Against One day cricket?

[silentstriker]

the key fundamentals of old cricket were 4 completed innings and timeless cricket. which to implies that the focus was on getting a result, along with a keen contest

when you add time to it as in tests in form of 5 days, those fundamentals get killed with the likelihood of a draw and with 4 innings not being played on occasions

I never claimed that cricket as it existed in 1800, or 1900 or 1950 was the ideal way. You're saying that I believe that the game as it existed in (for example) 1900 was the ideal way to play, where I never said such a thing. When I say fundamental, I mean of the modern professional games, and the regulations that I personally value, which, in the end, is the only way to define such fundamentals.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I dont want a pointless series.If a team is up 3-0 in a 5 game series then its time to move on.

i agree with that. it should be how the nba finals are, best out of whatever and you stop once one team won it.

 

[silentstriker]

i agree with that. it should be how the nba finals are, best out of whatever and you stop once one team won it.

In ODI, I agree. In Tests, no.

 

[LA ICE-E]

In ODI, I agree. In Tests, no.

why not in test? i see no point in a dead rubber in anything but that being said, i never noticed a lot of dead rubbers in test series because of draws and stuff.

 

[howardj]

The shorter the format, the more I'm against it.

 

[pasag]

I personally don't want or like either Twenty20 or ODI, but three formats are too many and if I had to pick, I'd pick Twenty20 as the survivor.

All three formats can survive and prosper if managed well.

As others have said, I see no point in ODI games. They are too often boring and more often forgettable.

You might see no point, but certainly others do. On the flipside, I'm not the biggest fan of Twenty20 cricket but I do appreciate that many do really enjoy it, including traditonal fans, so there's not really much place for me to call for it to be removed when others like it.

ODIs are no Tests, but I do enjoy them quite a bit although that does get diminished with the increased and sometimes absurd amount of them, like anything in life (besides Tests, can never have enough Tests).

 

[honestbharani]

The "fundamental" of the game is that a batsman tries to score runs and a bowler tries to take wickets. In limited overs cricket, only one of them is doing the fundamental.

 

[cowboysfan]

The "fundamental" of the game is that a batsman tries to score runs and a bowler tries to take wickets. In limited overs cricket, only one of them is doing the fundamental.

that logic doesnt fly.I have seena lot of test matches where bowlers bowl balls which can never be wicket taking deliveries delibrately as we the south africans bowl outside the leg stump repeatadly during the indian tour.

 

[honestbharani]

that logic doesnt fly.I have seena lot of test matches where bowlers bowl balls which can never be wicket taking deliveries delibrately as we the south africans bowl outside the leg stump repeatadly during the indian tour.

The basic idea of the game was that. That is why you NEED to take 20 wickets to WIN a test match, regardless of how many runs you score. I understand that not always do the bowlers bowl to take wickets even in tests but that doesn't take away the fact that if you want to win a test match, your bowlers HAVE to take 20 wickets, which is not the case with ODIs and T20s. Your batsmen can win you the game by themselves, in theory at least....

 

[silentstriker]

You might see no point, but certainly others do.

Well of course. ODI are still the moneymakers in international cricket. I'm not disputing their popularity.

 

[Prince EWS]

The basic idea of the game was that. That is why you NEED to take 20 wickets to WIN a test match, regardless of how many runs you score.if you want to win a test match, your bowlers HAVE to take 20 wickets,

I know I'm being pretty pedantic here, but that's not actually the case. You can technically win without taking a wicket if the opposition declares none down in both innings.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I know I'm being pretty pedantic here, but that's not actually the case. You can technically win without taking a wicket if the opposition declares none down in both innings.

You could also dismiss all 20 batsman Run Out, Timed Out, Hit the Ball Twice, Handled the Ball or Obstructing the Field, in which case the bowlers haven't taken any wickets.

 

[Richard]

As others have said, I see no point in ODI games. They are too often boring and more often forgettable.

I see no point in Twenty20 games. They are (bar 1 case) always boring and always forgettable. There's only 1 single Twenty20 game I could tell you what happened and who won - England-Australia in 2005, and I only watched that because it was the pipe-opener for one of the most anticipated Ashes tours in history.

However, I'm not everyone in finding Twenty20 boring, some people like it. The great majority of those are people who don't like cricket, but yes, even a few people who like the four\five-day game also like it.

As long as people continue to like ODIs, they'll stay, and will have a point.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I prefer Twenty20 to ODIs, yes.

It basically goes Tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20/20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ODI

True, that.

 

[Perm]

Just thinking about it a bit more since reading this thread and a thought occurred to me.

If ODI cricket was scrapped, do people think the massive difference between Twenty20 and Test cricket would start to show more? I think the scoring rate in Tests would increase dramatically without the medium-speed of the ODI format to keep it in check.

 

[sledger]

Prefer ODI to T20 tbh, feel you get more value for money whilst watching it, and it actually requires a lot more skill and thought, rather than the no brainerfest that is T20.

That said, imo there is a place for all of them, though for me Tests will always be far superior to either of the others.

 

[Richard]

Just thinking about it a bit more since reading this thread and a thought occurred to me.

If ODI cricket was scrapped, do people think the massive difference between Twenty20 and Test cricket would start to show more? I think the scoring rate in Tests would increase dramatically without the medium-speed of the ODI format to keep it in check.

Dunno, I actually wonder if the opposite might happen, as there'd be no danger of one being mistaken for the other. The amount of overlap of skill between Twenty20 and Test is negligable, so there'd be less of one game impacting on the other.

If ODIs continue for the next 10 years, I'll be surprised if Twenty20 doesn't make an impact on them, and likewise I'll be surprised if that doesn't knock-on to Tests (as to an extent it already has over the last two decades, though not IMO the extent some claim).

But if Twenty20 became the only limited-overs game-form, I think it would completely lose the power (if that's the right word) to impact upon how Tests were played.

 

[Mard]

Just thinking about it a bit more since reading this thread and a thought occurred to me.

If ODI cricket was scrapped, do people think the massive difference between Twenty20 and Test cricket would start to show more? I think the scoring rate in Tests would increase dramatically without the medium-speed of the ODI format to keep it in check.

i dont understand how can that happen. 20/20 is just about slogging every delivery. Tests are about showing patience and concentration during batting.

also are scoring rates really that important? i prefer a test match which is equally competitive from the batting side and bowling side.

 

[Mard]

oh man i am worried, even Kevin Pietersen think ODIS are finished

England batsman Kevin Pietersen fears the Twenty20 storm that has swept the cricket world will, in all probability, spell the end of ODIs in the next couple of years.

"I definitely think the longer form of one-day cricket will, in a couple of years, probably be something of the past," Pietersen told 'BBC Sport'.

"For sure. The way that cricket is going now, Twenty20 is definitely here to stay. We are entertainers. Everybody, I think if you asked them, would rather watch Twenty20 cricket," he added.

The 27-year-old said the twenty20 storm will, however, not impact Test cricket much except for making the longest format of the game more result oriented.

"Test match cricket will always be there because that's where you make your name. Everybody remembers your Test stats and not too many people remember your one-day stats," he explained.

"(Due to twenty20) you're going to get Test matches ending in three and a half or four days and guys scoring 400 in one-dayers," he added.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=e1ed32a0-775b-4c66-b130-4e77fa0f7121&ParentID=07375a29-a009-493d-a5ad-c4ecebcce0b0&&Headline='50-over+cricket+may+be+history+soon'

 

[Mard]

though i still think as long as fans are there, and ODI cricket keeps making money. it will be there