The ability to play according to the situation - given that the situation can change multiple times in a 50-over (and, better still, a 60-over) game. In a Twenty20, it can change about once - you're playing the big shots, you're in the game; you've lost too many wickets, you can't slog, you're out of it.
Obviously there was no case, and no-one who I consider to know a thing about cricket suggested we were the best in the world - certainly no-one on here. However, to be fair, after the Ashes, given we'd won our last 7 series or something, we were definitely 2nd.
Well, you're pretty much saying - 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. ODI's are not long enough to have a true exhibition of defensive batting or smart bowling (long spells , setting batsmen up, etc).
No, it does not. You'll rarely see a great primarily defensive innings in ODI's and when you do, it will likely be criticized rather than appreciated. And even more rarely will you see fast bowling with six slips in an all out attack.
I suggest you start paying attention. I've seen at least 50 valid arguments in favor of the ODI > Twenty20 camp. The majority of them made sense.Scaly piscine said:
WTF? I hope that's not your argument. He's saying 'the longer, the better'. In which case, watch tests. Otherwise, you watch ODIs because they are the next best thing.
He's just explained why in the 2nd part of that post
It could also be idiotic nationalist sentiment that argues, "we invented it therefore it must be brilliant". There's no correlation at all. Both NZ and Australia had a domestic Twenty20 setup before internationals came along. Besides, I for one was quite interested in the idea, until I actually saw a few games.
So basically if someone doesn't like Twenty20, their reasoning is just "excuses". Excuses for what? To prove a point to you? Logically, why would anyone go to such lengths to placate you? You haven't seen any reasoning because you refuse to accept that anyone who disagrees with you could possibly be reasonable.
Not really relevant because this is about the I like ODIs but I can't stand Twenty20 camp. I don't need to have an argument, I'm not the one trying to justify a counter-intuitive opinion. It is up to people to explain why something that goes again all common sense is reasonable and not just down to pre-conceived ideas and bias, which as far as I can see hasn't happened yet.
I belive that SA adopted it before England did, what's their view on it as a whole?
Plenty of things invented in England are hated here.
Which is more than we are now.
I was being sarcastic to show that Scaly's theory is based on nothing more than him grabbing at straws. If I can make something up, so can he.
Well I've seen enough of it in 50-over games, and certainly plenty of it in 60-over stuff.
It'll be appreciated if it's come in the right context. A low-scoring game where a 60*-off-105-balls wins it by 2 wickets will have massive praise lathered on it and quite rightly.
I just don't see how anyone could think a good ODI doesn't embrace many different styles of batting. I'd say you just need to look at the number of different-style ODI batsmen (and bowlers) who've achieved definitively noteworthy success. Take, for example, Marcus Trescothick and Nick Knight - two totally different batsmen, but England's best 2 in the modern era. Or Graeme Hick and Neil Fairbrother - again, totally different batsmen, but hugely successful.
That's moreorless why we call him Elitist Xenophobic Dimwit.
I still don't see how you can claim you don't need an argument when you're claiming to know why exactly a multitude of different people who you don't know, feel the way they do. How on earth can you claim to know how I, for example, came to dislike Twenty20? Can you even tell me when I arrived at that realisation? You can't, because you don't know. You're simply insulting the intelligence of a lot of people who happen to share a viewpoint different to yours.
There's plenty of correlation if you read properly. England was the first to play Twenty20, it is widely accepted here, SA adopted it early it is widely accepted there. Australia have only just properly adopted it and well more of a mixed reception with your average longer term cricket fan. Not sure about NZ.
South Africans as a whole don't tend to matter to EXD.
No you don't. You see aggressive and less aggressive batting. And defensive and less defensive bowling. And the field placement is horrid. In Twenty20, you get to see aggressive batting at its best. In ODI's, you're stuck about 1/3 of the way between Twenty20 and Tests.