The ICC Will Ruin 20-20 for Everyone

[James]

I wouldn't mind seeing 20/20 go in the same direction as rugby sevens...with a series of competitions with an entirely different group of players taking part.

That's exactly what I was thinking too actually.

It could be work quite well if it went down that route IMO. Take Twenty20 cricket to the likes of Japan, Argentina, France, etc.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think 20 20 will ruin itself TBH. Something SP Fleming said this week was that it if you were playing it day in, day out, it would get very montonous, which I agree with.

ie. slog, slog, slog, slog, wicket, nice shot, bang, slog etc

The actual beauty of the game (such as the swings and roundabouts, little battles within the battles you saw in the Ashes last year, or pretty much any competitive test series) will remain in test cricket and to a lesser extent ODI. 20 20 is just a hit and giggle with, at the moment, quite a novelty value.

If people were getting bored with ODI format (that they tinkered with and made it worse IMO), can you imagine how fast 20 20 will become a three hour waste of time?

Saying that, I can see the value of it at the moment. You always thought about batsmens' mentalities near the end of the innings in ODI's when they weren't having a go and getting as many runs as possible. You can see that happening now. More.

Again this rubbish about novelty value comes in, if there's novelty value why do the attendances keep rising in the English (and Welsh) domestic game? I also don't see players who actually have *experience* of the format coming out with as much crap as Ponting, Fleming etc.

 

[swede]

I dont like 20-20 but I dont like ODI´s either.

I cant understand so many liking ODIs and hating 20-20

ODIs have a long extremly defnsive period in the middle of the innings and then ends in a slog. As far as I can see, 20/20 is just skipping the middle part and going straight to the slog.

I would hope 20/20 could undermine ODIs to leave more time for test cricket.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think 20 20 will ruin itself TBH. Something SP Fleming said this week was that it if you were playing it day in, day out, it would get very montonous, which I agree with.

ie. slog, slog, slog, slog, wicket, nice shot, bang, slog etc

The actual beauty of the game (such as the swings and roundabouts, little battles within the battles you saw in the Ashes last year, or pretty much any competitive test series) will remain in test cricket and to a lesser extent ODI. 20 20 is just a hit and giggle with, at the moment, quite a novelty value.

If people were getting bored with ODI format (that they tinkered with and made it worse IMO), can you imagine how fast 20 20 will become a three hour waste of time?

Saying that, I can see the value of it at the moment. You always thought about batsmens' mentalities near the end of the innings in ODI's when they weren't having a go and getting as many runs as possible. You can see that happening now. More.

totally agreed, it might be fun, but possibly the only interesting thing I've noticed about Twenty20 is quick bowlers using greater variations in pace, and the fact that, depressingly, the quicker a game of cricket finishes, the more people come to watch it..

 

[open365]

I wouldn't mind seeing 20/20 go in the same direction as rugby sevens...with a series of competitions with an entirely different group of players taking part.

But 7s rugby is crap!

But seriously,that seems like a great idea,20-20 cricket should appeal to a lot of non cricket playing nations and that would mean 20-20 has a proper purpose,not just for tour openers and domestic fund-raising.

Scaky Piscine-

1)The crowds AREN'T increasing
2)That's excactly the point of the novelty factor,20-20 is still a new game.
3)The novelty factor doesn't just mean that it wears of after a while,it means that it shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Autobahn]

So let's get this right

- 20/20 comp would be held instead of the CT
- All members regardless of status would be able to submit a team (optional)?

Are we thinking more along the lines of the hong kong sixies?

 

[sirjeremy11]

Are we thinking more along the lines of the hong kong sixies?

Starting to sound like it. Great for festivals, and for exposure of the game. Doesn't mean everyone that already likes cricket will like 20/20 though.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Again this rubbish about novelty value comes in, if there's novelty value why do the attendances keep rising in the English (and Welsh) domestic game? I also don't see players who actually have *experience* of the format coming out with as much crap as Ponting, Fleming etc.

I do not think that there is a problem with it in domestic cricket at all. The best thing about 20/20 is that those who don't get why test cricket is so good are more likely to be entertained by 20/20. How many times have you heard someone who doesn't know anything about test cricket say "why don't they just hit the ball?!" 20/20 will get those people enjoying cricket, then ODI's, then maybe tests. When I was younger, I certainly preffered ODI's, now I like tests better. I think that as far as the international 20/20 is concerned, it would get quite samish (rhymes with Hamish) to the players after a while. A short while. It is better left as one offs to attract more attention to the series following, like it has so far in NZ, England, Aussie, and SA.

