• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Twenty20 or Cricket Max?

Which form is better to you?

  • Cricket Max

    Votes: 8 28.6%
  • Twenty20

    Votes: 16 57.1%
  • breed of Max and 20/20

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Total voters
    28

LA ICE-E

State Captain
two short forms of cricket and ones already defunct but which idea is better?
Cricket Max
* Each side bats two innings of a maximum of 10 overs each.
* Batsmen may not be out from a no ball as usual, and also the next ball bowled after a no ball. This is intended to encourage aggressive batting on the "free hit" ball.
* Wides score 2 extras instead of 1.
* Bowlers may not bowl more than 4 overs per match. These may be distributed between the two innings in any way.
* The field is marked with trapezoidal "Max" zones, one at each end of the field, beginning 60 metres from the striker's wicket, where the trapezoid is 40 metres wide, and extending to the boundary, where the trapezoid is 50 metres wide. Any ball hit into the Max zone doubles the number of runs scored from that ball, whether by running between the wickets, or a boundary four or six. Fielders may not be in the Max zone as the ball is bowled. Only the Max zone in front of the striker is valid for all these rules.


Twenty20
* 20 over ininngs per team.
* Should a bowler deliver a no ball by overstepping the popping crease, it costs 2 runs and his next delivery is designated a free-hit, from which the batsman can only be dismissed through a run out, as is the case for the original "no ball".

* Bowlers may bowl a maximum of only 4 overs per innings.

* Umpires may award 5-run penalty runs at their discretion if they believe either team is wasting time.

* If the fielding team do not start to bowl their 20th over within 75 minutes, the batting side is credited an extra 6 runs for every whole over bowled after the 75 minute mark, the umpire may add more time to this, if at his discretion the fielding team is wasting time.

* The following fielding restrictions apply:
o No more than 5 fielders can be on the leg side at any time.
o During the first 6 overs, a maximum of 2 fielders can be outside the fielding circle.
o After the first 6 overs, a maximum of 5 fielders can be outside the fielding circle.

* If the match ends with the scores tied and there must be a winner, the tie is broken with a bowl-out (similar to a penalty shootout in football), with 5 bowlers from each side delivering 2 balls each at an unguarded wicket. If the number of wickets is equal after the first 10 balls per side, the bowling continues and is decided by sudden death.


or better yet another mix?

*two 10 over inning per team
* 2 runs + free hit rule for no balls and wides
*4 maxium overs for bowler
* tie = bowl-out
*time relating rules from 20/20

which ones better? a 2 inning short form or a 1 innings short form?
(dont really want another form but just curious)
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
I think Martin Crowe came up with some good ideas with Cricket Max, but the overall package of Twenty20 is much better I believe.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
Nnanden said:
yea ok i get your traditional fan but you need to get new people interests so if you had to choose which one would be better? mind you that when odi was 1st being played a lot opinions like these were made
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
And I`m still not a huge fan of ODIs. In fact, Bracken`s bowling is probably the only thing keeping me interested in them. :p

I haven`t seen enough of Cricket Max to judge to be honest.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
Nnanden said:
And I`m still not a huge fan of ODIs. In fact, Bracken`s bowling is probably the only thing keeping me interested in them. :p

I haven`t seen enough of Cricket Max to judge to be honest.
and youare not going to becuase its defunct....only time i saw it was when india were touring new zealand....i didn know what it was just thought it was a charity game or something being played in a rugby field
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If I had to pick one it would be cricket max as it encourages hitting straight which can then be used in ODI's and Tests.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Leaving aside some of the more arguable content (some of which I thought was pretty silly) of Martin Crowe's Cowdrey lecture this year, I really thought he was onto something when discussing having teams fight out two innings each in limited overs cricket. It seems that Cricket Max has had it's day, but while I enjoy Twenty20 as a novelty, I think I'd lose interest with the more matches I saw, unless they could somehow do something to give the bowlers something to play for outside of being cannon fodder.

I'd like to see a two innings alternative or incorporation into Twenty20, along with some possible rule changes that turn the skew back a little in the bowlers' favor.

I also wouldn't mind 50 over cricket having a two innings each structure - Crowe also hung this possibility out there in his speech in terms of remedying the predictable period between the 15th and 35th overs. I don't think the powerplays have helped greatly, and while I don't know for sure whether it would be a dramatic improvement, I'd certainly like to see it experimented with, preferably at international level.
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
If I recall, initially Crowe trialled 4 stumps instead of 3..but then I think they went back to 3 but spaced them out more than the norm in test and ODI cricket.

Crowe was certainly trying to allow Supermax to offer something for both Batsmen and Bowlers.
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
They're essentially the same thing - the main differences are that Max had two innings per side and the Max Zone.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Perm said:
If I had to pick one it would be cricket max as it encourages hitting straight which can then be used in ODI's and Tests.
Eh..you can play bad shots hitting straight. Not all balls should be hit straight. And there is no option for 'Abolish every game thats not Test cricket.'
 

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
silentstriker said:
Eh..you can play bad shots hitting straight. Not all balls should be hit straight.
Absolutely right. The "one hand, one bounce" rule gets me all the time.

Bloody bowlers :@
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
but cricket max was offering something different that odi and test ......20/20 is like almost the same as odi if 20/20 should stay what changes should be made to make it different from both test and odi but still being cricket(ex:max zone is not cricket)
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't get this fascination with trying to incorporate 2 innings per team into a limited overs one day game. It's unworkable and overcomplicated. Anything reasonable would have to be played over 2+ days which defeats the purpose somewhat.

As for the rules for Twenty20 ties it varies. For some knockout stages it'll be a bowlout, for league structures and series it's usually just kept as a tie. Sometimes the game is awarded according to something like whoever scored the most runs in the first 6 overs.
 

Top