ODI cricket - T20 without the excitement?

[greg]

Well i'm obviously putting myself firmly in the category of old f*rt, but am i the only one who now finds ODI cricket increasingly boring and one dimensional, who struggles to see "excitement" in something where it is largely artificially generated and to the detriment of a contest.

Although not a particular fan of twenty over cricket, I can quite appreciate the value of the format and how it is perfect to generate excitement to a certain category of viewer/spectator. The short format being perfect for both encouraging aggressive batting whilst still maintaining the essence of a good cricket contest - the likelihood of a close finish.

Whereas ODI cricket, whilst historically having its obvious faults, still historically occupied a valid position somewhere between the two other formats. The ridiculous fielding rules have now destroyed that. Whilst the batting feats look outwardly impressive, they are simply not so in a world where bowlers are essentially defenceless. With only 4 fielders outside the ring on flat pitches, they are forced to bowl pretty much one length and one side of the wicket. It is hardly surprising that batsmen are having a field day. But what is worse is that, unlike in the 20 over game (which doesn't have the same fielding limitations!) teams have to embark on all or nothing strategies. Feeling that virtually any score is potentially chaseable they feel they have to target "any score". Which is resulting in a huge number of ultimately one sided contests as that score is either reached and the latter team collapses desperately trying to stay in the contest, or where they fall massively short leaving the chase a doddle for any side who bats properly. Maybe that's what people want. Personally i think it will accelerate the end.

 

[Burner]

The thing I've noticed is that it takes more hardwork and team effort to win an ODI game when compared to a t20 game. In t20, even if most of your batsmen make miniscule scores and only 1 or 2 batsmen are able to string some runs together, you still have a pretty good chance of winning the game. That doesn't work in ODI,

I still find ODIs to be the better form of the game, of a better measure of the skills of a team as a whole.

 

[Scaly piscine]

An ODI played on a road is pointless and I've always thought that. Cricket should be a contest between bat and ball. Even on the flattest pitch a bowler in T20 has a chance because of the aggression levels required from the batsmen - you can't just pick and choose which balls to block and which to put into the stands.

In ODIs on a road the batsmen can just pick their moment and the bowler has no idea when it's coming. Having a quiet over or two makes little difference. It is all in the batsman's favour.

The ball & pitch needs to allow the bowling to be a factor. Bowlers need to be able to take wickets with good deliveries not just hope for the best and get someone caught at long off.

So for an ODI on a road you may as well just play a T20.

 

[Hurricane]

I think this last England New Zealand game wasn't much chop as a contest but plenty of t20 matches are one sided too. I suspect that more t20 matches are close but what do we want out of a cricket match?
Do we want close finishes or do we want good cricket?
I suspect we want both.
Definitely odis are better for cricket quality than t20.
At least a good ODI is better than a good t20 anyway.

 

[weldone]

T20 is ODI without the class.

 

[watson]

Kind of agree with greg's sentiment as it's become obvious that all the fielding restrictions, power plays and what-not have turned the ODI into little more than a contrived mechanism to get a team score of 300 off the allotted 300 balls. There are still ODIs that are surprising and unique, but these seem to happen despite the rules, not because of them.

We don't want to see the likes of Mike Brearley stick 10 blokes on the boundary to prevent a boundary hit winning the game on the last ball of the match - the catalyst for the introduction of the 'fielding circle'......

2nd Match: England v West Indies at Sydney, Nov 28, 1979 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

......but by the same token I still think that less is more when it comes to regulations, so leaving the flow of the game to the skill of the captain and the ingenuity of the players would ultimately be more beneficial to ODI cricket.

 

[Red]

ODIs are heaps better than 20/20s. Allows for the ebb and flow of tests. I like 20/20s but I also despise them.

 

[Spark]

T20 is ODI without the class.

Yep.

 

[Skyliner]

ODIs are more meaningful due to the World Cup, which still has huge cachet. Also, ODIs are only meaningful during WCs.
The rest of the time they are just a pressure valve release from the nervous intensity of test cricket.
Here in NZ, our CEO David White does not understand this. He thinks NZ will get significant kudos from competing against Australia in the flakey concept known as the Chappell-Hadlee series. Australia does not give a damn about the Chappell-Hadlee series, and never will. Australia does not care about NZ cricket in general, and as soon as we slip at all in our standards the Chapell-Hadlee series will be consigned once again to the dustbin of history.
The only way to get Australia's attention and get them playing you in all the different formats as possible is to win test matches against them. Test match victories = prestige and respect. David White is trying to remove one opportunity for us to win a test match against Australia. He is a traitor to NZs best interests.

