Holding slams Twenty20 'rubbish'

[Greg Blewett]

I really don't mind the whole 20/20 game but I hope it doesn't become a regular International fixture. Cricket isn't about trying to hit a six off every ball, 20/20 just seems to kill a lot of the more traditional aspects of the game that I and many others enjoy. Why don't they just have a 'six derby' like the annual American Baseball home run derby? If people are so six hungry maybe that will make them happy.

Keeping the game at domestic level is fine with me though.

 

[mavric41]

I really don't see what new stuff the 20/20 game brings to cricket. There is just too much opportunity for one sided matches. At least with 50 overs there is time to make a recovery. The games I've seen have been largely unsatisfying. Watching a six at the moment is an exciting event because it doesn't happen that often. Seeing them every over takes the gloss off it. (Eating one piece of chocolate is nice - eating the whole block makes you sick)

I would have thought a better way to have a 20/20 match would be to split the match into 4 innings of 10 overs each. Bowlers still only bowl a max of 4 overs for the match - but it is up to the captain to say when. Batsmen could have two innings each. This way you could pick specialist bowlers without worring about them having to bat. Batsmen can redeem a first innings failure. Teams beaten on the first innings can chase a win in the second. I think matches would be closer, more tactical and specialists can show off their wares.

What do others think? (Should I start a new thread for this idea?)

 

[Scaly piscine]

I really don't see what new stuff the 20/20 game brings to cricket. There is just too much opportunity for one sided matches. At least with 50 overs there is time to make a recovery. The games I've seen have been largely unsatisfying. Watching a six at the moment is an exciting event because it doesn't happen that often. Seeing them every over takes the gloss off it. (Eating one piece of chocolate is nice - eating the whole block makes you sick)

I would have thought a better way to have a 20/20 match would be to split the match into 4 innings of 10 overs each. Bowlers still only bowl a max of 4 overs for the match - but it is up to the captain to say when. Batsmen could have two innings each. This way you could pick specialist bowlers without worring about them having to bat. Batsmen can redeem a first innings failure. Teams beaten on the first innings can chase a win in the second. I think matches would be closer, more tactical and specialists can show off their wares.

What do others think? (Should I start a new thread for this idea?)

20/20 brings full houses to watch it - so it brings plenty to the game of cricket. Whether the cricket purists, me, you or other individuals like it is irrelevant because so many other people go to watch it and that's what keeps sport going. To say there is too much opportunity to one sided matches is miles out, matches are far more competitive overall.

As for your format it's very similar to what has been tried and disappeared already.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

With due respect, West Indies no longer deserve a 5 Test Series against Australia unless all other teams get one.

The principle of the matter is that the 20Twenty schedule pushed 2 Tests out the window. Keep focussed on the point.

 

[J.Coney]

i understand soccer has been watching 20/twenty and are considering moving the mid feild section of a soccer pitch, reducing the time and distance and even the setting up involved in scoring a goal, they envision much larger scores maybe 10 - 8 or something like that.

 

[mavric41]

As for your format it's very similar to what has been tried and disappeared already.

Could you tell me where? (I'm not having a go, I just don't know where)

 

[Scaly piscine]

Could you tell me where? (I'm not having a go, I just don't know where)

Cricket MAX was 2 innings of 10 overs each, the only difference was the gimmicks in it were different. In MAX you'd get double runs for hitting the ball in a specific zone.