Is 20/20 better than ODIs ? A Poll

[Jono]

Because it may have helped his team win the game. If 10 is the batsmens aim and you go for 6.5 an over it is a job well done.

Stop being so rigid as to what equates to success or domination. In 20/20 if a bowler goes for 5 runs in an over it is a form of domination as the batsman is trying to impose his will and the bowler prevents that and takes control of the situation.

Hang on, so if Mick Lewis only went for 10 an over instead of 11-12, and Australia won the famous 434 game, he did a 'job well done' and should be praised for his performance?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's the thing that really ***** me. First off, a wicket means a hell of a lot less in 20/20 than in ODIs. A hell of a lot less, because you've only got 20 overs to bat.

Secondly, a 4 over spell is ridiculous, and someone please try and argue otherwise, that'd be great. Because no one actually argues for the benfits of 20/20 cricket other than saying "one's skills are tested more". Gee I thought test cricket was for that. Bowling is about working out the batsman, particularly opening bowlers. Not bowling as many yorkers as possible to make sure the runs are kept to a minimum. When bowling figures of 4-0-1-30 is a par performance, you know something is wrong.

I seem to have voted the 3rd option, and whilst that was an accident, its not completely inaccurate mind you. I don't totally mind 20/20 as a domestic competition, but if it takes over from ODIs and starts eating into tests, we have a problem. I'd prefer there not to be int'l 20/20s at all, but if there has to be, keep it to the novelty ones where rugby players start playing and players have afros etc. That's what it deserves IMO.

Good post. As I said earlier, my main problem with 20/20 is that rather than removing the bad bits of ODIs and leaving the good bits, it simply makes the bad bits far, far worse in my opinion. I don't mind the middle overs in ODIs really, what I mind is the lack of equal opportunity for bowlers to influence the game, the defensive nature of play from the fielding side and the enhancement of the value of particular cricketing skills to the detriment of others (rather than being an all-round test). All those things are minor problems in 50 over cricket, which is why I prefer tests, but they are all huge problems in 20/20.

Rather than getting 10 overs and having a realistic chance to change the game with the ball, bowlers get 4. Rather than being able to use semi-attacking fields at times to push an advatage with extra wickets, captains must use the most defensive fields possible at all times, as their only interest is in slowing the run rate. Rather than knowing they have to bat out 50 overs and thus preserve their wickets somewhat, batsmen have nothing to fear from getting out. Thus, goodbye Michael Bevan, hello Cameron White.

 

[Goughy]

Hang on, so if Mick Lewis only went for 10 an over instead of 11-12, and Australia won the famous 434 game, he did a 'job well done' and should be praised for his performance?

Well he certainly would not have been lampooned like he has. Those 1 or 2 runs could be the difference in a career and a fair bit of cash over said career. So I think, Yes I would congratulate him.

 

[Jono]

Thus, goodbye Michael Bevan, hello Cameron White.

How many famous knocks in the ilk of Bevan's are we going to see in 20/20 cricket? You can have you smash bang unbelievable hitting knock ala Pietersen or Symonds which wins a team a match in ODI cricket, but you can also have a classically timed knock in a low scoring game which wins a team a match in ODI cricket too ala Michael Bevan 1 Jan 1996.

Is that possible in 20/20 cricket? And that's the issue, these people arguing that ODI cricket should be REPLACED by 20/20 are hence stating that there shouldn't be any Michael Bevans in the world of cricket.

 

[adharcric]

Typically naive argument against Twenty20. Nearly every decent Aussie batsman has done supremely well in Twenty20 here in England, foreign quality spinners completely dominate and most of the usual good county cricketers do well... so how exactly does that not differentiate between quality and rubbish? Bits in bold are just gibberish and highlight the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Yeah .. you didn't say why Twenty20 cricket isn't defensive and you didn't refute the fact that batsmen can go on an all-out attack without putting too much value on their wicket.

 

[Jono]

Well he certainly would not have been lampooned like he has. Those 1 or 2 runs could be the difference in a career and a fair bit of cash over said career. So I think, Yes I would congratulate him.

See, when I go out to bowl for my team, and I'm defending a 7 an over score (well that doesn't happen because my team's batting sucks) my captain doesn't come up to me and go "Alright, all I need from you is to make sure you give less than 7 runs an over, if you do that, we'll win." He says "Keep it tight, pitch it up and try and get me a wicket."

