"Popularity of One day cricket 'Declining'?"

[Tom Halsey]

Far less often is it tried.

Because of the fact that it's far easier to pick up 4 or 5 singles an over.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not if over half of the fielders are on the boundary.

Clearly you've never played cricket at any reasonable intensity. Scoring 4-5 singles an over consistently is hardly easy. And besides, the best of batsmen score 2s between the singles. The point stands that the quality of batsmanship in an ODI match can never be matched in a Twenty20 match.

 

[chaminda_00]

Clearly you've never played cricket at any reasonable intensity. Scoring 4-5 singles an over consistently is hardly easy. And besides, the best of batsmen score 2s between the singles. The point stands that the quality of batsmanship in an ODI match can never be matched in a Twenty20 match.

It requires different batting skils, doesn't mean that batsmanship is less. Just look at the way Jayasuriya batted in the Twenty20 match and in ODIs. Its pretty much the same way, then again you could just say his been playing Twenty20 Cricket his whole career, it was just he had 30 more overs to bat.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It requires different batting skils, doesn't mean that batsmanship is less. Just look at the way Jayasuriya batted in the Twenty20 match and in ODIs. Its pretty much the same way, then again you could just say his been playing Twenty20 Cricket his whole career, it was just he had 30 more overs to bat.

ODIs incorporate the skills of Twenty20 and pose the added skill of building innings. Higher quality batsmanship.

Even Jayasuriya builds his innings fairly regularly these days.

 

[chaminda_00]

ODIs incorporate the skills of Twenty20 and pose the added skill of building innings. Higher quality batsmanship.

Even Jayasuriya builds his innings fairly regularly these days.

Well point is you still require batsmenship in Twenty20 Cricket, most players just don't slog from ball one and the ones that go can do it in ODI cricket and Test Cricket for that matter. Yes you require more batsmenship in ODI then T20, but its the same as you require more in Test cricket and ODI cricket.

It just annoys me how people say all batsmen do in T20 is just slog, they do build innings just at a faster tempo and that faster temp requires more innovation and more risk.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You can't afford to build an innings in Twenty20 cricket in the same manner as in ODI cricket. That is, unless you're intent on losing. ODI cricket is becoming more like Twenty20 cricket and that really is not a good thing. I've said it before, but slogging - educated or not - is the measure of success in Twenty20 cricket. I consider any innings fueled by the sole desire to attack to be some form of slogging. It eliminates a lot of the basic skills of cricket and replaces them with booming strokes and "innovative" shots.

 

[chaminda_00]

If you want to see batsmen build an innings thats what Test Cricket was for, well it used to be before ODI cricket took over. Hmm interesting i see many people claiming about the inability of batsmen to build innings in Test Cricket cus of ODI cricket. Now people are saying batsmen don't build innings in ODI cricket cus of T20. Ok Collingwood showed the act of building innings can be done in OD cricket, but there been a trend to slog in ODI cricket for a long time before T20 came.

 

[pasag]

Too true. You've been making a lot of quality posts lately, Matt.

Attempts to expand the game are largely a waste of time, IMO. Fondness for a particular sport is usually something one develops from an early age, and what are the chances that American parents (for example) are going to introduce their kids to cricket? Zero. What are the chances that American schools are going to introduce the kids to cricket? Zero.

Matt's right. The game is interesting enough as it is.

Yeah agree with this totally. The game is perfect atm and I don't see why cricket should need to try and expand and conquer other markets. The game is healthy and doesn't need tampering with. The move for Twenty20's to attract higher audiences is more akin to the move of a desperate and depleted organisation on its death bed as opposed to the healthy and vibrant one it actually is.

 

[Matt79]

Too true. You've been making a lot of quality posts lately, Matt.

Attempts to expand the game are largely a waste of time, IMO. Fondness for a particular sport is usually something one develops from an early age, and what are the chances that American parents (for example) are going to introduce their kids to cricket? Zero. What are the chances that American schools are going to introduce the kids to cricket? Zero.

Matt's right. The game is interesting enough as it is.

Cheers mate!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Clearly you've never played cricket at any reasonable intensity. Scoring 4-5 singles an over consistently is hardly easy.

You don't justify why it isn't, considering most of the men are on the boundary. It would seem illogical to say that to take singles and twos to fielders 60 or 70 yards away takes as much skill as hitting it clean over them.

