• 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.

Organize More 20 20 Internationals please and its Advantages

R

ralph567

Cricket Spectator
It is ridiculous to see Boards organizing only 1 20 20 game every tours. There should be atealst 7 -9 per tour.

20 -20 Matches have the following advantages

1. They are great crowd pullers and we will get guranteed full houses for these games which is great for Sponsors and Advertisers.
2. They provide lots of excitement and there is never a dull moment.
3. It tests the innovative thinking, agility and quick thinking abilities of players.
4. They are over quickly so players and are less stressful who complain of excessive cricket can shut their mouths.
5. Back to back matches can be arranged and organizers can arrange atleast 2 matches in a day to give the crowd a full day's entertainment.
6. Most importantly people do not need to take off from work and can come over to the Cricket after a hard day's work.


Also the National Side should play atleast 50 Twenty 20 games in a year
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Ralph every post of your's need not be a new thread mate, i hope you undertstand that mate.
2 T20 games on every tour is fine with me, that way there won't be any overdose of it and people would get their share of entertainment too.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
IMO, T20 and ODI should be used as a progression into Tests. It's no coincidence that our game is now faster (higher SRs) because of having introduced ODI where players who're deemed prospects get the chance to showcase themselves have often gone onto Test cricket later taking some of those traits too. The next step seems to be using T20 as a pre-test for ODI and then ODI for Test cricket. In this simple theory, it seems the talent to play Test cricket will be even more reliant on making quicker runs and taking faster wickets - possibly evolving players even more.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
KaZoH0lic said:
IMO, T20 and ODI should be used as a progression into Tests. It's no coincidence that our game is now faster (higher SRs) because of having introduced ODI where players who're deemed prospects get the chance to showcase themselves have often gone onto Test cricket later taking some of those traits too. The next step seems to be using T20 as a pre-test for ODI and then ODI for Test cricket. In this simple theory, it seems the talent to play Test cricket will be even more reliant on making quicker runs and taking faster wickets - possibly evolving players even more.
Click to expand...
ODIs and Twenty20 should do nothing more than show how a player can handle himself in the big time in international competition. Also it can act as indication of how well in touch a player is. Other than that I don't think they should have too much impact as really, they're different formats. I think once we see a player is in touch in ODIs we can, together with other factors consider him in the greater format (although not regularly tbh) but I wouldn't go the other way around and make a player play in those formats and if he fails there, that's it. And if you had to prove yourself in limited overs stuff a guy like Stuart Clark would never have made it into the Test side.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
And the logic is faulty in terms of letting players start at 20/20 as certain players can flourish in Tests but not as much in 20/20 and ODI.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
pasag said:
ODIs and Twenty20 should do nothing more than show how a player can handle himself in the big time in international competition. Also it can act as indication of how well in touch a player is. Other than that I don't think they should have too much impact as really, they're different formats. I think once we see a player is in touch in ODIs we can, together with other factors consider him in other formats (although not regularly tbh) but I wouldn't go the other way around and make a player play in those formats and if he fails there that's it. And if you had to prove yourself in limited overs stuff a guy like Stuart Clark would never have made it in the Test side.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree with you. For sure, as you point out good examples, that shouldn't be a criteria to get invited from one form to another. Why not just take someone who is obviously great in FC cricket and put them straight in Tests, for example, like Clark? I agree.

I just mean that when you consider what ODIs did for Tests, T20 will just push ODI, as ODI had pushed Tests, and thus ODI then will push Tests even harder. Obviously, our players will come out of this with a bit more edge due to the different (faster) competitions. In response to this thread, I don't think T20s should have anymore importance in cricket outside of this factor/advantage.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think ODIs have had any impact on Tests TBH - the same increase in scoring-rates happened in both games at exactly the same time, and they happened 30 years after the 1st ODI was played.

The only reason Test (and ODI) scoring-rates are currently so stupidly fast is because of the lack of quality bowlers.

As for the influence Twenty20 has had it's too early to say it's had any at all. Most players who play regular international cricket have barely played more than 5 or 6 Twenty20 games.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Richard said:
The only reason Test (and ODI) scoring-rates are currently so stupidly fast is because of the lack of quality bowlers.
Click to expand...
I keep telling you it's because the world is faster. Even when we get a period when bowlers are dominating batsmen. I'm guessing teams who get all out for 200 in test matches will do it in about 50 to 60 overs, they won't be prepared to fight it out and bat for 80+ overs for a score of 200 against good bowling. (Well not often at all anyways).

Society if faster where they are considering school lessons of just 8 minutes so students get a grasp of the idea and not get bored. The same to a degree is happening to the students of cricket who think playing out a maiden is dire.
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Richard said:
But that makes no sense. How does the high-street have any affect on the cricket stadium?
Click to expand...
Because mate who used to attend the 'high street'? Current cricketers to be honest.

About 10-15 years ago an opener needed to know exactly where his off stump was because a good leaver was considered a very handy batsmen. Now openers are more positive and owe it to the fans so they hit the ball and in my time i've noticed that if you hit the ball you score more runs. :laugh:

Bowlers should listen to a bit of Maximo Park and apply some pressure, because hardly any bowlers have the mind set to put a halt to the runs, because they feel if the batsmen is going for the ball there is more chance of him hitting up a catch.

In saying all this I don't mind the way the game is heading. I would much rather watch a day's cricket between neutral sides when the score is 7/311 at the close of play rather then 4/234.

Again tough low scoring days are ok but in general the higher scoring is good to watch thanks to society. :)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
NUFAN said:
About 10-15 years ago an opener needed to know exactly where his off stump was because a good leaver was considered a very handy batsmen. Now openers are more positive and owe it to the fans so they hit the ball and in my time i've noticed that if you hit the ball you score more runs. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Not so - if you hit the ball you are more likely to get out than if you don't hit it. You can't be caught without hitting the ball.

The only reason most openers can currently think about playing shots more than leaving is because there's such a dearth of quality seam-and-swing new-ball bowlers around. And it wasn't anywhere near as long as 10-15 years ago, it was just 7 or 8, that the situation was reversed.

For most of Test-cricket's history, strokeplaying openers have been incredibly rare, and there's a good reason for this - most of the time (ie, when the bowlers are good) the best way to open the batting for most people (exceptions being the Michael Slaters of this World) is to leave lots and not go for excessive strokeplay.

The reasons for the change - temporary, I hope, I couldn't give a stuff about the scoring-rate as long as it's not too slow or too fast, I'm far more concerned with the quality and usually a fast scoring-rate is indicative of low quality - are within the game, not outside it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top