And NEVER again group Fleming with Ponting when it comes to crap falling from mouths. NEVER

 

[Richard]

IODIs have a long extremly defnsive period in the middle of the innings and then ends in a slog.

Stereotypes are a terrible thing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

But 7s rugby is crap!

But seriously,that seems like a great idea,20-20 cricket should appeal to a lot of non cricket playing nations and that would mean 20-20 has a proper purpose,not just for tour openers and domestic fund-raising.

Scaky Piscine-

1)The crowds AREN'T increasing
2)That's excactly the point of the novelty factor,20-20 is still a new game.
3)The novelty factor doesn't just mean that it wears of after a while,it means that it shouldn't be taken seriously.

There's no point arguing with people who produce cobblers for facts like this.

 

[Neil Pickup]

India don't like the idea.

"The reason is simple. This form of the cricket is not played in our part of the world. We don't need this version of the game because one-day cricket is already very popular. Nowadays one-day cricket is being played so much that countries struggle to strike the right balance. And they want to add this Twenty20 to its schedule because some countries are playing it. What I mean to say is that if any country starts Twentyfive25, will ICC hold a Twentyfive25 world championship."

One of the all time great quotes?

 

[Autobahn]

Ah i see so i'll try and take a stab at the general feeling and add a few of my own ideas aswell:

- The 20/20 international Cup should be based loosely on the hong kong sixies
- Optional entry for teams (and maybe even celebrity sides such as Lashings XI or England Masters XI)
- Great for low-ranked members to play the big boys
- A chance to rest bigger players and try out newer ones
- Develop cricket in the countries it is based
- It shouldn't be written into the FTP by the ICC
- Should be used mostly as a tour opener although boards will be able to agree on futher games if they like between themselves
- Charity games would be suited to it.

comments are welcome

 

[Scaly piscine]

India don't like any ideas really, but of course being such a diplomatic lot they just boycott things altogether...

BCCI and the ICC deserve each other - unfortunately most of the rest of the cricket world does not deserve them

 

[Richard]

India don't like the idea.

"The reason is simple. This form of the cricket is not played in our part of the world. We don't need this version of the game because one-day cricket is already very popular. Nowadays one-day cricket is being played so much that countries struggle to strike the right balance. And they want to add this Twenty20 to its schedule because some countries are playing it. What I mean to say is that if any country starts Twentyfive25, will ICC hold a Twentyfive25 world championship."

One of the all time great quotes?

Who said this and when?
"I am delighted by it's [Twenty20's] success, but also remember the initial ecstatic response to 65-over cricket (1963) and 40-over cricket (1969). Actually, Twenty20 went-on a bit too long for my liking. I shall try to hold-out for Ten10 or maybe Five5."
Both excellent summing-up of slightly different situations.

 

[sirjeremy11]

BCCI and the ICC deserve each other - unfortunately most of the rest of the cricket world does not deserve them

God that's a brilliiant summation. Maybe add ZC, and the trio would be complete. Power hungry, incompetent, and completely able to turn a blind eye.

 

[Richard]

Let's consider the 12 countries who took part in the Champions Trophy. It would not be difficult to argue that a majority of their Govorning bodies could in varying degrees be classified as either incompetent, corrupt, Govornment-controlled or racist.
(Hint - the same person said this as said the thing in my last post. And it made equal sense)

 

[Autobahn]

Who said this and when?
"I am delighted by it's [Twenty20's] success, but also remember the initial ecstatic response to 65-over cricket (1963) and 40-over cricket (1969). Actually, Twenty20 went-on a bit too long for my liking. I shall try to hold-out for Ten10 or maybe Five5."
Both excellent summing-up of slightly different situations.

Matthew Engel? i can't remember when

 

[Richard]

His Editor's Notes in Wisden 2004.

 

[sirjeremy11]

"I am delighted by it's [Twenty20's] success, but also remember the initial ecstatic response to 65-over cricket (1963) and 40-over cricket (1969). Actually, Twenty20 went-on a bit too long for my liking. I shall try to hold-out for Ten10 or maybe Five5."
Both excellent summing-up of slightly different situations.

ON EA Sports Cricket 2004, I could have some very interesting Five5 games. Just to show you exactly how realistic it is.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

But 7s rugby is crap!

I'm glad someone else thinks that.