20Twenty Cricket in CG (maybe)

[Scallywag]

How many 20Twenty games have u seen with 1/5th filled stadiums, i haven't seen too many. Why would u want to watch another sport when cricket is on, doesn't sound like ur a true cricket fan

Only one team will be a home team, how long do the CG go for 10-14 days, how many games are you going to play. People watch the CG for sports they dont normally get the coverage for. Look at tennis and see how much players value Olympic medals never mind Commonwealth games.

[Scaly piscine]

Sounds interesting but i can't see it getting off the groung unless the ICC seperate the Windies islands in their 14 different nations of 20Twenty Internationals in general.

I'm not sure how that would help particularly, you'd then have 20+ teams in all probability. It would perhaps spread the game too thinly, but I do think it's important that the teams have their strongest players available especially in India. I'm sure the hosts would get full houses, but I have no idea what sort of crowds turn up for 2 foreign teams playing in India.

[biased indian]

I'm not sure how that would help particularly, you'd then have 20+ teams in all probability. It would perhaps spread the game too thinly, but I do think it's important that the teams have their strongest players available especially in India. I'm sure the hosts would get full houses, but I have no idea what sort of crowds turn up for 2 foreign teams playing in India.

it will be more than what u will get any where else

[chaminda_00]

Only one team will be a home team, how long do the CG go for 10-14 days, how many games are you going to play. People watch the CG for sports they dont normally get the coverage for. Look at tennis and see how much players value Olympic medals never mind Commonwealth games.

Well 3 group matches if their is 16 teams into 4 groups, plus S/F and Final and maybe Q/F, that 5 to 6 games. I don't get ur coverage story the fact the games would go for too long, remember 20Twenty games only go for 2 - 3 hours same as b-ball, football codes and shorter then baseball. If teams send their full strength sides then u will get crowds in India for two non home teams. Also if the top players turn up then the medals will be seen as achievements, that the problem with tennis, most top players don't go.

[Scallywag]

Well 3 group matches if their is 16 teams into 4 groups, plus S/F and Final and maybe Q/F, that 5 to 6 games. I don't get ur coverage story the fact the games would go for too long, remember 20Twenty games only go for 2 - 3 hours same as b-ball, football codes and shorter then baseball. If teams send their full strength sides then u will get crowds in India for two non home teams. Also if the top players turn up then the medals will be seen as achievements, that the problem with tennis, most top players don't go.

Thats 27 matches in total with the home team playing in a maximum of 5 leaving 22 games to be played without the home team being represented.

Hey I could be wrong but I dont think cricket needs this sort of competition when we have people allready complaining that schedules are crammed at the moment.

coverage of two games a day = 5-6 hours of cricket, not going to happen.

[chaminda_00]

Thats 27 matches in total with the home team playing in a maximum of 5 leaving 22 games to be played without the home team being represented.

Hey I could be wrong but I dont think cricket needs this sort of competition when we have people allready complaining that schedules are crammed at the moment.

coverage of two games a day = 5-6 hours of cricket, not going to happen.

You need this type of competition to grow cricket around the world, it would take 2 weeks max, not a big time out of the schedule. Why do u need full coverage of the group matches, do u have full coverage of group matches in the hockey, b-ball and football in the olympics aside from Australia games and even though games aren't always live. IMO the CG is just a stepping stone to the Olympics and i gather that must cricket fans would love to see it in the olympics if the teams send thier full strength sides.

[Scallywag]

You need this type of competition to grow cricket around the world, it would take 2 weeks max, not a big time out of the schedule. Why do u need full coverage of the group matches, do u have full coverage of group matches in the hockey, b-ball and football in the olympics aside from Australia games and even though games aren't always live. IMO the CG is just a stepping stone to the Olympics and i gather that must cricket fans would love to see it in the olympics if the teams send thier full strength sides.

