Why T20, why not T30?

[shortpitched713]

I get why you needed a step down from a 50+50 overs day full of cricket, I really do. There's TV, logistics, what have you.

But who determined that the step down should be to 20 overs? I've been watching more of these games lately, and it just feels like bad ***. Every once in a while you get a batsman who just the stars align and they can do absolute magic, looking dominant, and in control instead of fluky.

But usually it's a bunch of premature nuts and sad wickets. Even when a batsman finishes the innings well, I'm left wanting more, feeling like he just got into flow. This is like 90+ % of the innings, even winning ones.

I thought initially when they were formulated, that we'd eventually get double headers on the same day between two teams, something like we see in baseball, so having it a little shorter than half an ODI to facilitate that made sense. But I don't think it's ever really done (yeah I know they'll be doing them with the women's teams, but that's not what I mean).

Who thought this was the "right" way to dominate the fixture list in international cricket?

 

[TheJediBrah]

30 overs a side wouldn't be different enough from 50 over cricket. 20 was about right.

Agree about the scheduling though. You should he able to have more frequent games than 1 every 3 days or so which seems to be the standard

 

[Daemon]

It’s usually the travelling that’s the issue. Otherwise there’s no reason why back to back games can’t be played.

 

[shortpitched713]

30 overs a side wouldn't be different enough from 50 over cricket. 20 was about right.

Agree about the scheduling though. You should he able to have more frequent games than 1 every 3 days or so which seems to be the standard

Actually it's the opposite.

But for real, the people who initially determined 20 was "just right" are the same who will try to force ad breaks between fast bowler deliveries. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be made better.

 

[honestbharani]

It’s usually the travelling that’s the issue. Otherwise there’s no reason why back to back games can’t be played.

Yeah ideally you would do a friday and sat night back to back games every series in the same venue.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Where's the "they don't deserve to exist" option??

 

[RMBolton]

Go ask the English boffins who invented T20.

 

[Qlder]

I think T25 would have been better as then we could have 5 bowlers to bowl 5 overs each

 

[James]

What about "Cricket Max"

 

[Blenkinsop]

Not sure about other countries but twenty over matches and leagues have been a thing in English recreational cricket for donkey's years. Most regions will have at least one evening league where it's either 20 six-ball overs or 15 eight-ball overs and the games start at 6pm so players can come straight from work. So T20 was really just that but taken up a few levels, it wasn't a new thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure about other countries but twenty over matches and leagues have been a thing in English recreational cricket for donkey's years. Most regions will have at least one evening league where it's either 20 six-ball overs or 15 eight-ball overs and the games start at 6pm so players can come straight from work. So T20 was really just that but taken up a few levels, it wasn't a new thing.

Interesting, never knew this. First I heard of adults playing 20 over games was when the Counties started it around 2003

 

[Molehill]

Go ask the English boffins who invented T20.

To be fair, when it was invented each team had 1 hour 20 mins to bowl the overs, a 20 min break in the middle and it's all done in 3 hours, a good evening's entertainment. It's the IPL that has turned it into a commercial abomination that lasts over 4 hours.

 

[weeman27bob]

To be fair, when it was invented each team had 1 hour 20 mins to bowl the overs, a 20 min break in the middle and it's all done in 3 hours, a good evening's entertainment. It's the IPL that has turned it into a commercial abomination that lasts over 4 hours.

Maybe there's some sort of way we could speed it up again by shortening the number of overs, and having more balls bowled from the same end.

It could last a hundred balls each innings, as that's a little less than 20 overs. A hundred balls is a nice round number as well, and a hundred is a number people associate with things being completed and excellent.

We could call this new competition "The Cricket Competition that lasts for a century of balls"

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

T10 exists.

but to answer the question that OP asked, it’s simple: to have actual fireworks

 

[Chin Music]

Not sure about other countries but twenty over matches and leagues have been a thing in English recreational cricket for donkey's years. Most regions will have at least one evening league where it's either 20 six-ball overs or 15 eight-ball overs and the games start at 6pm so players can come straight from work. So T20 was really just that but taken up a few levels, it wasn't a new thing.

Yep, I had played post work cricket back in the mid 90s. Certain clubs in certain areas had clearly been doing it for many years. I didn't play cricket for quite a few years after that point and when I came back to playing I played in a midweek competition (16 overs a side) (mid 00s) that had been going on for ages before hand. So professional short form games was no different to what had already been going on. I should also say that we had plenty of players from Australia in our teams at various times as well as SA and NZ players and even a few from India.