What an awful concept

[Chemosit]

The argument that 20-20 will not introduce fans to the longer versions of the game is BS. I have 2 mates who are going to watch the next Sydney Test. Previously, the were anti-cricket and had never been to a match of any sort before. They are now die hard cricket fans (all forms) after watching some of the 20-20s on tv last year. One has even decided to play for his local club. I'm sure that however strange my friends may be, they are not the only ones.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Yeah, most complaints about 20/20 can also be applied to ODIs. It's still limited overs cricket, after all. The main issue I have with 20/20 is that the issues I have with ODIs are exacerbated. I generally see 20/20 fans saying that they feel 20/20 removes the problems from ODIs, such as boring middle overs and whatever else. For me, 20/20 takes the problems with ODIs and makes them worse, while diluting the things I enjoy about them. That is, defensive fields and defensive bowling, the dilution of concentration and the ability to play a long innings as an important part of batting, the glorification of big hitting over other, more subtle feats of skill, less opportunity for class to show through as the game progresses and so on.

Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.

I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.

Agree completely.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Yeah, most complaints about 20/20 can also be applied to ODIs. It's still limited overs cricket, after all. The main issue I have with 20/20 is that the issues I have with ODIs are exacerbated. I generally see 20/20 fans saying that they feel 20/20 removes the problems from ODIs, such as boring middle overs and whatever else. For me, 20/20 takes the problems with ODIs and makes them worse, while diluting the things I enjoy about them. That is, defensive fields and defensive bowling, the dilution of concentration and the ability to play a long innings as an important part of batting, the glorification of big hitting over other, more subtle feats of skill, less opportunity for class to show through as the game progresses and so on.

Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.

I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.

that is one way of putting it, but there is a scope for big hitting as well. Cricket is not JUST about playing long innings, power hitting is also part of cricket. The thing is, while in test cricket, there is a place for almost every cricketing skill and the people who are good at many of them become the best players there, in Twenty20 and ODIs, we are starting to see that only certain styled or skilled players are being successful.

It may be good or bad, but there was a time when most test batsmen played slowly (compared to today's standards) even on flat tracks... The thing is, with batsmen starting to redefine what are risky shots and what aren't, if we see more shots in cricket, it is not such a bad thing. At the end of the day, defensive batsmen will keep coming into their own because there will always be difficult tracks in test cricket, teams WILL want to use home advantage.


And whatever you said about big hitters getting their way, that can be avoided if we provide pitches with a bit in it for the bowlers. In my opinion, the ideal Twenty20 pitches should help bowlers more than the batsmen, because, if the bowlers see a bit in it for them, it will encourage them to bowl in a wicket-taking manner, with catchers in place. That then gives the opportunity for the skillful batsman to find the boundary more easily than if they had defensive skills. With fielders in the deep, you will need power to hit boundaries regularly. But with attacking fields, the finer skills of batting like timing and placement will be enough, even if one doesn't have too much power. Also, it is ONLY 20 overs, so batsmen will start going after the bowling at some point, and if the pitch is difficult for strokemaking, that is when the bowlers get into their own in this format of the game.


AS I said, there is no reason to just turn away from Twenty20, saying very generalized stuff about it like FTBs ruling the roost etc. With common sense and good planning, this format can also come to a level where only really good players get good results and the also rans get found out... Plus, cricket has been in need of a shortened version for a long time now, if it has to survive in today's market...

[Nishant]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

Thanks ICC!!!

Just to fill in your coffers you have been able to devise a format where class cricketers like Pollock and Nitini will become a liability for their team and mediocre FTB like Gayle and Kemp will rule the roost..

im sorry.....but if these bowlers cant change and adapt to different situations where they have a bigger challenge...they are no good anyway....no need to diss the format of the game. They should learn how to bowl in different situations....if they cannot do it, be it Pollock or any other bowler...they can sit at home and watch the game on T.V....but i dont think its right to start bashing a format of the game just because it doesnt suit bowlers.

[howardj]

Twenty20 To Hit Test Cricket For Six: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...007146,00.html

[JBMAC]

Originally Posted by Perm

Twenty20 isn't Test cricket, so there will be aggressive sloggers who are successful in this format of the game. Equally, we have seen in the past that those players willing to play genuine cricket strokes and ooze aggression can also be successful. You don't have to be a slogger to succeed, you just have to be able to play your shots.

