Do we really need T20 internationals?

[AlanJLegend]

Seriously.

1. The international schedule is crowded enough
2. There is enough domestic T20 cricket already
3. Most of these domestic leagues contain the top limited overs players in the world anyway


I am not opposed to SOME T20i matches (perhaps one on Australia day each year or something like that), but with all the T20 that goes on around the world with international players anyway do we really need a world cup and 2-3 matches in every tour? Especially with some players opting not to play T20i's anyway wouldn't it just be easier if people just concentrate on tests and ODIs, and if they want a quick buck go make it in the IPL?


Discuss

 

[Red]

We don't need it. It'd be my preference not to have it.

BUT-

- It can be screened in prime time in summer.
- It's the "ROCK AND ROLL VERSION OF THE GAME" (Slater, M. 2008. Channel Nine).
- It makes money, at grounds and for TV networks.



Everything that was once good has now been corporatised and dumbed down, cricket included. It's important that T20 is "pumped" and "adrenaline filled, high octane cricket" so that the average moron commercial TV viewer can see the ads for next year's 'Big Brother', 'Biggest Loser' and 'Another Show about Cashed up Bogans Renovating a House".

 

[fredfertang]

I'm not T20's greatest fan by any means, but if I'm going to watch it I'd rather see two nations playing each other rather than a couple of quasi-domestic sides each of whom have shipped in a few mercaneries for a week - I really don't get this Champions League at all - seems to me it's little more than an exhibition

 

[Dan]

T20 domestic comps tend to be privatised, whereas T20i games aren't. I'd rather see the money from T20 flow into the boards than into private consortiums, TBH.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I still think it has more of a future than ODIs, myself.

It has the merit of having its own strengths (huge Dorothys, improvised shots, bowlers having to constantly think on the hoof) rather than being a closer facsimilie of tests, which seems to me to be the 50 over format's main virtue.

 

[Howe_zat]

An abridged list of things i don't need

Bacon sandwiches
QI
An appendix
Netflix
The option to procreate
T20Is

Don't really want rid of any though

 

[Spikey]

i've actually grown to quite like T20I's. Need to be more three match series' though, instead of the silly 2 match series

 

[NasserFan207]

T20I are fine. They are generally less corporate than the league stuff and players genuinely care about winning for their country.

 

[SeamUp]

I would rather the best international cricketers play the best two formats of 'cricket' for their international sides. That is test cricket and 50-over cricket. Good cricketers will score hundreds and take wickets in those two formats generally. People say the middle over periods in ODI's are boring but from its 20-35 only really now and still the best batsman can manipulate fields which I appreciate in those overs. Sides also believe they can permanently take wickets with the harder ball and batsman feel they can possibly take the risk with a slightly harder ball in that time as well.

I think tournaments like the Champions League is a brilliant reward for domestic teams during their home season in the T20 format. A great competitive edge is brought into the smash and bash format. It brings money into local teams, it provides the stage for future international cricketers and it allows some veterans a last shot at a worldwide audience.

But of course, the IPL teams need to make a few sacrifices in order for the whole cricketing world to benefit.

 

[ankitj]

I will rather watch T20Is than IPL and CL.

 

[grecian]

I will rather watch T20Is than IPL and CL.

Me too, or ODIs TBH, cut them down. Takes more out of players and a long series takes approximately zilllion monthzzzzzzzzzz

Could get just as many matches, playing about one every two days, make more money, and get it over in a week. T20i for the future, more time for Tests, and more rests for players.

 

[doesitmatter]

the reason why there are domestic t20s is because they now generate more money than the domestic 4-5 day or 1 day variety(no crowds there)..this money helps the board to pay these domestic players,maintain grounds and also give the spectator a chance to come and enjoy a show for 3 hours..CLT20 i also don't understand why it is there..

 

[benchmark00]

I like the Champions league concept, but it's farcical with regards to the inconsistent overseas players rule.

 

[NasserFan207]

I like the Champions league concept, but it's farcical with regards to the inconsistent overseas players rule.

Numbers of overseas players should remain the responsibility of the different boards. There shouldn't be a blanket rule for the competition.

 

[benchmark00]

Numbers of overseas players should remain the responsibility of the different boards. There shouldn't be a blanket rule for the competition.

Yes it should be, otherwise you're not providing a level playing field for all teams.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't like the IPL having first dibs on overseas players either.*

Stands to reason that the country in which a player is registered as "domestic" has first claims.

*Interestingly, if I removed "having first dibs on overseas players either" from this sentence it would still be true.

 

[Woodster]

I would much rather they do away with international T20's rather than cut a Test or ODI series short to allow for a couple of T20 games.

I'm not a huge fan of the format, absolutely fair to say that it is my least favourite of the three, but I do think there is room for domestic competitions organised and structured properly, just don't think we need it at international level.