• 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.

"Popularity of One day cricket 'Declining'?"

Nemesis27

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I have seen that said so many times its sad. I don't think ODI'S are in danger of losing their popularity, although their popularity has tanked slightly, but not to crisis point. If we were to take the columnist's views, ODI cricket is doomed already.

Rubbish, just rubbish, IMO. What are your thoughts?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The irony being that while the Andrew Millers of this World continue to relentlessly bash the stuff, the full-houses at said games just keep coming!

ODIs aren't losing popularity and anyone who says such a thing is acting on assumption: Twenty20 is gaining popularity so something else must be losing it. Which is, simply, wrong.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Holy *filter* I swear I didn't see this thread in the first place and I made mine in the favor of test cricket . Feel free to delete mine . I am sorry .......
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
Yup, same I find 20/20s very pointless tbh. I wish it would just remain ODIs and Tests. We're really ruining the game with 2 different WCs and three different formats.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Twenty20 > ODIs IMO. The middle overs of an ODI are excrutiating IMO. If I had my way, I'd scrap ODIs completely and replace them with Twenty20s - ODIs were only invented to make money in the first place, same as Twenty20.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Twenty20 > ODIs IMO. The middle overs of an ODI are excrutiating IMO. If I had my way, I'd scrap ODIs completely and replace them with Twenty20s - ODIs were only invented to make money in the first place, same as Twenty20.
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.
 

crickhowell

U19 Vice-Captain
I've been to a couple of Twenty20 games at the Basin and I have decided to never go to one again. It's billed as being exciting but truely exciting cricket takes several overs of things like sustained pressure and the advantage changing between bat and ball over time. And the fact they play terrible music after every ball puts me off even looking at the cricket.

I'm quite contented when I watch the middle overs of a one day game, it's often where a game is won or lost and it's when I prefer to bat because there isn't the pressure to attack that is present during the start and finnish of the innings.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Theres no comparison whatsoever with the moribund middle overs of ODIs and Test Cricket. In test cricket the best bowlers are attempting to get out the best batsmen. In that stage of ODIs, bowlers like Chris Gayle and Sanath Jayasuira are just flicking through their overs attempting to go at about 4 an over, batsmen are often content to just keep wickets in hand for the end, so the result is no tension and little interest for me.

Tests have tension for every wicket, every stand is important, the best bowlers are always trying to take wickets, or build pressure to take wickets. Its ridiculous to say if you don't like One-day cricket you can't like Tests, it may not be a totally different sport (as one person may maintain), but it is vastly different, limiting bowlers not just in overs, but in ambition.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
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.
Because Test cricket > ODIs and Twenty20 put together IMO. However, Twenty20 > ODI cricket IMO.

I agree with Grecian - the middle overs of an ODI are where bits and pieces bowlers such as Jayasuria, Gayle and Dalrymple get milked for 4 or 5 singles an over, which is boring as can be as far as I'm concerned.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I may be in a great minority here, but I find Twenty20 cricket immensely boring.
Thanks for joining my club . There are certain rules and regulations but anyways you are welcome !
Yup, same I find 20/20s very pointless tbh. I wish it would just remain ODIs and Tests. We're really ruining the game with 2 different WCs and three different formats.
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.
Totally with Mxyzptlk here.
Add me to the "club" for the exact reasons Liam gave.

Take out the "middle period" in a one-day game and it ceases to become cricket for me and becomes... well, Twenty20.
 
Last edited:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Because Test cricket > ODIs and Twenty20 put together IMO. However, Twenty20 > ODI cricket IMO.

I agree with Grecian - the middle overs of an ODI are where bits and pieces bowlers such as Jayasuria, Gayle and Dalrymple get milked for 4 or 5 singles an over, which is boring as can be as far as I'm concerned.
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.

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. 8-)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Twenty20 > ODIs IMO. The middle overs of an ODI are excrutiating IMO. If I had my way, I'd scrap ODIs completely and replace them with Twenty20s - ODIs were only invented to make money in the first place, same as Twenty20.
Many things were invented to make money - doesn't mean none can evolve into something good.
the middle overs of an ODI are where bits and pieces bowlers such as Jayasuria, Gayle and Dalrymple get milked for 4 or 5 singles an over, which is boring as can be as far as I'm concerned.
Not always. In a good ODI, it can be about the likes of Ealham and Mullally making the batsmen work for every run, and the batsmen having to make the decision as to whether they go for a slog or knock it around for 3-3.5-an-over.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Its ridiculous to say if you don't like One-day cricket you can't like Tests, it may not be a totally different sport (as one person may maintain), but it is vastly different, limiting bowlers not just in overs, but in ambition.
That's... the whole point. What to you is a "limit" is to some people a simple change. And that's what makes ODIs interesting - they're very, very different from Tests. If they were all the same it would be boring.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.

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. 8-)

Exactly they're One-day all-rounders, I.E. not good enough to bowl regularly in Tests.

Still think the middle bit is dull, and about as much similarity to the genius of Tests as does Twenty/20.

This argument does seem to be going in circles though, think agreeing to disagree may be best before this becomes one of those torturous threads, where people just keep on making the same points over and over again..........,
 

Top