Which is your preferred limited overs format?

[slugger]

odi's need to convert into quaters 20-20-20-20 with not out batsmen returning in the 2nd stanza etc... first stanza and second stanza have 8 overs of restricted fields .. therefore the so called boring overs are only 22 in total not 40 like they are currently. anyway thats what i would do...

ex.
End of over 20 - England 110/1 (RR: 5.50)
MJ Prior 11* (13b 1x4) AJ Strauss 40* (54b 3x4)

End of over 20 - West Indies 82/3 (Trial by 28 runs) (RR: 4.1)
S Chanderpaul 28* (57b 3x4) DJ Bravo 12* (11b 1x4 1x6)

End of over 40 - England 238/2 (RR: 5.95)
MJ Prior 68* (70b 4x4) OA Shah 55* (51b 4x4 1x6)

West Indies Require 157 runs to win. (RRR: 7.8)

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

50 over’s. Best format for being a spectator, beats Twenty20 as you have the opportunity to watch a full day's cricket, get sunburn and consume copious amounts of beer.

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

This

 

[Richard]

odi's need to convert into quaters 20-20-20-20 with not out batsmen returning in the 2nd stanza etc... first stanza and second stanza have 8 overs of restricted fields .. therefore the so called boring overs are only 22 in total not 40 like they are currently. anyway thats what i would do...

ex.
End of over 20 - England 110/1 (RR: 5.50)
MJ Prior 11* (13b 1x4) AJ Strauss 40* (54b 3x4)

End of over 20 - West Indies 82/3 (Trial by 28 runs) (RR: 4.1)
S Chanderpaul 28* (57b 3x4) DJ Bravo 12* (11b 1x4 1x6)

End of over 40 - England 238/2 (RR: 5.95)
MJ Prior 68* (70b 4x4) OA Shah 55* (51b 4x4 1x6)

West Indies Require 157 runs to win. (RRR: 7.8)

What ODIs need is to keep their credibility as cricket. Not become gimmicky extended-Twenty20s.

 

[silentstriker]

T20. ODI have no substance. T20 also have none, but they are sometimes watchable without putting me to sleep between overs 15 and 45.

Test cricket is obviously a whole another level of pure awesomeness.

 

[Richard]

The fact that T20 has no overs 15-45 puts me to sleep before I've even watched them.

 

[aussie]

The whole idea that the 15-45 over period idea is a bit of myth really. The notion was really pushed by those who thing lovers of ODI cricket - who think Test Cricket is boring, which lead to the introuction of the power-plays which has just further confused the game.

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that T20 has no overs 15-45 puts me to sleep before I've even watched them.

Yea, I can't blame anyone for not liking T20 for any reason. I don't particularly like them either. I just hate ODIs too. Thankfully, T20s are over faster.

The whole idea that the 15-45 over period idea is a bit of myth really. The notion was really pushed by those who thing lovers of ODI cricket - who think Test Cricket is boring, which lead to the introuction of the power-plays which has just further confused the game.

Well, it's a myth that I don't like that period? I find it boring how both sides are defensive.

 

[Richard]

Well, it's a myth that I don't like that period? I find it boring how both sides are defensive, in bad ODIs, though certainly not in good ODIs.

Fix'd.

Also I cannot stand how, in bad Twenty20s - which are plenty - batting sides are just aggressive and fielding sides just have no reasonable chance of being defensive to a standard close to that of proper (ie, First-Class) cricket. It's so boring, a game that's just attack, attack, attack. The best cricket is a balance between attack and defence, IMO.

At least I don't claim that this is how every single Twenty20 goes though. Also I've never seen the merit of the "it's over quicker" argument in Twenty20's favour - if you don't like either Twenty20 or one-day cricket just don't watch either of them. No-one's forcing you to, if Test cricket is all you like just watch that.

 

[aussie]

Bullet Richard...

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, for me it's not that it's over quicker but that I can watch a whole game of cricket after work that lures me into T20

 

[Uppercut]

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

Yeah, we saw it, there just isn't much to respond to it with. Even in the poorest T20 matches you never have to sit for 30 overs and watch both sides defend the entire time. The best ODIs are every bit as good as the best T20s, but I reckon there's a much higher proportion of close, exciting T20 matches than ODIs.

