"Popularity of One day cricket 'Declining'?"

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Theres no comparison whatsoever with the moribund middle overs of ODIs and Test Cricket.

Not actually true. The best bowlers operate with the new ball and against the tail in general, and they are interspersed with part-timers and lesser bowlers in the middle overs. It's the same basic tactic as in ODI cricket. If what you say is true, there are many bowlers that would never get much bowling time in Test cricket.

 

[FRAZ]

Not actually true. The best bowlers operate with the new ball and against the tail in general, and they are interspersed with part-timers and lesser bowlers in the middle overs. It's the same basic tactic as in ODI cricket. If what you say is true, there are many bowlers that would never get much bowling time in Test cricket.

Correctly put there !

 

[grecian]

Not actually true. The best bowlers operate with the new ball and against the tail in general, and they are interspersed with part-timers and lesser bowlers in the middle overs. It's the same basic tactic as in ODI cricket. If what you say is true, there are many bowlers that would never get much bowling time in Test cricket.

Disagree, people like gayle and jayasuira, are part-timers in test cricket, but a major part of the bowling attack in ODIs, but as I say, going in circles.

 

[FRAZ]

And with regards to 20/20 cricket, I'm sure its possible to work a batsman out in the allotted 4 overs a bowler gets.

That's dire understanding of the general cricketing concepts . It's just do or die tbh in such competitions !

 

[Richard]

Disagree, people like gayle and jayasuira, are part-timers in test cricket, but a major part of the bowling attack in ODIs, but as I say, going in circles.

Which shows that the two games are different... not that one is superior.

 

[LA ICE-E]

odi is different from test but still is cricket. well 20/20 isn't really different from odi and so it cant hold its own right now it needs to evovle bit more but still stay cricket at the same time. 20/20 and odi wasn't necessarily made for money...its more of a time thing....20/20 is just more of a batting thing while odi still have something for the bowlers.20/20 should stay but be treated as rugby sevens. with young guns playing and resting the senior players. imo 20/20 will lose popularity more quickly than odis because just watching sixes gets boring after a while(too much of something is never good) while odi have bit of a balance for bating and bowling. odi is good now and with powerplays and teams not always using it together there's still shots being played in the middle.20/20 just needs to differentiate more from odi

 

[Tom Halsey]

How are Gayle and Jayasuriya (particularly Gayle) bits and pieces bowlers? Gayle is a ODI allrounder. Pretty simple. He bats, and with the ball his role is to keep it tight in the middle and try and get wickets, and then keep it tight at the death.

The only reason he is an ODI allrounder is because he profits from the bits-and-pieces players in the middle overs. In Test cricket he is a quite ordinary bowler.

 

[Nemesis27]

20/20 cricket is like another version of baseball. You swing the bat and hope it goes flying over the fence. Then again, Baseball is another version of cricket in general, and a very bastardized one in that.

I don't mind seeing a 20/20 every now and again, but ODI'S>20/20 and Tests =ODIS imo. Tests and ODI's are just right, while 20/20 cricket takes out the thinking part of cricket, which is what cricket is all about. ODI's have a good equilibrium of aggression and thinking.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not actually true. The best bowlers operate with the new ball and against the tail in general, and they are interspersed with part-timers and lesser bowlers in the middle overs. It's the same basic tactic as in ODI cricket. If what you say is true, there are many bowlers that would never get much bowling time in Test cricket.

In Test cricket bowlers actually attack.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

I prefer test cricket to ODI's, but since the Twenty20 cup has come in, normal ODI's are almost at a point where they can't compete. If there was a twenty20 world cup and a test match world cup, we would soon see its 'popularity'

50/50 Cricket is in a decline, whereas 20/20 cricket is on the rise. Its cancellinge ach other out

 

[Richard]

The only reason he is an ODI allrounder is because he profits from the bits-and-pieces players in the middle overs. In Test cricket he is a quite ordinary bowler.

Why does his ordinariness in Tests matter where ODIs are concerned?

 

[Richard]

In Test cricket bowlers actually attack.

And defend, too. The best bowlers, of course, do both.

 

[Dick Rockett]

The only reason he is an ODI allrounder is because he profits from the bits-and-pieces players in the middle overs. In Test cricket he is a quite ordinary bowler.

So how is that a defence of 20/20 in any way? If ODIs are to be maligned for allowing "bits-and-pieces" bowlers too great an influence, what does that say about 20/20? The more of them I see, the more it's apparent to me that not only are "bits-and-pieces" bowlers essential to a good 20/20 side, they are probably the only kind of bowler to use.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I say world cup>test>odi>20/20 world cup=CT>20/20

 

[_Ed_]

Could hardly disagree more. The middle overs of ODI matches are what cricket is about. It's what keeps the format genuine within the sport. Mindless bashing or even consistent educated bashing is very tiresome. There's no ebb and flow. Just flow, and it's a wonder that people who would pick Twenty20 cricket over ODI cricket could ever watch a Test match in entirety.

Best post in this thread IMO.

I find Twenty20 really boring too, haven't been able to sit through a whole game.

 

[LA ICE-E]

here's a side track question, forget odi but is cricket as whole on the decline in popularity comparing to other sports? (Is it aussies national sport just because they win so much or would it still be popular if they start to lose a lot more?)

 

[vic_orthdox]

There have been periods where Australia hasn't won, you know...

 

[Nemesis27]

If 20/20 becomes popular, then non-test cricket just becomes baseball. I don't mind seeing the occasional 20/20 game, they are exciting, but I prefer the strategical thinking of tests and the equilibrium between power hitting and thinking in the ODI'S.

 

[R_D]

here's a side track question, forget odi but is cricket as whole on the decline in popularity comparing to other sports? (Is it aussies national sport just because they win so much or would it still be popular if they start to lose a lot more?)

I wouldn't say cricket is losing popularity but it isn't gaining it like other sports like Football. Cricket is a long game and these days everyone's so busy they don't have time to get into it.
Unless you've grown up watching cricket it be pretty hard to like a test match.

 

[Richard]

There have been periods where Australia hasn't won, you know...

1984-1988\89 and...?

Have to go back to pre-WWI to find an extended one - and everyone has a year or two where they don't win much.