Which is your preferred limited overs format?

[Pratters]

Would dispute that T20 would be any less boring if over-done to the extent ODIs have been. 'something always happening' doesn't equate to more interesting, if that 'something' is a contrived, boring event.

I knew you would come out with this retort - that if T20 is done more, it will get boring like ODIs. I don't agree with it. It is unpredictable and I fail to see how that becomes boring even if done a few times over. What you call contrived, I call putting the players in a spot. They have to do some thing and can't just sit back. The batsman has to score, the bowlers have to try and take wickets to stop the run flow. It is exciting from both the players and spectators points of view.

 

[Uppercut]

My problem with ODIs is that i find the middle overs very formulaic. Part-time tweakers and medium-slows sending down the ball while batsmen run it down to third man for a single every other ball isn't what cricket should be about. Poor bowlers generally get taken apart in T20s.

 

[PhoenixFire]

My problem with ODIs is that i find the middle overs very formulaic. Part-time tweakers and medium-slows sending down the ball while batsmen run it down to third man for a single every other ball isn't what cricket should be about. Poor bowlers generally get taken apart in T20s.

Yeah agree with this totally. I love Test matches and I'm not a massive fan of limited overs stuff, but give me 20-20 over 50 over any day. More exciting in my opinion.

 

[Flem274*]

ODIs for me. 20/20 is good for some quick fun after school (well this year uni) though.

 

[Richard]

My problem with ODIs is that i find the middle overs very formulaic. Part-time tweakers and medium-slows sending down the ball while batsmen run it down to third man for a single every other ball isn't what cricket should be about. Poor bowlers generally get taken apart in T20s.

Bowlers generally get taken apart in Twenty20.

As I've said before - the irritating thing about Twenty20 is the fact that Twenty20 "fans" (I say that loosely in terms of those that prefer it over the ODI format) are apt to judge the best of Twenty20 against the worst of ODIs.

A good ODI features precisely nothing of the average-bowlers-being-knocked-around-in-the-middle-overs stereotype. None whatsoever. A good ODI consists of good accurate medium-fast seam bowlers trying to bowl for 3.5-4-an-over and batsmen trying to go quicker. This is intreguing cricket and always has been.

And bad Twenty20 just features batsmen looking to score at 8-9-an-over throughout. Couldn't wish for anything more boring IMO, as I've said countless times.

I might as well say that the above makes Twenty20 >>>>>> ODI. Judge good Twenty20 against good ODI and bad Twenty20 against bad ODI.

BTW interesting to see that this poll so far has gone along exactly the same lines as the previous 5 or 6 have. My perception was that things had changed a little in the last year or so. Current evidence suggests maybe not.

 

[GIMH]

Thes best ODIs are more enjoyable than the best T20s but generally I would probably rather watch a Twenty20 international as I am more likely to enjoy it. The dullest T20s are so much better than dull ODIs it's not funny. Like the borefest served up betwen England and the Windies the other day, there weer about 30 pointless overs? The result is never completely certain before the last couple of overs or wickets in T20, not generally anyway. So I'm voting Twenty20, better format overall.

 

[_Ed_]

Twenty20 is all over by the time you get back from the bar.

Haha, it's true. When I went to one, I had to wait to get cash out and then wait in the beer queue. I did in fact miss half of England's innings. No exaggeration.

I've always loved ODIs, and although I've given Twenty20 a chance I just can't get into it in the same way, so it's an easy choice for me.

 

[99*]

Haha, it's true. When I went to one, I had to wait to get cash out and then wait in the beer queue. I did in fact miss half of England's innings. No exaggeration.

Was that the Eden Park game? One of my mates went to get some beer during the change of innings, didn't get back until the last over.

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah. It was a ridiculously huge crowd, but still.

 

[Top_Cat]

My problem with ODIs is that i find the middle overs very formulaic. Part-time tweakers and medium-slows sending down the ball while batsmen run it down to third man for a single every other ball isn't what cricket should be about. Poor bowlers generally get taken apart in T20s.

Yup. On-board with this.

 

[Howsie]

Bowlers generally get taken apart in Twenty20.

As I've said before - the irritating thing about Twenty20 is the fact that Twenty20 "fans" (I say that loosely in terms of those that prefer it over the ODI format) are apt to judge the best of Twenty20 against the worst of ODIs.

