Is 20/20 better than ODIs ? A Poll

[TT Boy]

Well it's only just starting in WI, but given the money involved i'd venture to suggest that will get taken seriously.

Regarding Pakistan and Sri Lanka, it's interesting that you say they don't take it seriously over there, because the reports i can find seem to suggest its far from a joke event.

It’s meant to be pretty big in Pakistan, my brother went to a couple of games when he was in Karachi and he said the city almost came to a standstill when the 20/20 was on.

 

[steds]

BTW 2 players from each side always wear earpieces in televised games over here so its not like that was something novelty over in Aus.

Don't forget the umpires.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I love watching a change of momentum in a game of cricket. That's the most endearing thing about ODIs, you get them more often than in Test cricket, and you rarely get any largely significant ones in Twenty20.

Third option for mine.

 

[Jono]

I love watching a change of momentum in a game of cricket. That's the most endearing thing about ODIs, you get them more often than in Test cricket, and you rarely get any largely significant ones in Twenty20.

Third option for mine.

Good call. A ODI result can be certain for all money for 75 overs of a game, and then can suddenly change just like that.

What I don't understand is why ODIs have 'suddenly' become the illegitimate form of the game. What's made it crap all of a sudden? All that has happened recently is they are played more often, that's all. That's a different issue than the game itself being poor IMO. Yeah there was the super-sub and powerplay rule, but that hasn't turned ODI cricket into a farce, rather it was just a mistake. Why suddenly in 2005-06 has ODI cricket become useless?

 

[GIMH]

It's not useless. But for me it is by far and away the most boring Cricket. I won't arrange my shedule around an ODI, I'll watch them if I'm doing nothing else whereas I will do my best to fit watching Test cricket in. But as I don't have Skysports atm watching Cricket at all is difficult

 

[Jono]

Was it the most boring cricket in say 1999 though? Or even more recently, say 2002 or something? Or is this just a new finding? That's what confuses me the most.

 

[GIMH]

There was no twenty20 back then, so yeah it was still the most boring Cricket if you prefer Tests. The thing is, though, the reason that ODIs are no2 the "illegitimate" form of the game (that isn't necessairly how I would put it tbf) is because there's Twenty20 for those who want to watch a short game, and Tests and First Class cricket for those who wish to watch a "proper" game, ODIs are just the middle ground. I think that's how it's viewed in England, and Brumby's analysis of overs 15-40 being dull is spot on. So they should reduce it to 25 overs for each side

 

[Goughy]

As others have commented, the main thrust of the pro 20/20 lobby seems to be English.

Others have offered suggestions as to why that maybe but I think the most obvious reason is that the English have had the greatest exposure to the format and see the benefits that others may miss.

What people tend to forget is that early on the attitude in England was simliar to that the rest of the world is expressing now.

People called it a joke and thought it would further devalue the game (I may have had one foot in that camp). Things change and it is the English who may understand 20/20 better.

I have little doubt that the current attitudes will change as the game becomes less of a novelty and become valued for what it is (as mine were).

People are generally resistant to change and it is only obvious that the English, who have had the greatest time to adapt, are the most accepting.

Give it 10 years, 20/20 will be a cornerstone of International cricket, peoples attitudes will have changed and young guys and girls will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As others have commented, the main thrust of the pro 20/20 lobby seems to be English.

Others have offered suggestions as to why that maybe but I think the most obvious reason is that the English have had the greatest exposure to the format and see the benefits that others may miss.

What people tend to forget is that early on the attitude in England was simliar to that the rest of the world is expressing now.

People called it a joke and thought it would further devalue the game (I may have had one foot in that camp). Things change and it is the English who may understand 20/20 better.

I have little doubt that the current attitudes will change as the game becomes less of a novelty and become valued for what it is (as mine were).

People are generally resistant to change and it is only obvious that the English, who have had the greatest time to adapt, are the most accepting.

Give it 10 years, 20/20 will be a cornerstone of International cricket, peoples attitudes will have changed and young guys and girls will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Yep.

As far as the voting goes on here... generally the people who properly know what Twenty20 is about have gone for the first three options. Those who haven't really been exposed to Twenty20 have gone for the last option, plus Langeveldt who is like a grumpy old man anyway so has probably forgotten what Twenty20 is like...

 

[Sanz]

As others have commented, the main thrust of the pro 20/20 lobby seems to be English.

Others have offered suggestions as to why that maybe but I think the most obvious reason is that the English have had the greatest exposure to the format and see the benefits that others may miss.

What people tend to forget is that early on the attitude in England was simliar to that the rest of the world is expressing now.

People called it a joke and thought it would further devalue the game (I may have had one foot in that camp). Things change and it is the English who may understand 20/20 better.

I have little doubt that the current attitudes will change as the game becomes less of a novelty and become valued for what it is (as mine were).