Immediately you're saying bowl with a defensive mindset, and as long as you don't lose the game for your team, job well done. Nice way to play cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many famous knocks in the ilk of Bevan's are we going to see in 20/20 cricket? You can have you smash bang unbelievable hitting knock ala Pietersen or Symonds which wins a team a match in ODI cricket, but you can also have a classically timed knock in a low scoring game which wins a team a match in ODI cricket too ala Michael Bevan 1 Jan 1996.

Is that possible in 20/20 cricket? And that's the issue, these people arguing that ODI cricket should be REPLACED by 20/20 are hence stating that there shouldn't be any Michael Bevans in the world of cricket.

Precisely. I'd also say it's worth noting in this debate that it is agreed by a large section of cricket fans that the most entertaining ODI games are the lowest scoring ones. Frankly, I'd watch the 1999 or 1996 WC semis or the Jan 1, '96 game a dozen times before I'd sit through that 400+ game in South Africa again. One of them contained some remarkable hitting, but the others were brilliant contests between bat and ball throughout, which makes the best, most entertaining cricket all-round. I don't care to watch teams score 5/200 off 20 overs, in any form of the game. In most cases, it's not good cricket. But if a team slumps to 5/90 off 30 overs chasing 200, I know I might well be in for a good game.

 

[Dasa]

Jono and FaaipDeOiad have said everything I wanted to say. Couldn't agree more with what you guys have written.

 

[adharcric]

Same here.

 

[Xuhaib]

Great posts by Jono and Faaip you both deserve an award this week.Couldn't agree more.

 

[SpeedKing]

Personally i like ODIs but as an Engalnd supporter, they are becoming very distasteful. However still enjoy the Aus-SA, NZ-SA, Pakistan-Aus close contests.

20/20 is a great idea though which gets alot of people interesed in cricket. I mean most people can just about sit through 120 minutes of a football world cup final. 20/20 is a way of getting those of lesser concentration to accept the game, then, later on they might be able to get into ODIs and even tests. So basically the three formats [or 2 in this thread] should go hand in hand. I wouldn't advocate for many more 20/20 internationals though. 1 a series is enough.

 

[steds]

Now tell me how many bowler friendly wickets exist in 20/20?

I'll tell you one. Old Trafford. Last year it turned square and Lancashire went into matches with 3 spinners on several occasions (Keedy, Andrew Crook and Murali/Symonds). This season it's been close to the same and Simon Marshall, in particular, has benefitted.

 

[steds]

How many famous knocks in the ilk of Bevan's are we going to see in 20/20 cricket? You can have you smash bang unbelievable hitting knock ala Pietersen or Symonds which wins a team a match in ODI cricket, but you can also have a classically timed knock in a low scoring game which wins a team a match in ODI cricket too ala Michael Bevan 1 Jan 1996.

Is that possible in 20/20 cricket? And that's the issue, these people arguing that ODI cricket should be REPLACED by 20/20 are hence stating that there shouldn't be any Michael Bevans in the world of cricket.

I give up. You don't seem to understand that Twenty20 games aren't the senseless slogging of every single ball, devout of any orthodox cricket or any strategy behind winning the game other than "swing the ****ing bat," and you aren't coming round any time soon. This is why Cricket Chat is so ****. Everyone has their own views and ideas, but everyone thinks their views and ideas are right. And they'll die to defend their "correct" views. There hasn't been a bigger pile of jizz than that last sentence of yours since Warnies last threesome, so give it a rest, will you.

 

[steds]

Personally i like ODIs but as an Engalnd supporter, they are becoming very distasteful.

Tbf, that's England's performances being distasteful rather than the format.

 

[Dasa]

I give up. You don't seem to understand that Twenty20 games aren't the senseless slogging of every single ball, devout of any orthodox cricket or any strategy behind winning the game other than "swing the ****ing bat," and you aren't coming round any time soon. This is why Cricket Chat is so ****. Everyone has their own views and ideas, but everyone thinks their views and ideas are right. And they'll die to defend their "correct" views. There hasn't been a bigger pile of jizz than that last sentence of yours since Warnies last threesome, so give it a rest, will you.

Why would people have views they didn't think were right?

 

[Goughy]

Give it 5 years Steds, its just people with little understanding or vision. Thats not a criticism but a truism born from the fact that people are relativly new to the format.

I did not think I could be convinced by 20/20 and I probably wrote stuff like these guys a few years ago.