 

[Furball]

ODI cricket is probably in the best health it's been for a while. The last World Cup was great ffs.

 

[Hurricane]

ODIs are more meaningful due to the World Cup, which still has huge cachet. Also, ODIs are only meaningful during WCs.
The rest of the time they are just a pressure valve release from the nervous intensity of test cricket.
Here in NZ, our CEO David White does not understand this. He thinks NZ will get significant kudos from competing against Australia in the flakey concept known as the Chappell-Hadlee series. Australia does not give a damn about the Chappell-Hadlee series, and never will. Australia does not care about NZ cricket in general, and as soon as we slip at all in our standards the Chapell-Hadlee series will be consigned once again to the dustbin of history.
The only way to get Australia's attention and get them playing you in all the different formats as possible is to win test matches against them. Test match victories = prestige and respect. David White is trying to remove one opportunity for us to win a test match against Australia. He is a traitor to NZs best interests.

Excellent.

 

[Flem274*]

ODIs are almost perfect. If you think they're run fests then you haven't been watching the best three or four teams bowl.

 

[Daemon]

Depends on the quality of those involved imo. If the gulf between the teams is too big I'd rather watch T20 and vice versa.

 

[Hurricane]

I will never forget the quarterfinal at Westpac. Unless the conversation is restricted to criticising bilateral series.

The match was a total blow out to NZ - but boy the West Indies played like real Men in pursuit of the target. None of this wimpy lets consolidate and go for a big push with wickets in hand and then the big push never comes. They went hell for leather at that 390 target and were, by memory all out for 250 in the 27th over. Worthy game. Terrific fight on display by the Windies. Good game.

 

[Daemon]

They were just playing t20

 

[Hurricane]

They were just playing t20

where is your ph34r

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Depends on the quality of those involved imo. If the gulf between the teams is too big I'd rather watch T20 and vice versa.

Actually you raise an interesting point here. Watching a 5-day mismatch isn't really much fun, whereas a T20 mismatch is only a few hours of time invested (and it will not be clearly a mismatch for all of this time).

Test cricket will never die because, although it's not guaranteed to be better than T20 cricket, it's very rarely worse, and is potentially much, much better. There will never be a T20 series as engrossing as the recent Eng-NZ Test series, for example.

But you can't always guarantee that the teams will be at or around the same level. Perhaps there are only 8 teams in the world who are close enough to each other for it to be interesting in Tests. In T20s there might be literally hundreds, as the Champions stuff has proven.

 

[Hurricane]

Actually you raise an interesting point here. Watching a 5-day mismatch isn't really much fun, whereas a T20 mismatch is only a few hours of time invested (and it will not be clearly a mismatch for all of this time).

Test cricket will never die because, although it's not guaranteed to be better than T20 cricket, it's very rarely worse, and is potentially much, much better. There will never be a T20 series as engrossing as the recent Eng-NZ Test series, for example.

But you can't always guarantee that the teams will be at or around the same level. Perhaps there are only 8 teams in the world who are close enough to each other for it to be interesting in Tests. In T20s there might be literally hundreds, as the Champions stuff has proven.

Including the potential for a team of former minor league baseballers

 

[weldone]

Depends on the quality of those involved imo. If the gulf between the teams is too big I'd rather watch T20 and vice versa.

Well, if the gulf between the 2 teams is too big (think Australia vs Bangladesh) then probably T20>Test as well.

 

[Jono]

I will never forget the quarterfinal at Westpac. Unless the conversation is restricted to criticising bilateral series.

The match was a total blow out to NZ - but boy the West Indies played like real Men in pursuit of the target. None of this wimpy lets consolidate and go for a big push with wickets in hand and then the big push never comes. They went hell for leather at that 390 target and were, by memory all out for 250 in the 27th over. Worthy game. Terrific fight on display by the Windies. Good game.

I do not get why people praise WI for batting like that.

Literally 1 hour earlier NZ had showed you can get 400 batting normally with a late rush yet everyone kept saying WI batted the only way they could to win, which is just palpably false. History shows it, but NZ showed it that same bloody day!

I get it was fun for like 60 mins. But the praise WI got was odd.