People are generally resistant to change and it is only obvious that the English, who have had the greatest time to adapt, are the most accepting.

Give it 10 years, 20/20 will be a cornerstone of International cricket, peoples attitudes will have changed and young guys and girls will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Or may be people (excluding Scaly Whine) in England are interested in 20/20 because their team sucks in ODIs and the only way to compete in shorter version of game is through 20/20.

 

[Sanz]

Yep.

As far as the voting goes on here... generally the people who properly know what Twenty20 is about have gone for the first three options. Those who haven't really been exposed to Twenty20 have gone for the last option, plus Langeveldt who is like a grumpy old man anyway so has probably forgotten what Twenty20 is like...

So why have you voted for 20/20, I hope you are not claiming that you know anything about it ? Just so you know, It's different from scrabble, it's another form of cricket..

 

[Goughy]

Or may be people (excluding Scaly Whine) in England are interested in 20/20 because their team sucks in ODIs and the only way to compete in shorter version of game is through 20/20.

Why is this drum being constantly banged? Its got nothing to do with it. I believe that 20/20 was already doing well whilst England were competeing pretty well against the Aussies in ODIs last year. ODIs are not important enough in England to warrant a knee-jerk reaction. You really think that people are backing 20/20 due to a few months of bad ODI cricket? thats pretty insulting. I tried to break the reasons down for people, but if people don't want to listen...

Even if England were the best ODI team in the world it would not effect my 20/20 opinions or those of the public at large.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or may be people (excluding Scaly Whine) in England are interested in 20/20 because their team sucks in ODIs and the only way to compete in shorter version of game is through 20/20.

I personally don't see anything to suggest that we'll be any more proficient @ 20/20s than we are at ODIs, so I think we can discount that as an argument.

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread an awful lot of the key contributors in our domestic comp are the overseas pros (witness Cam White's 141* yesterday, albeit in a losing cause).

On another topic I refer to one-dayers & 20/20 as "illegitimate" because if I used "*******ized" the filter gets me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Heh see that's why Sanz is on ignore - what a fruitcake. You'd have thought England had beaten SL or something.

 

[steds]

Or may be people (excluding Scaly Whine) in England are interested in 20/20 because their team sucks in ODIs and the only way to compete in shorter version of game is through 20/20.

Our football team sucks. We don't look for alternative versions of that, just so we can compete. Same with most other sports, and Test cricket in the 90s. We didn't turn to ODIs or invent Twenty20 then, just because we were the worst Test team in the world. What makes everyone think this is any different?

 

[Langeveldt]

As long as Test cricket is sacred then Im all for it.

Thats the big if

We've already seen Test cricket compromised in favour of Twenty20 in New Zealand.. I'd be able to tolerate Twenty20 if there were 400 days in a year and it could use up the extra space, but something's got to give..

 

[Langeveldt]

plus Langeveldt who is like a grumpy old man .

someone didn't get any tonight

 

[steds]

So why have you voted for 20/20, I hope you are not claiming that you know anything about it ? Just so you know, It's different from scrabble, it's another form of cricket..

Uncalled for, particularly stupid and one of the least funny things I've ever read.

 

[Sanz]

Uncalled for, particularly stupid and one of the least funny things I've ever read.

ScalyWhine doesn't deserve anything better.

 

[Sanz]

Why is this drum being constantly banged? Its got nothing to do with it. I believe that 20/20 was already doing well whilst England were competeing pretty well against the Aussies in ODIs last year. ODIs are not important enough in England to warrant a knee-jerk reaction. You really think that people are backing 20/20 due to a few months of bad ODI cricket? thats pretty insulting. I tried to break the reasons down for people, but if people don't want to listen...

Even if England were the best ODI team in the world it would not effect my 20/20 opinions or those of the public at large.

On the same note it is incredibly naive to suggest that people outside England have not had the exposure of Twenty20. May be not with the International players but In India we have a lot of 20-25 Over Tournaments where local teams participate in it. The Tendulkars and Dravids dont really participate in those but I have seen many State level players playing 20/25 participating. This type of Chutney Cricket is good for a fun day but I wouldn't want it replacing ODI cricket.

I would have taken your comments seriously If you had posted it without "English have had the greatest exposure to the format and see the benefits that others may miss". If that is the way you want people to accept it then it is never going to happen.

I will admit that I have not watched any of those Twenty20 cricket that is being played in England but I have followed it very closely over the internet(and watched similar games in India) and what I dislike most about it is the clear dominance of bat over ball, this is not even a contest between the bowler and batsman, it is almost always a Run-fest. A bowler has no chance of succeeding (except by fluke). In Twenty20 a Mcgrath would appear no better than a Kabir Ali and an Afridi would be like Bradman. I dont want this form of Cricket.

TBF I would prefer to go back to the ODIs of 80s, where the pitches would be less flat and a score of 250 is pretty would be competitive.