*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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

I belive that SA adopted it before England did, what's their view on it as a whole?

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

It could also be idiotic nationalist sentiment that argues, "we invented it therefore it must be brilliant".

Plenty of things invented in England are hated here.

I can categorically say that that is not the reason why I at least accept Twenty20, if not like it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

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.

Which is more than we are now.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

Plenty of things invented in England are hated here.

I can categorically say that that is not the reason why I at least accept Twenty20, if not like it.

I was being sarcastic to show that Scaly's theory is based on nothing more than him grabbing at straws. If I can make something up, so can he.

[Richard]

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).

Well I've seen enough of it in 50-over games, and certainly plenty of it in 60-over stuff.

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'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.

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.

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.

[Richard]

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.

That's moreorless why we call him Elitist Xenophobic Dimwit.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

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.

I still don't see how you can claim you don't need an argument when you're claiming to know why exactly a multitude of different people who you don't know, feel the way they do. How on earth can you claim to know how I, for example, came to dislike Twenty20? Can you even tell me when I arrived at that realisation? You can't, because you don't know. You're simply insulting the intelligence of a lot of people who happen to share a viewpoint different to yours.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

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.

There's plenty of correlation if you read properly. England was the first to play Twenty20, it is widely accepted here, SA adopted it early it is widely accepted there. Australia have only just properly adopted it and well more of a mixed reception with your average longer term cricket fan. Not sure about NZ.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

I belive that SA adopted it before England did, what's their view on it as a whole?

South Africans as a whole don't tend to matter to EXD.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by adharcric

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.

No you don't. You see aggressive and less aggressive batting. And defensive and less defensive bowling. And the field placement is horrid. In Twenty20, you get to see aggressive batting at its best. In ODI's, you're stuck about 1/3 of the way between Twenty20 and Tests.

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.

[silentstriker]

Anyway this is all personal opinion obviously on what each person enjoys, so it'll be hard to convince the other side.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

No you don't. You see aggressive and less aggressive batting.

That's by-and-large the case in almost all Tests at the current time too!

And defensive and less defensive bowling.

If you really believe that, I don't know what ODIs you've been watching.

And the field placement is horrid.

Don't blame bad captaincy and say it means an entire format is poor.

[adharcric]

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.

[Richard]

Even that all depends on what entertains you.

I happen to be entertained by more things than the scoring-rate.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

I belive that SA adopted it before England did, what's their view on it as a whole?

Na England got there first, the competition was played in 2003. SA's domestic equivalent was played in April 2004. It's certainly popular and well accepted in SA, tho it's worth mentioning that crowds in SA would sooner attend ODIs than Tests anyway.