• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

is 20/20 the new oneday Cricket

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
nikhil1772 said:
Honestly I find 20/20 the most interesting when you consider watching one full Cricket match
I have to agree with u their during ODIs i can't help but get a little boring during the 15-40 over period. You have all these part timers bowling and all the batsmen seen to want to do is score 1s or 2s and don't even look for any boundaries. In Test Cricket the scoring rate might be slower but least u have top bowlers bowling to batsmen not part timers. If i was going to watch a full day of cricket i would rather watch Twenty20, Test and then ODIs. That 15 to 40 over period ruins ODIs IMO as it is too predicatable.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
As a bowler i bowl for wickets first and reducing runs seconds.
An extremely unwise attitude, especially if you're playing mostly limited-overs cricket.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
An extremely unwise attitude, especially if you're playing mostly limited-overs cricket.
Even Glen McGarth says that he is more wicket oriented then anything else. Most bowler's i know would rather 5/49 (10) then 1/20(10). Wickets is the first thing u think of as a bowler and if u take wickets u generally keeps runs down as well. 5wh and 10wh are the main objective of bowlers not RPO less then 3 or 4.
 

Sir Redman

State Vice-Captain
Not all types of bowlers think like that e.g. Gavin Larsen, Chris Harris, Nathan Astle...part timers jobs are to contain runs, not necessarily take wickets
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, Twenty20 Cricket is the new OD Cricket because:

a) It is new; and

b) It is one-day Cricket.

:p
 

J.Coney

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Sir Redman said:
Not all types of bowlers think like that e.g. Gavin Larsen, Chris Harris, Nathan Astle...part timers jobs are to contain runs, not necessarily take wickets
strange i have never seen any of those bowlers take a wicket and say to the batsmen "nar don't worry stay where you are lets just call that a dot ball, here i'll help you put the stumps back in place"

cz harris. 203 w
gr larsen. 113 w
nj astle. 95w
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Casson said:
Yes, Twenty20 Cricket is the new OD Cricket because:

a) It is new; and

b) It is one-day Cricket.

:p
No, it's not - it's one-evening cricket.
Under no circumstances can a game of 40 overs' duration take anything close to a day.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
Even Glen McGarth says that he is more wicket oriented then anything else. Most bowler's i know would rather 5/49 (10) then 1/20(10). Wickets is the first thing u think of as a bowler and if u take wickets u generally keeps runs down as well. 5wh and 10wh are the main objective of bowlers not RPO less then 3 or 4.
In a limited-overs game 1\20 is more valuable than 3\50.
Personally I always look for economy first and then look for wickets when I've got control of the situation.
Even in the First-Class game economy is an important consideration. Of course 20-80-4 is a better set of figures than 20-50-2. Whether it's better than 20-55-3, though, is open for question.
5-fors and 10-fors, meanwhile, aren't really what matter - average and strike-rate are the relevant factors. Like centuries for batsmen, you can't use one single-innings parameter as a target. A 70 on a tricky pitch is infinately more valuable than a 102 on a belter. Equally, sometimes 30-120-5 is a better set of figures, sometimes 30-75-3 is better. It all depends on the circumstances.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
It all depends on when the 3-50 are taken.

3 early wickets is a very good effort since it puts the opposition on the back-foot.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, true, but scorebooks don't differentiate between 3 wickets taken in the last 2 overs through slogs.
You've got to look at each spell individually to do that.
 

