, really adds immensely to the number of opportunities fielders get to go for a run-out!
-Unlike my personal expectations of T20 since a couple of years, it has not turned out to be nothing but a dull slugfest. Some bowlers have actually been able to smother runs!
-It provides a more accessible platform for non-Test nations. It's too bad the WC T20 does not have 4 or 6 slots open for the Dutch, the Scotts, the Kenyans and the Namibians. IMHO, that would make more sense than having 4 associate members at the WC ODI......

Yet, I can't wait for the Tests in India and Aus to come soon!

Yeah overall I agree. Tests are clearly the toughest format but I don't think T20 is worthless or a 'lottery', it has definite pluses. I still dislike how weighted it is in favour of batsmen but thats my main issue tbh.

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, spectator-friendliness is a thing I didn't mention. It really is a whole lot easier to watch a T20 match than a Test, isn't it.

Last May, I've visited Lord's for days 1, 2, 3 & 4 for the England - WI Test. I felt so hopelessly bereft when I left the ground at the end of day 4, knowing I had a plane to catch......, watching others buying a ticket for day 5.........

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.

:thumbup:

Used to bag T20s a lot in 2005/06. Happy to say I was wrong and was closed-minded about the game.

Big fan now. Still prefer tests and probably ODIs too, but T20 is definitely not a slogfest. There is plenty to the game.

Scaly has been right about this for years, even if he goes a bit overboard saying people who think T20s are no good need to be shot :ph34r:

Love international T20s but have been put-off from IPL post the first season due to overdose/mediocre quality of play.

Interesting point. I agree, though I've never really been able to explain properly why I prefer Tests above anything else, but pick T20 over ODIs. You mention the dependence on the pitch. Not sure that's it... Tests depend on a pitch as well.

I've always wondered..... Do we need grass pitches for T20? I wouldn't be too surprised if T20 has a future on artificial pitches. To a certain extend I know what I am talking about, as my own club has pitches made of used hockey turf. It does offer swing, turn and bounce!

Just to say it before anyone asks..... No, Tests should never ever be played on turf.......

Well, I mean, let's not go nuts here

Unfortunately, or fortunately if the mood so takes me, I can remember 1969 when limited overs cricket began in earnest with the old 40 over Sunday League - it was pretty awful really, because you had a bunch of gnarled old pros trying to do no more than use their skills from the First Class game in what was a very different format - as the years passed it was realised it was a very different game and it improved out of all recognition as a result.

When T20 started it was just the same in that all the old limited over mentality was brought to bear and once again it was bad, though being that much older I hated it much more than I had the old Sunday League when that started - but again I have to admit it has developed an identity of its own now and is much better for it - I'll never prefer it to Tests either, but at least now I can appreciate it as a spectacle