It'll be appreciated if it's come in the right context. A low-scoring game where a 60*-off-105-balls wins it by 2 wickets will have massive praise lathered on it and quite rightly.Quote:
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.
I just don't see how anyone could think a good ODI doesn't embrace many different styles of batting. I'd say you just need to look at the number of different-style ODI batsmen (and bowlers) who've achieved definitively noteworthy success. Take, for example, Marcus Trescothick and Nick Knight - two totally different batsmen, but England's best 2 in the modern era. Or Graeme Hick and Neil Fairbrother - again, totally different batsmen, but hugely successful.Quote:
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.
You lack the aggressive bowling from tests and the aggressive batting from Twenty20. You also lack the great defensive innings from Tests and the insanely fast paced day of cricket from Twenty20.
In the end, you're left with an aborted format with many vices and few virtues.
Anyway this is all personal opinion obviously on what each person enjoys, so it'll be hard to convince the other side.
If you really believe that, I don't know what ODIs you've been watching.Quote:
And defensive and less defensive bowling.
Don't blame bad captaincy and say it means an entire format is poor.Quote:
And the field placement is horrid.
Since when is "an insanely fast-paced day of cricket" considered a virtue? Entertainment value, definitely. That's it.
EDIT: Richard summed up my thoughts already.
Even that all depends on what entertains you.
I happen to be entertained by more things than the scoring-rate.