*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[Richard]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

I find it hilarious and quite ironic that the biggest opponents of the Twenty20 game tend to be the ODI fans, considering the same exact criticism that they are shelling out applies also to their own format.

Face it, Twenty20 = ODI without the boredom.

If you want to watch skill, watch Tests. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the hit contest. The difference between the two hit contests are that one is over faster, has bigger and faster scores, and doesn't have the annoying middle period.

Some people actually like to appreciate the skills that are utilised in ODIs.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

I find it hilarious and quite ironic that the biggest opponents of the Twenty20 game tend to be the ODI fans, considering the same exact criticism that they are shelling out applies also to their own format.


Face it, Twenty20 = ODI without the boredom.

I don't see what's hilarious or ironic about it. The difference is, for example, that you find the middle overs in ODIs boring, I don't. All it is, is a difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Otherwise, sit back and enjoy the hit contest. The difference between the two hit contests are that one is over faster, has bigger and faster scores.

That's where the difference lies for me. ODIs aren't just a "hit contest". I find the endless swinging and big hits of Twenty20 dull. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes, and big hitting for mine loses it's impact when it's happening three or four times an over for the entire game.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Richard

Some people actually like to appreciate the skills that are utilised in ODIs.

Which skills are utilized in ODI that are not done so in Twenty20?

[Jamee999]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Hands down, that has to be the most patronising thing you've ever written.

And well done to you for noticing it!

[Richard]

JR Grey is the latest member, then...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Which skills are utilized in ODI that are not done so in Twenty20?

The ability to play according to the situation - given that the situation can change multiple times in a 50-over (and, better still, a 60-over) game. In a Twenty20, it can change about once - you're playing the big shots, you're in the game; you've lost too many wickets, you can't slog, you're out of it.

ODIs embrace all sorts of styles, paces, genres of batting (and bowling); Twenty20 doesn't.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

If you really do think that's "cool", I wonder why you bother to post, tbh.


First of all, Australians and New Zealanders are probably the largest group of members on CW, so it's hardly surprising if most of the "haters" - as you so poorly put it - are from that part of the world.

Secondly, I don't know where the hell you get off claiming that any of our opinions on Twenty20 are irrational. Most of us have given perfectly sound, extensively explained reasoning for our opinions, and your claims of irrationality most likely simply stem from the fact that we disagree with you. Coupled with your assertions that people who happen to agree with us are of below average intelligence and comparable to small children, I suggest it's you that is irrational.

Thirdly, our little society is a purely tongue-in-cheek thing - there is no conspiracy to agree with each other. It's you that is taking it too seriously. Get over it.

You missed the point that virtually every English member accepts or likes Twenty20, there seems a significant correlation between acceptance of Twenty20 and how early it was adopted domestically. I've yet to see any extensively explained reasoning for the vast number of CW members hating Twenty20 but liking OD stuff. I could understand people saying it's just not their thing or they don't like any limited over stuff, but people are trying to come up with all sorts of excuses why they can't stand Twenty20 but like ODIs.

Hope you haven't been too overwhelmed by the irony in your last comment...

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't know what you were reading, then, frankly.

Maybe not many on here might've said such a thing, but there were many saying it and still more quietly implying it. And given that we immidiately lost in Pakistan and drew at home to Sri Lanka, both terrible results, there was precisely no case whatsoever for suggesting so.

Obviously there was no case, and no-one who I consider to know a thing about cricket suggested we were the best in the world - certainly no-one on here. However, to be fair, after the Ashes, given we'd won our last 7 series or something, we were definitely 2nd.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Richard

The ability to play according to the situation - given that the situation can change multiple times in a 50-over (and, better still, a 60-over) game.

Well, you're pretty much saying - 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. ODI's are not long enough to have a true exhibition of defensive batting or smart bowling (long spells , setting batsmen up, etc).

Originally Posted by Richard

ODIs embrace all sorts of styles, paces, genres of batting (and bowling); Twenty20 doesn't.

No, it does not. You'll rarely see a great primarily defensive innings in ODI's and when you do, it will likely be criticized rather than appreciated. And even more rarely will you see fast bowling with six slips in an all out attack.

It is too long to be pure hitting all the way through, and too short for the real skills to shine through...

Look, I have no right to tell you what you should enjoy or not, and I personally only really enjoy Tests, but ODI as embracing 'all sorts of styles' kind of gets to me.

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

I've yet to see any extensively explained reasoning for the vast number of CW members hating Twenty20 but liking OD stuff.

I suggest you start paying attention. I've seen at least 50 valid arguments in favor of the ODI > Twenty20 camp. The majority of them made sense.

Now, I haven't seen too many meaningful arguments from you. It's always about the haters being irrational or the haters not being English. That's not good enough.

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Well, you're pretty much saying - 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. ODI's are not long enough to have a true exhibition of defensive batting or smart bowling (long spells , setting batsmen up, etc).

WTF? I hope that's not your argument. He's saying 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. Otherwise, you watch ODIs because they are the next best thing.
You don't go from best to worst if there's an option in the middle.

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by adharcric

WTF? I hope that's not your argument. He's saying 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. Otherwise, you watch ODIs because they are the next best thing.
You don't go from best to worst if there's an option in the middle.

He's just explained why in the 2nd part of that post

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

No, it does not. You'll rarely see a great primarily defensive innings in ODI's and when you do, it will likely be criticized rather than appreciated. And even more rarely will you see fast bowling with six slips in an all out attack.

Obviously, it doesn't do that to the extent of test cricket. You still get to see both aggressive and defensive batting, just as in tests. The balance is merely shifted.
In that format, there is no balance.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

You missed the point that virtually every English member accepts or likes Twenty20, there seems a significant correlation between acceptance of Twenty20 and how early it was adopted domestically.

It could also be idiotic nationalist sentiment that argues, "we invented it therefore it must be brilliant". There's no correlation at all. Both NZ and Australia had a domestic Twenty20 setup before internationals came along. Besides, I for one was quite interested in the idea, until I actually saw a few games.

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

I've yet to see any extensively explained reasoning for the vast number of CW members hating Twenty20 but liking OD stuff. I could understand people saying it's just not their thing or they don't like any limited over stuff, but people are trying to come up with all sorts of excuses why they can't stand Twenty20 but like ODIs.

So basically if someone doesn't like Twenty20, their reasoning is just "excuses". Excuses for what? To prove a point to you? Logically, why would anyone go to such lengths to placate you? You haven't seen any reasoning because you refuse to accept that anyone who disagrees with you could possibly be reasonable.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by adharcric

I suggest you start paying attention. I've seen at least 50 valid arguments in favor of the ODI > Twenty20 camp. The majority of them made sense.

Now, I haven't seen too many meaningful arguments from you. It's always about the haters being irrational or the haters not being English. That's not good enough.

Not really relevant because this is about the I like ODIs but I can't stand Twenty20 camp. I don't need to have an argument, I'm not the one trying to justify a counter-intuitive opinion. It is up to people to explain why something that goes again all common sense is reasonable and not just down to pre-conceived ideas and bias, which as far as I can see hasn't happened yet.