A good ODI features precisely nothing of the average-bowlers-being-knocked-around-in-the-middle-overs stereotype. None whatsoever. A good ODI consists of good accurate medium-fast seam bowlers trying to bowl for 3.5-4-an-over and batsmen trying to go quicker. This is intreguing cricket and always has been.

And bad Twenty20 just features batsmen looking to score at 8-9-an-over throughout. Couldn't wish for anything more boring IMO, as I've said countless times.

I might as well say that the above makes Twenty20 >>>>>> ODI. Judge good Twenty20 against good ODI and bad Twenty20 against bad ODI.

BTW interesting to see that this poll so far has gone along exactly the same lines as the previous 5 or 6 have. My perception was that things had changed a little in the last year or so. Current evidence suggests maybe not.

I agree with Richard here, for me 20/20 is boring because you know what will happen.

 

[cowboysfan]

i voted for T20 but i would watch ODIs only when 2 good and competent teams are playing.this unfortunately excludes a lot of current international teams .

 

[Oasisbob]

ODIs for me. When the standard is high they are thoroughly enjoyable.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I agree with Richard here, for me 20/20 is boring because you know what will happen.

Yeah. Right, ummm

 

[Furball]

My problem with ODIs is that i find the middle overs very formulaic. Part-time tweakers and medium-slows sending down the ball while batsmen run it down to third man for a single every other ball isn't what cricket should be about. Poor bowlers generally get taken apart in T20s.

That's the clincher for me. In Twenty20, those bowlers as a general rule, get utterly smashed.

Twenty20 is far more a game for the specialist bowler than ODIs are, in general.

 

[andruid]

I voted brown sauce cos I really do not have a preference between the two other options

ODIs have bigger scope to become damp squibs, but one sided T20s tend to be just as crap

FTR: Brown is is just a failed ketchup variety. Gimme Hot sauce any day of the week

 

[Richard]

Yup. On-board with this.

That's the clincher for me. In Twenty20, those bowlers as a general rule, get utterly smashed.

..............

 

[aussie]

Bowlers generally get taken apart in Twenty20.

As I've said before - the irritating thing about Twenty20 is the fact that Twenty20 "fans" (I say that loosely in terms of those that prefer it over the ODI format) are apt to judge the best of Twenty20 against the worst of ODIs.

A good ODI features precisely nothing of the average-bowlers-being-knocked-around-in-the-middle-overs stereotype. None whatsoever. A good ODI consists of good accurate medium-fast seam bowlers trying to bowl for 3.5-4-an-over and batsmen trying to go quicker. This is intreguing cricket and always has been.

And bad Twenty20 just features batsmen looking to score at 8-9-an-over throughout. Couldn't wish for anything more boring IMO, as I've said countless times.

I might as well say that the above makes Twenty20 >>>>>> ODI. Judge good Twenty20 against good ODI and bad Twenty20 against bad ODI.

BTW interesting to see that this poll so far has gone along exactly the same lines as the previous 5 or 6 have. My perception was that things had changed a little in the last year or so. Current evidence suggests maybe not.

Bullet, with you here dawg. The whole argument that the middle overs period is boring for reasons you ridculed quite well here is right on point.

At least 50 overs is better balance between bat & ball. T20 although exciting & has a big part in the games future, will always be a batsman's slogfest.

 

[zaremba]

T20 has convenience on its side - coming home tonight from a hard day at work to watch an entire Sussex game on telly is pretty enjoyable. But as a game it's not a patch on longer forms.

Interesting posts by Richard and others on this subject. I've not a lot to add to those.

 

[superkingdave]

Would have voted Twenty20 previously, have voted Brown sauce here. FTR I would have voted for Salad Cream over both.

Having been somewhat starved of live cricket for the 2 years before Christmas, i am pretty much lapping anything up that's shown on Sky at the moment. There's been a lot more ODI cricket than Twenty20..in fact the only twenty20's i think i managed to catch were the Aus-SA ones. But I think i'll probably swing towards t20 again when i get to watch the WC...with the added bonus that I'll actually be back from work in time for the starts.

I'll add that following ODI's on cricino>>following T20's on cricinfo.