kof98

U19 12th Man
Richard said:
In a limited-overs game 1\20 is more valuable than 3\50.
Personally I always look for economy first and then look for wickets when I've got control of the situation.
Even in the First-Class game economy is an important consideration. Of course 20-80-4 is a better set of figures than 20-50-2. Whether it's better than 20-55-3, though, is open for question.
5-fors and 10-fors, meanwhile, aren't really what matter - average and strike-rate are the relevant factors. Like centuries for batsmen, you can't use one single-innings parameter as a target. A 70 on a tricky pitch is infinately more valuable than a 102 on a belter. Equally, sometimes 30-120-5 is a better set of figures, sometimes 30-75-3 is better. It all depends on the circumstances.
If you have control you should try to get wickets otherwise the opposition can rebuild their innings and actually get a decent total as England did in the last ODI.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
No, it's not - it's one-evening cricket.
Under no circumstances can a game of 40 overs' duration take anything close to a day.
OHHHHHH MY GOD.... Richard, that is the most groan-inducing thing I have ever heard. I don't even have time to make this reply because I'm in a hurry, but I couldn't leave it alone.

My word, you've never fully woken up until you've had a complimentary glass of pedantry on CW early in the morning from its creator, Richard.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kof98 said:
If you have control you should try to get wickets otherwise the opposition can rebuild their innings and actually get a decent total as England did in the last ODI.
Yea, I remember Flintoff blocking out Harbhajan Singh in an ODI, got figures of 2-14 then Flintoff pummeled the other bowlers and England got 307. I could see this sort of thing happening more often with Twenty20 cricket where teams are capable of getting 200 in their 20 overs.
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
Personally I'm not a fan of 20/20 cricket but there is a spot for it, although it shouldn't even be considered on it's own as an official format - i.e. Test, ODI, First Class, List A, 2nd XI, etc,.

I think it is best used, in terms of Australia, as a carnival type tournament rather than the way it's played in England as a proper competition played over the duration of a season. The reason it's done that way is because of the money it brings in, but until CA starts going broke and losing money there is no requirement for that here. It will only serve to overcrowd and already overcrowded schedule.

We could play two competition each season, with the six states being put into two groups, each playing their own group once. The top two teams then play in the final. It could be played with 2 games on the Friday, two on the Saturday, two on the Sunday with the final beginning at 7.30pm on the Sunday.

In terms of international cricket i think the way it was used for Australia-New Zealand was good. I don't think it would be a good idea to start playing 3,5 or 7-game series. one-off games are good, but i would prefer them to be played in developing countries.

I.e.
- for tours to Australia and New Zealand, play countries in the Pacific Islands (Fiji, Vanuata etc,.)
- for tours to the sub continent play in countries like Nepal, Indonesia, Singapore etc,.
- for tours to England play in any developing European nation (Denmark, Croatia, Finland, Spain etc,.)
- for tours to South Africa or Zimbabwe play in developing African nations (Kenya, Uganda, Zambia etc,.)
- for tours to West Indies play in the USA, Argentina, Cayman Islands, Mexico, Panama etc,.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Twenty20 isn't played over the duration of a season in England, this up and coming season all the group games will be played from June 22nd to July 6th, so that's over the period of 15 days, then the quarter finals are July 18th and finals day is July 30th. The domestic cricket season obviously lasts a lot longer than that.
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
Scaly piscine said:
Twenty20 isn't played over the duration of a season in England, this up and coming season all the group games will be played from June 22nd to July 6th, so that's over the period of 15 days, then the quarter finals are July 18th and finals day is July 30th. The domestic cricket season obviously lasts a lot longer than that.
fair enough, i thought it was played in rounds over the course of the season.

I guess with 18 teams, it would be impossible to play out a competition over the duration of one weekend but that's not a bad format for a 20/20 competition and so many teams....
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
kof98 said:
If you have control you should try to get wickets otherwise the opposition can rebuild their innings and actually get a decent total as England did in the last ODI.
If you lose control you concede a decent total.
If you keep control you don't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Casson said:
OHHHHHH MY GOD.... Richard, that is the most groan-inducing thing I have ever heard. I don't even have time to make this reply because I'm in a hurry, but I couldn't leave it alone.

My word, you've never fully woken up until you've had a complimentary glass of pedantry on CW early in the morning from its creator, Richard.
The distinction is rather more important than you might make-out.
Under no circumstances can OD and OE cricket be compared - they're not the same thing.
 

Top