I've long thought ODIs are caught between the two forms of cricket. You have neither the technical interest and epic battle of concentration of a test match nor the non-stop action and aggression of a T20. The result is, ODIs are pretty much noone's favourite format.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Fix'd.

Also I cannot stand how, in bad Twenty20s - which are plenty - batting sides are just aggressive and fielding sides just have no reasonable chance of being defensive to a standard close to that of proper (ie, First-Class) cricket. It's so boring, a game that's just attack, attack, attack. The best cricket is a balance between attack and defence, IMO.

At least I don't claim that this is how every single Twenty20 goes though. Also I've never seen the merit of the "it's over quicker" argument in Twenty20's favour - if you don't like either Twenty20 or one-day cricket just don't watch either of them. No-one's forcing you to, if Test cricket is all you like just watch that.

I don't mind teams just going all out attack. Certainly prefer it to teams batting out for a draw in Tests.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm still in favour of ODI over Twenty20.

A good indicator is my excitement at the World Cup about to start. If it were ODI I would be WAY more excited and have a care factor about the warmup matches.

Sure, I'll watch the Cricket if the Mrs isn't watching Coronation St but yeah it's not the same thing.

I watch a Twenty20 match and see a bloke make a nice 70 off 52 balls and I say to myself "good, now lets see him do it in a bigger match" i.e - ODI or Test.

I understand an IPL Final, or a Twenty20 World Cup is a big stage for the record.

As far as the middle overs are boring talk - yep they can be at times, but it's just logical that the batting team isn't going to go crazy for 50 overs straight most of the time, I actually enjoy batsman who are talented enough to hit for a single every ball in an over and enjoy it too when a fielding team pegs back the batting team with smart bowling and field placings.

So ODI >> Twenty20 still.

 

[_Ed_]

I actually enjoy batsman who are talented enough to hit for a single every ball in an over and enjoy it too when a fielding team pegs back the batting team with smart bowling and field placings.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Richard]

I've long thought ODIs are caught between the two forms of cricket. You have neither the technical interest and epic battle of concentration of a test match nor the non-stop action and aggression of a T20. The result is, ODIs are pretty much noone's favourite format.

Kev Goughy has said much the same thing for quite a while. However, Twenty20 is precious few people's favourite format either - except the plebs who are not really fans of cricket at all but simply like Twenty20. Plenty of people, as demonstrated by this poll, still prefer ODIs to Twenty20, even if they place Test cricket above ODIs.

 

[Richard]

I don't mind teams just going all out attack. Certainly prefer it to teams batting out for a draw in Tests.

Depends what you mean by "batting out a draw". If you mean 600 plays 580 over five days then yeah, that's boring as hell - though it's hardly rank "defensive" as (mirroring to a much lesser extent what happens in a Twenty20) batsmen realise they have to score quickly for any chance of a result, and bowler realise they've precious little chance of stopping them.

However, the Test-match last-day defence of batsmen and attack of bowlers (where only one side can win but the day goes down to the wire) is absolutely fabulous to watch IMO - something an all-out-attack Twenty20 just cannot remotely touch.

As I say - some people like over-emphasis on attack and a few people even like over-emphasis on defence. I don't though. If a game gets too far in the direction of attack or too far in the direction of defence I just find it inestimably boring.

 

[GIMH]

Calling people plebs on the basis of them not liking traditional forms of cricket a bit harsh

 

[Richard]

As far as the middle overs are boring talk - yep they can be at times, but it's just logical that the batting team isn't going to go crazy for 50 overs straight most of the time, I actually enjoy batsman who are talented enough to hit for a single every ball in an over and enjoy it too when a fielding team pegs back the batting team with smart bowling and field placings.

Yeah. Good bowling at good batsmen in the middle-overs of a ODI is, to me, more interesting than the wham-bam stuff at the end, because that's fairly predictable, whereas the middle-overs isn't.

Ditto the opening Powerplays. Good bowling can contain, and with a new-ball of course the power to attack is also present, but equally batsmen can get a flyer.

 

[Richard]

Calling people plebs on the basis of them not liking traditional forms of cricket a bit harsh

In cricketing terms they're plebs. Same way I'm a pleb in terms of boxing, swimming or WWF.

 

[GIMH]

?