Twenty20 is too short to get excited about boundaries and sixes - they happen so often that it becomes monotonous, not unique or exciting. And it's also too short to get too excited when a wicket falls - because you know (except for rare occasions) there's not a snowballs chance in hell that a side is going to come close to being bowled out.
It's designed, in the main, to draw people in who have short attention spans and who are not really cricket fans. The idea that these sort of people are then going to go to become lovers of Test cricket (when they probably, prior to the Twenty20 slog fest, have never shown any interest in the game at all) I actually find quite laughable and totally baseless.
Having said that, I don't mind if they have Twenty20 at domestic level, or to open an international tour. I just don't want to see games at the expense of ODI or Test cricket - games that actually have substance; games that actually ebb and flow.
The thing people seem to forgot is there is next to no contest these days between bat and bowl in ODIs. Alteast in Twenty20 the joke of contest is over in 40 overs and not 100 overs of watching batsmen have batting practise. The only true form of cricket that has a contest between bat and bowl is Test Cricket and even that is limited these days. ODIs and Twenty20 both have screwed contest between bat and bowl. I wish some posters start to wake up to this fact some time soon as they are becoming very boring right now.
The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)
Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)
RIP WCC and CW Cricket
Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS
Alternatively, you can have a team be 0-100, and then lose a couple of wickets in a big chase and totally slow down. Changing the momentum of the game again.
Best example is the India vs. England 6th ODI. England looked gone in their first innings, recovered and posted an excellent total. India then were cruising with Tendulkar and Ganguly, but then stuttered losing wickets at regular intervals. Then Uthappa and Dhoni rescued the innings, and they got home.
I reckon I switched my opinion as to who will win the game around 6-7 times during those 100 overs. You don't see that in 20/20.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
We may actually get a nine ball fifty with nine consecutive sixes .
We might finally run out of drugs to induce that high
rave down, hit the ground
There are momentum swings in Twenty20, just smaller and not quite as dramatic or extended as in ODI's or Tests, which is understandable.
The Future of International Cricket - Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Ravi Bopara, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Shahriar Nafees, Raqibul Hasan, Salman Butt, JP Duminy
Proud Supporter of the Bangladeshi Tigers
Ryan ten Doeschate - A Legend in the Making
And really, it's quite absurd to argue that ODIs have a reduced contest between bat and ball because of the limit in the overs and the focus on rapid scoring, and then suggest that 20/20 is no worse. Naturally, limiting the number of overs brings the focus to batsmen, and the fewer overs you have the more batsman define the game. The shorter the game, the more defensive the fielding side has to become, because the less chance there is of having success with attacking cricket. If you had a game of 9 balls it would be impossible to bowl the batting side out, therefore the entire contest would be which batting side could get closest to 54 runs, and the difference between a dot ball and a wicket would be precisely 0.
I hate the 400 v 400 type ODIs that you mention as well, but they are few and far between and only occur when the bowling is absolutely horrible or the conditions are slanted way too far in the batsman's favour, ie a flat wicket and a tiny boundary. Essentially, every 20/20 game is one of those 400 v 400 ODIs, just shorter.
It's cold on the outside they say
But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze
To say there's no significance to losing wickets in Twenty20 just again shows your ignorance of it. Your logic for saying there is no contest between bat and ball is nothing short of laughable. In Twenty20 bowlers can dictate the course of a game as much as batsmen can, that's why there's a contest between bat and ball - of course the goalposts may change but that happens in all forms of cricket.
Taking wickets is absolutely crucial in 20-20 games because in-form batsmen can often score 10+ runs an over at will. This was shown in the last semi-final when Australia was cruising before the wickets of Hayden, Symonds and Clarke completely turned the game around.
The same goes for the India-SA game when early wickets through good swing bowling destroyed the SA top order. RP Singh's spell in that game would have been effective in any form of the game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)