ODIs or 20/20 ?

[Run like Inzy]

A cricketing revolution is upon us. As the world sees test cricket at it's finest and the advent of the heart stopping 20/20, the world also sees the demise of the ODI.
The ICC has tried to make change to give the game new life but they are simply to boring as a commercial format. The first 15 overs (or with new regulations 20 overs usually the captain goes for the first 20) and the last 10 overs are the most exciting to watch in One day cricket. So the clever people at the ECB decide to cut the middle out and create 20/20. I think the majority of people even the purists have learnt to love the exciting new format and therefore it is perfect as commercial format to rake in new cricket lovers and gate recipts. Looking at ODI cricket what was it's main purpose? It to was created for the same purpose so naturally now that a better format is in place isn't it time for the demise of ODI cricket? Another argument for this is that with the flooded international calender by abolishing ODI's players will get more time for recovery and generally speaking 20/20 takes less out of them than 50 over games. This will allow for more competitve test series with less injured players. Also think about competitions like the world cup. They would be over quickly and prove more exciting than the disaster that was the 2003 cup (in terms of watching Kenya get so far). 20/20 will encourage the game to develop faster in non test countries and increase its popularity many fold.
Anyway these are my views what do you think and why?

[FaaipDeOiad]

I have only seen three 20/20 games myself, so perhaps not enough to pass judgement completely, but frankly I find it extremely unappealing as a format, and haven't really enjoyed them at all. Even Ponting's spectacular innings against New Zealand didn't do much for me, as I just wished the game was a bit bloody longer so I could finish watching him bat.

It's too short, too gimmicky, bowling and wicket-taking are virtually irrelevant and the scope of tactics is far too narrow for it to be truly entertaining, as the only thing of significance for a bowling side is minimising the run rate, and the only thing of significance for a batting side is to play a shot every ball and hit boundaries whenever possible. I will give it another run next time there's a 20/20 game on television, but from what I've seen so far I'm certainly not a fan.

A 50 over ODI, despite the boring middle section, at least has a range of things that can actually happen, and things such as the conditions, the quality of the bowling, the loss of wickets and so on have a significant impact on the game. On top of that, I find the way 20/20 is presented to the crowd with the annoying music and the counting timer for the over rate and everything extremely irritating.

[Blaze]

I hate it. I am all for trying to attract new people to our great game but why sacrifice the standard of cricket?

[Run like Inzy]

I guess the gimmicks can get annoying but it is a commercial format and so was 50 over cricket when it came and every one thought that was to short but more than 1000 ODIs later the format is still the most widely played in cricket. I guess you haven't seen the english county format which has been run for 3 years. 2 years ago I was scpetical of the format. But after watching the the 3 seasons the excitement of the matches gets you. It's all action. You will probably learn to like it the more you see it but I know what you mean.

[Blaze]

Originally Posted by Run like Inzy

I guess the gimmicks can get annoying but it is a commercial format and so was 50 over cricket when it came and every one thought that was to short but more than 1000 ODIs later the format is still the most widely played in cricket. I guess you haven't seen the english county format which has been run for 3 years. 2 years ago I was scpetical of the format. But after watching the the 3 seasons the excitement of the matches gets you. It's all action. You will probably learn to like it the more you see it but I know what you mean.

I doubt I will. We had cricket max here for about 5 years which was similar and it never really took off.

[Run like Inzy]

Originally Posted by Blaze

I hate it. I am all for trying to attract new people to our great game but why sacrifice the standard of cricket?

Sacrificing the standard of cricket ? What standard is left in ODI's ? They have become dull and boring. It has become tedious to sit through a whole game. Don't you think 20/20 will improve test cricket. We are already seeing better fielding, more boudaries etc. in test cricket. Take the example of England v Australia. England a team more exposed to 20/20 and with 100 run win over the Aussies in the 20/20 game at the start of the season showed that it meant something. The aussies have been suprised by the improvement made by England. Part of this can be credited to the 20/20 cup which has been played over 3 seasons. Also support for this has also created more interest in test cricket. Englands support was visibly uplifting for the team in the last to tests. More followers = More people enjoying the sport = More people playing the sport
And the more people play the better standards will get.

[Run like Inzy]

Originally Posted by Blaze

I doubt I will. We had cricket max here for about 5 years which was similar and it never really took off.

What was cricket max the 15 over format? I don't know much about it could you tell me?

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Run like Inzy

Sacrificing the standard of cricket ? What standard is left in ODI's ? They have become dull and boring. It has become tedious to sit through a whole game. Don't you think 20/20 will improve test cricket. We are already seeing better fielding, more boudaries etc. in test cricket. Take the example of England v Australia. England a team more exposed to 20/20 and with 100 run win over the Aussies in the 20/20 game at the start of the season showed that it meant something. The aussies have been suprised by the improvement made by England. Part of this can be credited to the 20/20 cup which has been played over 3 seasons. Also support for this has also created more interest in test cricket. Englands support was visibly uplifting for the team in the last to tests. More followers = More people enjoying the sport = More people playing the sport
And the more people play the better standards will get.

yes, because Strauss, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones are such superstars in the 20/20 format, isnt it ?

[Run like Inzy]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

yes, because Strauss, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones are such superstars in the 20/20 format, isnt it ?

Thats probably cause they play to many meaningless ODI's against countries like Bangladesh and cannot play much for there counties in any format.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Run like Inzy

Thats probably cause they play to many meaningless ODI's against countries like Bangladesh and cannot play much for there counties in any format.

which puts paid to the assumption that 20/20 had anything to do with their revival in Test Cricket.

[Run like Inzy]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

which puts paid to the assumption that 20/20 had anything to do with their revival in Test Cricket.

Yeah it did cause some of the players do play 20/20 (although I agree not much). Also from a crowd point of view 20/20 generated a lot of support for the team which helped England against the Aussies.

[AndrewM]

It Americanizes and cheapens the game in my humble opinion.

If one-dayers are lolly cricket, then Twenty-20 is the plastic wrapping that you throw in the bin.

For me, Twenty-20 is tedious and only for a certain demographic. There is no sense of built up pressure, because the fielders are prepared for the big shots.

Bowlers can't work to plans, because they have no time.

It is the closest thing to baseball. Frankly i'm not amused.

[Run like Inzy]

These are similar to the views held by people when ODI's came. They just weren't accepted but soon they were part of mainstream cricket. Don't any of you enjoy watching it at all and how many games have you seen ?

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Run like Inzy

These are similar to the views held by people when ODI's came. They just weren't accepted but soon they were part of mainstream cricket. Don't any of you enjoy watching it at all and how many games have you seen ?

yeah, but the difference is that ODIs actually let bowlers work out batsmen, bowl with a plan. Plus while the middle overs might not be slam-bang, even milking the bowling is an art. 20/20 is too one dimensional.

[Jamee999]

It's a great format.

It's got the batting, erm and the bowling. Yeah.

AND LEICESTERSHIRE WON IT ONCE