The countries that dont have a cricket team wont show the cricket thus defeating the purpose. 20/20 also does not show what cricket is all about. IMO

[chaminda_00]

The countries that dont have a cricket team wont show the cricket thus defeating the purpose. 20/20 also does not show what cricket is all about. IMO

How many Commenwealth countries of any size (in terms of population) don't have a cricket team. 20Twenty may not show cricket in full fight but it gives a better introduction to it for non cricket followers then 50 Over Cricket or Test Cricket.

[swede]

How many 20Twenty games have u seen with 1/5th filled stadiums, i haven't seen too many. Why would u want to watch another sport when cricket is on, doesn't sound like ur a true cricket fan

But there wouldnt be any cricket.. what on earth has 20/20 got to do with cricket?

I would be embarrassed on behalf of cricket if 20-20 ever reached the olympics and would much prefer to watch some other sports rather than a cheap slog-around version of a great game continually let down so badly by its administrators.

If only we could move beyond this limited crap, it could be fascinating to see how cricket could be developed

[Langeveldt]

I love the way everyone is harking on about how we shoulnt have too much Twenty20, just keep it in moderation.. And then Twenty20 will take over everything, cricket will turn into baseball, and everyone will be saying, god, why did we chose to have so much Twenty20?

[Scaly piscine]

But there wouldnt be any cricket.. what on earth has 20/20 got to do with cricket?

I would be embarrassed on behalf of cricket if 20-20 ever reached the olympics and would much prefer to watch some other sports rather than a cheap slog-around version of a great game continually let down so badly by its administrators.

If only we could move beyond this limited crap, it could be fascinating to see how cricket could be developed

Yawn, yet another misinformed Twenty20 hater.

[swede]

I dont hate 20-20 any more than I hate 50 over games. In fact I would prefer 20-20 as the wait for the slog is shorter.
But to me cricket is simply not a game that can be played properly if there is no need to take wickets.Its not how it was intended and it doesnt work as the constant need to change the rules of limited games shows.


I am not anti-development but why cant the real game be developed?
why couldnt one.innings games, increased over rates etc be considered as experiments.

Of course as cricket is a very long game it will get a boost through a shorter version more in line with other games but if its at the expense of the quality of the game it will inevitably be short-lived as people start to realise how poor sport they are watching.


I would expect 20-20 games to get good crowds for a few years and then go into decline as happened with the sunday-league in england and international odis.
Then what? 10-10

[chaminda_00]

I dont hate 20-20 any more than I hate 50 over games. In fact I would prefer 20-20 as the wait for the slog is shorter.
But to me cricket is simply not a game that can be played properly if there is no need to take wickets.Its not how it was intended and it doesnt work as the constant need to change the rules of limited games shows.


I am not anti-development but why cant the real game be developed?
why couldnt one.innings games, increased over rates etc be considered as experiments.

Of course as cricket is a very long game it will get a boost through a shorter version more in line with other games but if its at the expense of the quality of the game it will inevitably be short-lived as people start to realise how poor sport they are watching.


I would expect 20-20 games to get good crowds for a few years and then go into decline as happened with the sunday-league in england and international odis.
Then what? 10-10

Everyone knows that Test Cricket is real cricket and limted over forms of cricket nessary isn't the real thing. But it is impossible of new teams to be competitive in the longer version of the game. Looking at Bangla and Zimbabwe we don't need any new Test Playing nation, but cricket still needs to grow in some form or another. Just look at sports like Football, Rugby and Basketball and how much they growm since the globalisation of their sports. Cricket needs to grow globally in one form, and it seems the best form is probably 20Twenty.

In ODI smaller countires struggle to keep the intensity of the game going for 100 overs. Just look at some like Ravi Shah from Kenya, he is yet to score a ODI hundred, but has quite a few 50s. But in 20Twenty cricket guys like Shah, Davision, JB Burger and Dan van Bunge could win games for their respective countires.

IMO Test Cricket should be the main focus for the top 8 countries but the teams below should focus on 20Twenty Cricket. The teams from 9 to 16 or whatever should also play List A and FC tournments.