*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[silentstriker]

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

 

[Richard]

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]

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.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Seeing that most of the crowd in this thread are not visiting the other thread, I'll put most of my points here:

I don't really like any kind of limited over cricket, but I prefer Twenty20 over ODIs because at least it has some redeeming factors - at least there is fierce competition between bat and ball. IMO, in ODIs, the middle overs are simply not contested (and Richard will tell you differently, but that's an argument largely going round in circles). Both bowling and batting sides are quite happy with a few singles and twos an over, with the middle overs being bowled by bits-and-pieces bowlers while the best bowlers are saved up to prevent large runs being scored in the final 10 overs, and the batting side conserving wickets so they can have more of a go in the final 10. In Twenty20, every run is more hotly contested IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Since when is "an insanely fast-paced day of cricket" considered a virtue? Entertainment value, definitely. That's it.

And here I was, living my life under the impression that we play sports for entertainment. Test cricket entertains because its long and the shifting fortunes over that long period of time. ODI is too short to have that effect and too long to just sit through all day without doing anything else. Twenty20 is perfect.

 

[Dick Rockett]

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.

Since when does being the first have anything to do with acceptance? Both rugby codes are far less enthusiastically supported in England than they are in this part of the world, yet the English invented them too. In fact, basically every sport that the English invented is more popular in other countries.

 

[Dick Rockett]

And here I was, living my life under the impression that we play sports for entertainment. Test cricket entertains because its long and the shifting fortunes over that long period of time. ODI is too short to have that effect and too long to just sit through all day without doing anything else. Twenty20 is perfect.

For mine the length isn't really the issue. ODIs have three distinct phases per innings; the brisk start, the subdued middle, and the insane finish. Twenty20 doesn't ebb and flow, and IMO, it's one monotonous blur of flailing bats and arcing balls, where bowlers are relegated to the role of Jugs machines. That's how I see it anyway. I don't hate it, I just find it very boring.

 

[Richard]

the best bowlers are saved up to prevent large runs being scored in the final 10 overs

Even that rarely happens at the present time! There are very few top-class death bowlers at the moment - and that detracts another thing from ODIs. Not much IMO beats seeing 6 pinpoint Yorkers dug-out or missed in the last 5 overs.

 

[adharcric]

And here I was, living my life under the impression that we play sports for entertainment. Test cricket entertains because its long and the shifting fortunes over that long period of time. ODI is too short to have that effect and too long to just sit through all day without doing anything else. Twenty20 is perfect.

I was referring to something else as "entertainment value", but let's end this for now. I need to write a paper.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Even that rarely happens at the present time! There are very few top-class death bowlers at the moment - and that detracts another thing from ODIs. Not much IMO beats seeing 6 pinpoint Yorkers dug-out or missed in the last 5 overs.

"Best" doesn't mean "good".

 

[Richard]

And there was I thinking that "best" was the pinnacle of "good"...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Best is the best of whatever is available. If no-one available is any good, best is still not good.

 

[Richard]

If the best is the best of mediocrity I for one tend to state such a thing when I talk about "best", and I know for certain that a good deal others tend to too.

 

[shortpitched713]

Since when is "an insanely fast-paced day of cricket" considered a virtue?

Its not even a day, thats one of the big problems for me about Twenty-20 cricket. And don't tell me to watch a Twenty-20 triple header or some other bollocks like that because I'd rather watch one meaningful game than three meaningless ones.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

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.

Two of the posts I most agree with on CW.

 

[FRAZ]

Two of the posts I most agree with on CW.

You said it all ! pretty much !!!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

Is that a serious question? There's so many it's not funny.

The ability to build an innings is the key one, at least for batsmen. Concentration remains a key element of batting in ODIs, as evidenced by guys like Bevan who excelled in digging the team out of a hole, playing long innings without necessarily scoring at a tremendous rate and pacing a chase and so on. One of the best elements of ODIs is the way in which it blends the different skills of batting but still maintains the emphasis on quick scoring, and the middle overs are important to that. Take out the middle overs and playing a long innings or recovering from a collapse suddenly become irrelevant. The batting tactics of a 20/20 game basically end up being playing big shots from the first over to the last, as Australia did with success in the game against England this summer. You can't do that in an ODI because there's a bigger range of skills required.

Then you've got the bowling, where bowling to a plan, bowling aggressively to take wickets, bowling with attacking fields and so on are all part of the game in ODIs but not in 20/20. You'll generally have every fielder in run saving positions from about the third or fourth over of a 20/20 game, when possible. There's obviously some skill to bowling in 20/20 games, but it comes down to variations and basically making yourself difficult to slog, not taking wickets. Andrew Symonds is a better 20/20 bowler than most members of the Australian team, but in ODIs a bowler who goes for runs but takes wickets like Brett Lee is still a valuable asset.

Really, they aren't anywhere near as similar as formats as people make out. They have a number of things in common by virtue of being limited over formats, but ODIs retain a lot more of the traditional skills and tests of cricket, whereas 20/20 games focus exclusively on the skills which matter in the death overs of an ODI - big hitting and economical bowling.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't really like any kind of limited over cricket, but I prefer Twenty20 over ODIs because at least it has some redeeming factors - at least there is fierce competition between bat and ball.

TBH, this isn't a bad post.

My problem is that as a battle, it's more like the bowlers are forced to last the bout out and take it to points. And all these "highlights", "excitement" are down to one half of the game.

I find it very enjoyable to play (in Melbourne, the best part is that you bowl in 5 over blocks, and all from the same end, to make it even quicker, and the fielding restrictions are even harsher) but it's as though bowlers have to use Ali's tactics vs Foreman/Homer Simpson's tactics as a boxer for Twenty20 games.