West Indies in Oz cut to three tests to accomodate Twenty20

[Pratters]

That's because

a) The options make it such that you can't indicate that you only think there is a small bias towards the batsmen

b) All cricket is is more in favour of the batsmen because it's one half of the game and bowling AND fielding are the other half, so whatever percentage fielding takes that leaves bowling being less important than batting.

a) I have been speaking about a bias towards batters which has been disputed. Not a small or big bias. And I have a problem with such a bias. It definitely shows more people believe it is indeed biased.

b) It should be an even contest between the bat and the ball. The bowlers should always have some thing in it to take wickets. Why yuo bring fielding into this I do not know. Fielding is definitely an important aspect but if its favoured towards the batters, there isnt as much the fielders can do.

If you feel the poll does not answer the questions, no one is stopping you from making your kind of poll. I did what I thought would give a larger perspective of people than the ones arguing here which it did.

 

[Richard]

That is garbage. I don't care how many runs I go for as long as I am picking up the wickets. And, as school cricket (apart from 1st XI) is 20 Overs, I play a fair bit of it, and love the challenge of trying to keep the runs down.

I didn't play anything more than 20-over matches until I was 15 and it's totally incomparable to Twenty20.
At u15 level, 100 off 20 was still a pretty decent score.
It's much more akin to 50-over cricket at the List-A level.

 

[Richard]

And I can tell you most decent bowlers would rather pick up wickets than keep the runs down (within reason ofcourse).

And that's a worrying trait which goes some way to explaining the poor standard of bowling, especially in ODIs, at present.