 

[Tom Halsey]

You can't afford to build an innings in Twenty20 cricket in the same manner as in ODI cricket. That is, unless you're intent on losing. ODI cricket is becoming more like Twenty20 cricket and that really is not a good thing. I've said it before, but slogging - educated or not - is the measure of success in Twenty20 cricket. I consider any innings fueled by the sole desire to attack to be some form of slogging. It eliminates a lot of the basic skills of cricket and replaces them with booming strokes and "innovative" shots.

Not true. Find any highlights of successful innings on youtube (like the ones I posted earlier) and the majority of shots are not slogs.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah agree with this totally. The game is perfect atm and I don't see why cricket should need to try and expand and conquer other markets. The game is healthy and doesn't need tampering with. The move for Twenty20's to attract higher audiences is more akin to the move of a desperate and depleted organisation on its death bed as opposed to the healthy and vibrant one it actually is.

ODIs were originally only invented for the money, too, the same reason Twenty20 was.

If I had my way we'd only play Test cricket, but clearly this is never going to happen, and I prefer Twenty20 over ODIs.

 

[Jono]

Fact of the matter is, how many times is a bowler able to bowl a bowl outside the off stump in 20/20, and cut it back off the pitchand take the stumps?

Bowler friendly conditions may be occurring less and less in ODIs, but they still happen on some occasions. Tell me a Twenty20 match which was dominated by the ball, and the batsman struggled... not because they tried to hit quick runs and got out, but because it they were outdone by swing and seam.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Bowler friendly conditions may be occurring less and less in ODIs, but they still happen on some occasions. Tell me a Twenty20 match which was dominated by the ball, and the batsman struggled... not because they tried to hit quick runs and got out, but because it they were outdone by swing and seam.

Batsmen are more likely to be outdone by movement if they are not playing the ball on its merits, IMO.

 

[Pup Clarke]

South Africa v Pakistan Twenty20 match recently.In the Pakistan innings there was prodigious movement for bowlers like Van der Wath,Morkel and Telemachus.

 

[Richard]

It may well pick up in the future, yes. If it does, fair enough. But as long as I've been watching cricket, the middle overs have generally been boring.

And some others would have similar experiences with, for example, Test-match cricket and Twenty20.

Because of the fact that it's far easier to pick up 4 or 5 singles an over.

And it'd be easier in Twenty20, too, but it wouldn't be a wise idea.

 

[Richard]

You don't justify why it isn't, considering most of the men are on the boundary. It would seem illogical to say that to take singles and twos to fielders 60 or 70 yards away takes as much skill as hitting it clean over them.

You've still got to miss 4 or 5 fielders (plus wicketkeeper and bowler) in the circle, that's why it isn't.

 

[Richard]

ODIs were originally only invented for the money, too, the same reason Twenty20 was.

ODIs were actually invented because a Test was washed-out; domestic one-day cricket was invented for a variety of reasons, one of them being an attempt to improve finances (which, 44 years down the line with all counties still completely dependent on handouts from The ECB, didn't exactly work).

Another was that the cricketers simply wanted to try something different. 65-over limitations were such a thing. Now 20-over ones are such. There's no reason to suggest that the same thing won't happen a bit further down the line with, say, Five5.

 

[Dick Rockett]

ODIs were actually invented because a Test was washed-out; domestic one-day cricket was invented for a variety of reasons, one of them being an attempt to improve finances (which, 44 years down the line with all counties still completely dependent on handouts from The ECB, didn't exactly work).

I was going to make this point myself, you beat me to it. I will add though, that at the time one day cricket was invented it was a significantly different product to tests, so an argument can certainly be made for it's greater value in those days.

Twenty20, on the other hand, is identical to one-day cricket except that it's shorter. It's value lies solely in filling the coffers by pandering to people that are not interested in cricket. While I would normally be in favour of such a thing in the hope that it would attract more fans, I believe that in this case it will be to the detriment of tests and even ODIs. This is because those same casual "fans" who thought tests were like watching paint dry before, are going to be even more convinced of it now. There's already too many people who say things like "I love one dayers, but I can't stand tests". If that trend continues with Twenty20, I can't see a positive end result for what I consider to be real cricket.

In addition I'll add that the "Twenty20 is just slogging" debate is neither here nor there to me. The format demands such an approach, and we see a fair amount of slogging in ODIs. It's the monotony of the constant slogging for the whole game in Twenty20 that bores me to tears.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And it'd be easier in Twenty20, too, but it wouldn't be a wise idea.

Whereas it would be a wise idea in ODIs, and thus it's what happens most of the time, resulting in boring play.