You are only partly right...20/20 isn't cricket

[sideshowtim]

Originally Posted by JBMAC

You are only partly right...20/20 isn't cricket

I really hate it when people say this. It is complete and utter ignorance. Twenty20 is certainly cricket. It just requires a completely different strategy to other forms. Of course, Tests are the greatest, most pure form of the game, and that will always be the case. It has been for 130 years and has survived through wars, boycotts and cheating, why would it change now? It seems people who claim Twenty20 isn't cricket are threatened by its impact on Test cricket.

This tournament has thus far proven that there is a definite strategy to the game of Twenty20. You have to time your innings very well...You have to find the right balance between attemping to keep wickets in hand while keeping the run rate up. It's not as easy for batsmen as some make out. They have a lot to think about. As the length of the innings shortens, the more one mistake can cost an entire game. We've also seen in this tournament so far that clever bowlers will do well. Bowlers who know what kind of deliveries to bowl to the batsman at the other end will certainly succeed. All of the Australian bowlers have bowled splendidly in the last two matches...It's not just all batsmen.

The shorter format also places high importance on fielding, and the better fielding teams will be rewarded. Just as one mistake in batting can cost you the match, one dropped catch can do the same. It'll do wonders for fielding standards in all forms as taking your catches becomes increasingly important.

So yes, it is cricket. To claim otherwise is pure elitist nonsense.

[sideshowtim]

Originally Posted by howardj

Twenty20 To Hit Test Cricket For Six: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...007146,00.html

As I said...Test cricket has survived pretty much everything you can think of. I don't see why it would die off because of this....It could possibly mean less ODI's are played....but too many of those are played these days anyway, so why does it matter?

I think the ICC has handled this T20 phenomenon very well. With the creation of this international tournament and also the creation of the IPL they are avoiding the catastrophe that happened with WSC cricket. And if Tests could survive that sh*t storm, who's to say they won't survive T20?

Test cricket is the format prefered by every International cricketer in the World. Ask them which format they'd rather be successful at and they'd all give you the same answer. As long as all cricketers have this passion, which has been built by years and years of love for the game, Test cricket will be around. People who love the game enough to play it professionally will always see Test cricket as the epitome of the game.

[NZTailender]

Have to say, I've loved every minute of the tournament so far. More than I enjoyed the ODI World Cup.

[jot1]

Originally Posted by Nishant

im sorry.....but if these bowlers cant change and adapt to different situations where they have a bigger challenge...they are no good anyway....no need to diss the format of the game. They should learn how to bowl in different situations....if they cannot do it, be it Pollock or any other bowler...they can sit at home and watch the game on T.V....but i dont think its right to start bashing a format of the game just because it doesnt suit bowlers.

Amen to this ..... and what sideshowtim said and honestbharani, in his last paragraph.
20/20 is exciting, fast and crowd-pulling. As a cricket fan of all forms of the game, I get to see much more. Different types of shots, bowling and fielding and more players. Different strategies.
I see lesser teams doing well. Which can only lead to more confidence. Exposure to better teams betters their abilities.
I say keep all 3 formats. In this instance, IMO, more is better.

[Nishant]

Originally Posted by JBMAC

You are only partly right...20/20 isn't cricket

is it tap-dancing then?

[Nishant]

Originally Posted by jot1

Amen to this ..... and what sideshowtim said and honestbharani, in his last paragraph.
20/20 is exciting, fast and crowd-pulling. As a cricket fan of all forms of the game, I get to see much more. Different types of shots, bowling and fielding and more players. Different strategies.
I see lesser teams doing well. Which can only lead to more confidence. Exposure to better teams betters their abilities.
I say keep all 3 formats. In this instance, IMO, more is better.

absolutely! Well said jot1!

[slugger]

ive only seen bits and pieces of the game on the news and stuff.. honestly when i herd about it last year i had my resevations about the concept.. but i am really impressed with what ive seen.. i really believe this will take cricket to a global stage.. and with the introduction of the club/franchise concept i would suspect in the next 20 years or so.. it will be a massive crowd puller and involve many more countiers than just the usual suspects..(test teams)..

[Nishant]

Originally Posted by slugger

so do u agree with 2020 as an 'awful concept' or not?...


BTW....congrats on ur 100th post!!

[Mister Wright]

I must say that Craddock makes some very valid points there. And I never thought I'd get into 20/20 cricket, but I do enjoy the fact there is a result in a few hours. The games haven't been too one-sided and there has been some very exciting cricket. Can't say I'd pay to go see a 20/20 game again (at least not an international one), but it is definitely great for television viewing.