Is 20/20 better than ODIs ? A Poll

[Sw1fty]

I prefer ODIs but 20/20 can still continue. In my opinion I think 20/20 is just another way of getting more revenue. Just hit & giggle cricket if you ask me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But fundamentally, wickets are the most important and basic aspect of cricket. The batsman tries to hit the ball and get runs, the bowler tries to get the batsman out. Whilst wickets are not 100% necessary in ODIs, the opening bowlers still try and get wickets and attack with slips and gullies and catching fielders. By a bowler ripping out a Tendulkar or a Gilchrist early (say 1st over), it goes a long way to winning the game because there are 49 overs that they will not bat for. That's a long time.

In 20/20s, the depth of a batting team is less important because there are only 20 overs, and hence wickets are less desirable. Maybe bowling economically is a big part of the game, but for that to be the ultimate aim of all bowlers is fairly unexciting. In ODIs that is stil not the case as the opening bowlers are always looking to remove the opening batsman, not looking to make sure they don't hit a 4, with the wicket being a secondary thought.

Now whilst I agree that wickets are obviously not as valued in 20/20s as they are in first-class cricket (& of course, as you realise, one can say exactly the same thing about ODIs), it would be totally incorrect to suggest that the taking of them doesn't have some impact on the game. Losing a gun batter in the first over will obviously affect any team. To take a recent example, on Sunday (I think) Lancashire reduced Notts to 14/5 off the first five overs. Such a loss obviously changes the dynamic of an innings more than if, say, Notts had've been 14/0. Not that it matters, but they were "genuine" wickets too, three to Flintoff & two to Dom Cork.

Now obviously they are two bowlers of great than average ability, but to suggest that all bowlers don't try to take wickets in 20/20 just isn't correct.

For me, this "strength" of ODIs is, as I've said before, really the strength of first-class cricket. Whilst conventional one-day stuff more successfully apes the longer format, they're still a fairly pale imitation of the quote-unquote real thing.

Genuine question to any ODI advocate, if you like overs 15-40 could you tell me what it is that appeals? I just don't see it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Genuine question to any ODI advocate, if you like overs 15-40 could you tell me what it is that appeals? I just don't see it.

Same thing that appeals about first class cricket, as you say. It's a test of a batsman's ability and concentration, and a bowler and captain's ability to change get a wicket when the batsmen are (usually) intent mostly on keeping wickets intact for the late overs.

There is of course the rather pointless situation in some ODIs where both the batting and fielding sides are happy with, say, 4 an over, and it's 4 chips down to long-on per over with neither side looking to change it around, but I don't think that's always the case by any means. If there's good players involved I always find it fairly interesting. Last year for instance, in the Australian summer, the middle overs of the ODIs were generally very interesting because Murali was bowling, and it was a good contest between bat and ball.

The middle overs also give the opportunity for the nature of the game to change. A team that loses early wickets can rebuild in the middle overs, and a fielding side that gets belted around early can try and make up ground with a few wickets. If you take out those middle overs, it basically ensures that the trend of the game is set in stone at the start. No team is ever going to recover from, say, 4/20 after 10 overs in a 20/20 game, but in an ODI a team could still score 250+ from that position with some good batting. The fact that ODIs are longer means there's far more prospect for a change in the trend of the game.

The middle overs of ODIs aren't usually the most action-packed period of cricket you'll ever see, but then plenty of people find a team making it to 0/40 at lunch on a seamer pretty boring too, but I'd say that a lot of the time that could be quite fascinating cricket. Anyway, as I said in another post in this thread, I generally find the lower scoring ODIs the most interesting, because they make for the best contests. As such, the death overs when it's "slog or get out" don't do a great deal for me in the higher scoring games, and this is becoming more true as scores go up and pitches get flatter. Sure, there's a certain skill to making quick runs or restricting them in that part of the game, and given the right circumstances the death overs can be great, but in most cases it's not one of my favourite parts of cricket generally, and I'd rather not watch a format in which the game is basically reduced to that period of the game for the whole length.

 

[Sir Redman]

I went this one- ODIs better than 20/20, but like 20/20 to continue

They should do away with 20/20 internationals, though.

Agreed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Not really, as the wickets have no real bearing on the match, and bowlers simply don't bowl to take wickets in 20/20, they bowl to attempt not to concede runs. In an actual bowler's format, one mistake from the batsman and one wicket can turn a match, and a couple of them almost certainly will, if it is at all close. That's what makes it a bowler's format - bowlers have an ability to change the game by bowling well (taking wickets). Even in ODIs, an opening spell of, say, 2 wickets for any bowler is likely to have a big impact on the game for some time afterwards, as teams will generally slow the run rate in an attempt to avoid a major collapse, and will realise that if they lose another they could be in big trouble. In 20/20, 2 wickets in the opening over simply doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that one or two capable batsmen have been replaced, as the chances of being bowled out any significant time before the end of your innings are close to nil.

Basically, in 20/20 it's generally better to score at 8-10 an over and lose a wicket every 10 balls than score at 3-5 an over and not lose any. I think most people who don't enjoy 20/20 object to that as much as any other individual aspect of the game, because it is so divorced from the basic principles of cricket as to scarcely be the same game.

Anyway, to suggest that it is a bowler's format is so absurd it's actually quite difficult to imagine that you are serious about it. It does however bring to mind a Jason Gillespie quote from when he first signed for Yorkshire, when he said, "It (20/20) doesn't interest me. It brings new fans to the game and obviously it's quite popular, but for guys like me who can't bat or field there's really not much point, and I won't be playing it". Mind you, I believe he has actually been playing it, but the fact that he said publically that he didn't want to says a lot about how bowlers view the format.

Wickets have plenty of bearing on the match, apart from the fact that each time you take a wicket you get an inferior batsman coming in they also have to get their eye in and wickets stem the run rate. Don't take a wicket for a period of 5-10 overs and chances are you'll be getting hammered around the park. Take a look at the game in the Stanford 20/20 yesterday, Cayman Islands went from 29-2 after 7.2 overs to 175-4 at the end (2 wickets fell in the last over). Then Cayman Islands reduced Bahamas to 22-5 and that was that. As for sides being bowled out, 10 teams batting first were bowled out in the 70 completed Twenty20 games and plenty more were reduced to 7, 8 or 9 wickets and so had to be more circumspect in the late overs. By saying wickets have no real bearing on the match is, like Jason Gillepsie, just showing off your ignorance of the format.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think I'll commit some pointless back-slapping, well said. Particularly this point.

Well done, you just agreed with the biggest pile of rubbish in this thread so far.

I think that's how that backslapping works isn't it?