*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[Richard]

It is true, because almost always 5 fielders are on the boundary - whether one of the 4 in the ring is a slip or not.

5 fielders aren't on the boundary nearly as often as you seem to think...

 

[Richard]

Good for him.

Good for you indeed...

 

[shortpitched713]

Put four-six men back there, and then come talk to me about aggression.

How often do you see five to six slips, even in Test cricket? The only time they're used is when a new batsman comes in and the bowling side desperately needs wickets. Otherwise its basically useless to have that many slips.

 

[shortpitched713]

The thing is that the accumulation phase of ODI tends to be total crap, as both sides are happy just playing defense without any aggression. That's why I hate it. It's not the scoring rate, its the lack of aggression from both camps.

In Tests, you'll see a really aggressive bowler or batsman at one end most of the time. You'll have two-three slips, and some good variation in bowling. You'll see a leg spinner letting the batsmen have a few boundaries to set him up. You'll see a Kallis hold together the batting lineup despite a barrage of fast bowling with five slips behind him. All that makes the cricket absolutely exciting. You'll see the fortunes of team change from one session to another. You see the despair on the face of a team when they ruin four days of good work by playing a couple loose shots or a single spell of bowling that snatches victory from four days of being crushed.

ODI's have none of that, and instead just has two teams content to score a run here and there by just hanging back and not doing much. ODI pretends to have those things, and has them to such a small degree that it leaves you unfulfilled and unsatisfied. At least Twenty20 has aggression from one side and you know what you're getting.

Not with Shane Warne you won't. You've been watching too much Danish Kaneria.

 

[Tom Halsey]

5 fielders aren't on the boundary nearly as often as you seem to think...

Ok then. When aren't they? I can't remember too many occasions.

 

[Natman20]

Exactly. ODI games are about as scripted as you can possibly get. All the powerplays are taken straightaway 99% of the time. It breaks down into three sections stereotypically.

The "skills" that are required in ODI are basically a combination of Twenty20 and Tests without the excitement or mastery of either.

There is skill involved in ODIs not seen in either Twenty20 and Tests. Its when to be aggressive and when to be patient. There is a hang of a lot more strategy involved and required to make breakthroughs or create big scores and chasing down scores. Twenty20 wouldn't be here if ODIs wern't invented and tbh ODIs are what first got me interested in cricket. Twenty20 yes is a fun occassion at times but there should only be one per series, end of story IMO. I wouldn't even sit down to watch a full series of Twenty20s (unless it is this years world cup). I dont know maybe Twenty20 may turn out to be fun but it completely skips the tense situations. I dont know why people can sit through test matches but cant sit through some of the middle overs in a game? To me there is a lot of skill involved in these stages. Has everyone forgotten the great world cup matches of the past?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Of course there is a skill in Test matches in judging how to pace your innings - setting declarations and the like require it.

 

[silentstriker]

There is a reason that Bangladesh can beat people in ODI's (including Australia) but no one in Tests.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How often do you see five to six slips, even in Test cricket? The only time they're used is when a new batsman comes in and the bowling side desperately needs wickets. Otherwise its basically useless to have that many slips.

4-6 fielders behind the batsman also includes gully. You'd see 5, and at times 6, fielders behind the bat at some stage in just about every Test match.

 

[Richard]

Ok then. When aren't they? I can't remember too many occasions.

Usually for about 10 overs out of 20 at the very least in the non-Powerplay-10-40 overs.

 

[Richard]

There is a reason that Bangladesh can beat people in ODI's (including Australia) but no one in Tests.

Well they came about as close to beating them in a Test as anyone else has in the last 1-and-a-half years.

The only explanation for either the ODI victory or the Test near-victory is that random reversals do, very very occasionally, happen.

 

[adharcric]

The thing is that the accumulation phase of ODI tends to be total crap, as both sides are happy just playing defense without any aggression. That's why I hate it. It's not the scoring rate, its the lack of aggression from both camps.

In Tests, you'll see a really aggressive bowler or batsman at one end most of the time. You'll have two-three slips, and some good variation in bowling. You'll see a leg spinner letting the batsmen have a few boundaries to set him up. You'll see a Kallis hold together the batting lineup despite a barrage of fast bowling with five slips behind him. All that makes the cricket absolutely exciting. You'll see the fortunes of team change from one session to another. You see the despair on the face of a team when they ruin four days of good work by playing a couple loose shots or a single spell of bowling that snatches victory from four days of being crushed.

ODI's have none of that, and instead just has two teams content to score a run here and there by just hanging back and not doing much. ODI pretends to have those things, and has them to such a small degree that it leaves you unfulfilled and unsatisfied. At least Twenty20 has aggression from one side and you know what you're getting.

Tell me something. What do Twenty20 matches have that ODIs don't?

 

[adharcric]

There is a reason that Bangladesh can beat people in ODI's (including Australia) but no one in Tests.

Reason: ODIs only give you 100 overs to do what you can. You need relatively sustained brilliance but one good day is good enough.
In tests, one good day is not enough. That's good. In Twenty20 cricket, an hour is enough. That's pathetic.

 

[Natman20]

Twenty20 cricket should be called Bashball

 

[silentstriker]

Tell me something. What do Twenty20 matches have that ODIs don't?

Well, for one it doesn't have the boredom where even someone like me, who has nothing better to do, can barely watch the overs from about 15 to 40.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, for one it doesn't have the boredom where even someone like me, who has nothing better to do, can barely watch the overs from about 15 to 40.

That's something it doesn't have. He asked for something that it does have.

 

[JBH001]

I hope it is not too late in the day (and this thread) but can I join?

I've only really watched 20/20 once, and that was for an hour with a hangover on a sunday afternoon...I was not impressed and my worst fears were confirmed...

 

[Fiery]

Personally, if you love cricket enough, you take it warts and all. I like watching all forms of the game. If there was a Twenty20 game on after work I wouldn't look forward to it as much as an ODI or test but I would still look forward to it and certainly wouldn't find it "boring"

 

[silentstriker]

That's something it doesn't have. He asked for something that it does have.

Excitement due to the lack of middle overs.

 

[Dasa]

My main problem with Twenty20 is that it's too batting-friendly. I feel the same with most ODIs (and some Tests as well), but at least there are some ODIs where the bowlers can dominate. I've yet to see a Twenty20 match where the bowlers have really dominated.