I readily admit that I was wrong then as I know these guys are wrong now. The English embrace 20/20 more than others as it has become part of the furniture and it appreciated.

It is probably incorrect of us to criticise others when many of us were the same during the development of 20/20 in our part of the world.

I understand their opinion but it is a raw, naive and wrong opinion that will probably change in time. Its just 2 differently evolved opinions clashing.

As I said a few years ago I would probably have been on their side.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I give up. You don't seem to understand that Twenty20 games aren't the senseless slogging of every single ball, devout of any orthodox cricket or any strategy behind winning the game other than "swing the ****ing bat," and you aren't coming round any time soon. This is why Cricket Chat is so ****. Everyone has their own views and ideas, but everyone thinks their views and ideas are right. And they'll die to defend their "correct" views. There hasn't been a bigger pile of jizz than that last sentence of yours since Warnies last threesome, so give it a rest, will you.

Just because there are other things to the game than just slogging doesn't mean that the slogging and defensive bowling that plagues ODIs isn't worse in 20/20 games. No, it's not just a home run derby with a bowling machine, but it certainly is higher scoring, has more defensive play and favours players with particular skills over others.

 

[pskov]

Without wanting to sound patronising, I agree with those who say that as 20/20 is played more in other parts of the world people will start to accept more as lots of generalisations and incorrect assumptions are shown to be false.

All this about 20/20 being a batsmen's game, well how so? It isn't as if they've made bats bigger or the track longer or the wickets smaller, it's still the same game. If you bowl crap you get hit, if you bowl well you don't. Batsmen who just go out and try to slog from ball one get out and look like idiots, batsmen who go deftly knock it around picking up singles and twos every ball are invaluable, genuinely talented batsmen who can play every shot in the book are still the cornerstone of any side. Bowlers who are loose and inconsistent get hit all over the park, those who are tight, accurate and threatening pick up wickets and stem the flow of runs. It is exactly the same contest as it is in ODIs, indeed in Tests, just more magnified. Small mistakes become big ones and great pieces of skill can turn an innings on its head. The intesne consistent examination of technique is unlike an other form of the game, where it is possible to, if not switch off, drift along for a few overs and get away with it.

For those who say it's a novelty, that was my thought when it was introduced in 2003. But now, the players take it just as seriously as the 4day and 1day formats, if not even more so since they get to play to crowds much larger in 20/20 than the other matches. I was concerned that poor bowlers and mediocre batsmen would be raised but that has not been the case, if you look at the top performers in the County Championship and 20/20, the same guys are at the top in both formats. One that has been pleasently suprising is that good spinners have proven themselves to be more than useful in 20/20, even at the death overs, and so consequently more sides are picking spinners in the C&G and National League competitions, which can only be good for English cricket.

edit: And yes, I think Tests are by far and away the best format and oul still like to see ODIs continue. I don't see why there can't be coexistence between all three formats.

 

[Dasa]

Of course Twenty20s are a batsmans game, as are ODIs. I don't necessarily agree that it is the exact same contest as ODIs or Tests, just magnified. It obviously requires different skills - and you can see that in some fairly average ODI/Test players who do wonderfully well in Twenty20 while some Twenty20 players are crap in the longer versions. My criticism of the format is similar to my criticism of ODIs. Neither form is very forgiving for bowlers. The only problem I have with Twenty20 that I don't have with ODIs is that Twenty20 is too short for me - I like to have more cricket to watch, and a 3 hour match doesn't do it for me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Of course Twenty20s are a batsmans game, as are ODIs. I don't necessarily agree that it is the exact same contest as ODIs or Tests, just magnified. It obviously requires different skills - and you can see that in some fairly average ODI/Test players who do wonderfully well in Twenty20 while some Twenty20 players are crap in the longer versions. My criticism of the format is similar to my criticism of ODIs. Neither form is very forgiving for bowlers. The only problem I have with Twenty20 that I don't have with ODIs is that Twenty20 is too short for me - I like to have more cricket to watch, and a 3 hour match doesn't do it for me.

Fairly average ODI/Test players are usually good players in the respective domestic cricket competitions so they're obviously going to do well. If you're referring to Twenty20 internationally there haven't been enough games to say really.

By the way anyone else nauseated by the pointless back-slapping when someone just happens to agree with someone else so they say 'good post' regardless of whether it actually makes any decent points or not. Seems to be happening quite a lot lately.