• 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.

Twenty20 World Cup

Armsty

Cricket Spectator
Again, reading all this and thinking about it, I take back what I said about it being one of the greatest things to happen to cricket. Twenty20 will probably slowly fade out after this. It is probably best for a build up to a ODI Series and that's all. The fact they play thoses competitions at State level is fine though IMO. A world cup is probably a bit risky though.
 

ripper868

International Coach
It will be a bit of fun not really too competitive.
I disagree, it is a world cup after all. I also read in the paper today that australia will send the strongest side possible, not filling it with an "A" team. Something about wanting to acheive a "grand slam" by owning all the trophies that they possibly can (which they currently do)
But yeah my main argument is it IS a WORLD CUP.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I hope this eventually replaces the ODIs. If you are going to have abominations, at least get them over with as soon as possible.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
You test cricket will always be considered the most entertaining form, but if we're gonna' have a shorter version of the game... let it be ODIs.

To see how a team goes about there innings in a specified amount of time (50 overs) is far more entertaining and a greater test of skill and character than it is in a 20 over slog.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
You test cricket will always be considered the most entertaining form, but if we're gonna' have a shorter version of the game... let it be ODIs.

To see how a team goes about there innings in a specified amount of time (50 overs) is far more entertaining and a greater test of skill and character than it is in a 20 over slog.
How so? In both formats you have a limited amount of time to apply your game. If anything Twenty20 cricket forces you reevaluate your strategy every ball, and every over. You can't have any let ups.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
Isn't it pot calling the kettle black when an ODI fan accuses Twenty20 of something like that?
I am a fan of both ODIs and Tests and 20/20s btw, I like watching any form of cricket because to me cricket is cricket. However, the level of entertainment varies between each form of the game for me.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
How so? In both formats you have a limited amount of time to apply your game. If anything Twenty20 cricket forces you reevaluate your strategy every ball, and every over. You can't have any let ups.
You have a limited amount of time in Tests too.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I am a fan of both ODIs and Tests and 20/20s btw, I like watching any form of cricket because to me cricket is cricket. However, the level of entertainment I get varies between each form of the game.
Whats that got to do with your contention that Twenty20 is a slog fest and 50 over cricket is somehow something superior?

For the record I used to love the shorter form not too long ago. But the more I watch cricket the less I can stomach them. For me, any form that marginalizes batting like that of Gavaskar or Boycott isn't for me. If it is for you, then great.

Personally, if I see an over where a guy uses perfect defensive technique and blocks four or five overs from some hostile bowling...I don't necessarily see that as a failed period for the batsman. But I've discussed Tests and ODI's too much for one day, so to each his own.

For me, I still hope Twenty20 make it big in the subcontinent and eventually replace the ODI.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
I am not debating Tests vs ODIs anymore... I am just saying it is pretty absurd to favour 20/20s more than ODIs.

Now if you're going to have a shorter format of the game, have one that gives a better representation of your skill, which 20/20s don't. That's basically it.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I am not debating Tests vs ODIs anymore... I am just saying it is pretty absurd to favour 20/20s more than ODIs.

Now if you're going to have a shorter format of the game, have one that gives a better representation of your skill, which 20/20s don't. That's basically it.
Absolutely not. You're just used to ODIs. 20/20 does what ODIs were originally designed to do.

Its a far purer game with with clearly defined skill and abilities requirements that actually heavily favour quality players than the slogger.

IMO, ODIs have not been relevant for a long time and 20/20 just does what ODIs were supposed to do but better and without the fat.

Its a far better game than ODIs ever could be. Its exciting, to the point, dramatic and usually close. Never a dull moment with more happing in 3 hrs than in many 5 game ODI series
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
Absolutely not. You're just used to ODIs. 20/20 does what ODIs were originally designed to do.

Its a far purer game with with clearly defined skill and abilities requirements that actually heavily favour quality players than the slogger.

IMO, ODIs have not been relevant for a long time and 20/20 just does what ODIs were supposed to do but better and without the fat.

Its a far better game than ODIs ever could be. Its exciting, to the point, dramatic and usually close. Never a dull moment with more happing in 3 hrs than in many 5 game ODI series
Exactly what I was about to post. It's basically ODIs without the dull middle over part. Each team has to be completely on the money in every department or risk losing in the first few overs.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
I have to disagree, but like SS said we've discussed this enough and it all boils down to one's perception of the game.
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
Is this going to be one of those KP/Murali things where you say you hate them with a passion then later on you actually end up loving them?
You what?

I still despise both Murali and KP, not quite sure what that meant! (You can also add Sreesanth to that list now)

The only cricketer I have disliked at the start and then warmed to has been Steve Harmison
 

Top