Which is your preferred limited overs format?

[Richard]

World Wrestling Federation or whatever it is.

 

[GIMH]

I knew what you meant . It's been WWE for about 7 years now, the aforementioned pandas got all pissed off and stuff, so Vinnie Mac had to get the f out

Sorry for the derailment, anyway! Must say, I'm surprised ODIs are still so far ahead. Just thought that the general mood seemed to favour T20 more these days.

 

[Richard]

Ditto - and I'm very glad it doesn't. Goes to show that face value can often be deceptive.

 

[King Pietersen]

ODi's every time for me. I'd much rather watch a well constructed and paced hundred over a 40 ball slog fest. Sure slogging can be entertaining in bursts, but I feel it gets dull quickly. To take 2 examples from last year, I'd much rather have watched Pietersen's excellent hundred against New Zealand in the ODi series, ahead of Napiers 152 slog fest against Sussex.

 

[Richard]

BTW of the 18 Twenty20-lovers thus far 9 are from "around these parts" (including Norway there which may be stretching it a bit but it's more UK-ish than it is -ish of any other cricketing territory). 2 others are Indians who've always hated ODIs since before Twenty20 and there's also some Aussies. And 1 is Sriram, who doesn't even really like cricket.

 

[GIMH]

The T20 arguments have always tended to have more English onside than against. Possibly because in the T20 era we've largely been cack at ODIs but I'd argue that we're currently better at ODIs than T20

 

[Richard]

I'd argue it's because there's always been (especially amongst the generations before us) a tendency to treat ODIs as rank second-class (rather than just the second-most-important) and some of these are now pleased to see something else apparently threatening said game-form.

That said, there's still plenty of English people of the generations before us who treated ODIs as second-class, still do, and treat Twenty20 as third-class.

 

[Jono]

but I reckon there's a much higher proportion of close, exciting T20 matches than ODIs.

There would be a much higher proportion of close, exciting 10/10 matches as well.

I don't mind T20, but you can't claim the increased amount of close matches makes it better, because that's the nature of shortening a game. It gives the weaker teams less chance to stuff up

 

[Jono]

People's arguments for why ODIs are bad, i.e. pick out the worst ones, is an interesting way of looking at it. Wouldn't mind picking out some of the **** hole test matches that we've had over the last 2 years (there have been plenty - like almost every England vs. WI test match) and use that to define that format of the game.

 

[Uppercut]

There would be a much higher proportion of close, exciting 10/10 matches as well.

I don't mind T20, but you can't claim the increased amount of close matches makes it better, because that's the nature of shortening a game. It gives the weaker teams less chance to stuff up

Sure you can. A greater proportion of close matches is a big advantage of shortening the game. It isn't necessarily outweighed by the cons of shortened forms of cricket, but it's definitely a good thing that has to be considered if you're comparing the two.

 

[Uppercut]

People's arguments for why ODIs are bad, i.e. pick out the worst ones, is an interesting way of looking at it. Wouldn't mind picking out some of the **** hole test matches that we've had over the last 2 years (there have been plenty - like almost every England vs. WI test match) and use that to define that format of the game.

ODIs don't scale anywhere near the dizzy heights of test matches either. Besides, noone was using that argument. In fact, noone was using any argument. They were just giving their opinion and the reasons behind it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I knew what you meant . It's been WWE for about 7 years now, the aforementioned pandas got all pissed off and stuff, so Vinnie Mac had to get the f out

Sorry for the derailment, anyway! Must say, I'm surprised ODIs are still so far ahead. Just thought that the general mood seemed to favour T20 more these days.

There's too many folk stuck in the past for T20 to be favoured, who legitimise it by calling themselves traditionalists and safeguards of cricket etc.

It will take years for this bias to fade away and for the overwhelming majority to look at all the formats objectively.

 

[Richard]

Besides, noone was using that argument. In fact, noone was using any argument. They were just giving their opinion and the reasons behind it.

They might not have been trying to use that argument\reasoning, but that's what's been said a number of times now. "I don't like ODIs because of the boring period in the middle that happens in a crap game, never mind that it doesn't happen in a good game, whereas a good Twenty20 is watchable all through".

It's a strange reasoning, I must say, but each to their own. What we could do with, of course, is more good ODIs, but that won't be achieved without quality players, and there's, sadly, no way to manufacture that.

 

[Arjun]

The one good thing about T20 is the unpredictability of the format. At times, a 50-over match gets predictable at the innings break, after the powerplays, or even at the toss, subsequently following one path. Fine examples would be the Ind/SL and Ind/NZ events just before the IPL.

 

[indian_legend]

50 over cricket is the best limited overs format out of the 2. It offers the best of both Test matches & Twenty 20. In Twenty 20 cricket, if you happen to lose quick wickets early, you are virtually out of the game. In ODIs, you can still make a comeback after being, say 10/3 & still win the game. It is not possible in Twenty 20

 

[leepayne]

At the ground, I prefer 50 over ODIs. Overall they are an entertaining form of cricket long enough to give value for money. In the middle overs I found the crowd busied themselves in other ways, singing songs and interacting with the players, and they were over before I knew it. I would prefer to watch a Twenty20 on TV, with non-stop action.

 

[King Pietersen]

I don't think T20's are non-stop action though tbh. The only ones that are, are the flat tracks with both sides scoring 200+, the usual 160 games do generally have a middle period of dullness, and unless a run chase starts well, it can fizzle out very quickly, leaving you knowing the result half way through the 2nd innings, which can lead to a very dull end. I find ODi's more consistently entertaining personally.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Would have answered in favour of ODI's if asked 5 years back. I continually find myself short of time nowadays, and can't see myself sitting through an entire ODI other than a WC knockout game. Can't think of many activities more unproductive than sitting through an entire ODI. Give me a T20 any day.

 

[GIMH]

People's arguments for why ODIs are bad, i.e. pick out the worst ones, is an interesting way of looking at it. Wouldn't mind picking out some of the **** hole test matches that we've had over the last 2 years (there have been plenty - like almost every England vs. WI test match) and use that to define that format of the game.

There were a couple of good ones over there, or at least good loast couple of days. Antigua and Trinidad I think. I'd imagine some people might rank the Jamaica one highly as well

It's the Barbados one and the ones over here that were absolute dross IMO

 

[rivera213]

20-20 for me.

Get rid of the 50 over format and keep both the contempory fans and cricket purists happy by having 6 tests and 10 x T20's per summer.

That way, the internationals could play county/state cricket too and rejuvinate that too.

Gimme a job ICC!