So now what do you prefer? ODI's vs 2020s

[Richard]

IMO, the best way to do it is simply to have selectors pick the best bowlers, rather than pick rubbish bowlers and have to rely on part-timers who might do a better job.

And under such eventuality, you don't need bowler-friendly wickets which are going to see innings repeatedly finished in 37 overs, simply wickets which are not absurdly easy-paced and offering precisely zero in the way of seam and\or spin.

 

[honestbharani]

IMO, the best way to do it is simply to have selectors pick the best bowlers, rather than pick rubbish bowlers and have to rely on part-timers who might do a better job.

And under such eventuality, you don't need bowler-friendly wickets which are going to see innings repeatedly finished in 37 overs, simply wickets which are not absurdly easy-paced and offering precisely zero in the way of seam and\or spin.

I do not mean bowler friendly, per se... Any wicket on which there is a bit of bounce, or pace, or turn should be good. Ideally a pitch should provide good bounce all the time, as it helps batsmen and bowlers alike.. If it is a hard pitch, the seamers will get good carry and good pace and if it is a dry one, the spinners will get purchase along with bounce. And stroke players always enjoy bouncy tracks. Any ODI pitch should provide AT LEAST one of those 3 for the bowlers, THEN those middle overs will mean something.

 

[slugger]

In the future do you see Twenty20 replacing the 50-over game? Perhaps, as Crowe has said, four 20-over innings in a game?

this maybe the future option for odi's...

 

[Athlai]

Don't listen to Martin Crowe.

 

[chaminda_00]

The fact that bowlers like Dilshan can be effective in ODI cricket during middle overs. Says all you need to know about ODI cricket and middle overs.

 

[_Ed_]

Dilshan has an excellent record in T20s, with an average of 20.66 and an amazing economy rate for that form of the game of 5.63, as good as most specialist bowlers.

I'd argue that that's a better record than what he's done in ODIs with the ball.

 

[chaminda_00]

Dilshan has an excellent record in T20s, with an average of 20.66 and an amazing economy rate for that form of the game of 5.63, as good as most specialist bowlers.

I'd argue that that's a better record than what he's done in ODIs with the ball.

Only bowed 11 overs in 7 T20Is, if he was required to play the same role as specialist rather then only bowl on rank turner. Then I'm sure his figures will increase significantly.

 

[honestbharani]

Dilshan has an excellent record in T20s, with an average of 20.66 and an amazing economy rate for that form of the game of 5.63, as good as most specialist bowlers.

I'd argue that that's a better record than what he's done in ODIs with the ball.

Bowling averages in T20s will always be pretty less. Don't think we should judge them at the same level as ODIs.

 

[Arjun]

I'd say T20, because no match stays one-sided for long. The short timespan demands extra skills, planning and power. Nobody dominates a T20 scene.

ODI's, though, are on the decline. There have been too many win-the-toss-win-the-match results, and often a match becomes a foregone conclusion, even before innings break. Moreover, seeing so many average players succeed in this format but fail in Tests and T20's, they don't even seem to be a test of skill. T20 can match ODI's in agility and speed, while Tests are way ahead on skills, so ODI's are neither here nor there.

 

[Richard]

The fact that bowlers like Dilshan can be effective in ODI cricket during middle overs. Says all you need to know about ODI cricket and middle overs.

Dilshan can be effective, yes, but I could find you a good few times when it's cost Sri Lanka plenty to have to rely on the likes of him to bowl more than 3 or 4 overs. Dilshan is rarely capable of keeping runs down to the degree front-line bowlers would be under the same circumstances.

 

[Richard]

I do not mean bowler friendly, per se... Any wicket on which there is a bit of bounce, or pace, or turn should be good. Ideally a pitch should provide good bounce all the time, as it helps batsmen and bowlers alike.. If it is a hard pitch, the seamers will get good carry and good pace and if it is a dry one, the spinners will get purchase along with bounce. And stroke players always enjoy bouncy tracks. Any ODI pitch should provide AT LEAST one of those 3 for the bowlers, THEN those middle overs will mean something.

I'd actually argue that bounce can often be a bad thing in ODIs - it makes it harder to keep the runs down.

Sometimes, the lower a pitch, the more helpful it is to bowlers - and proper, front-line, accurate seam-bowlers, not bit-part spinners.

 

[_Ed_]

Bowling averages in T20s will always be pretty less. Don't think we should judge them at the same level as ODIs.

Economy rates are important though.

 

[shortpitched713]

In 20-20 economy rates aren't just the major thing, they're the only thing.

5.63 is extremely good, although I understand he hasn't bowled all that much.

 

[Jono]

I find it annoying how people slate the middle overs of an ODI.. To be honest, thats the most skillful bit, milking the singles, playing the ball around, the odd big shot.. Oh, but if there aren't 4z, 6z and wiketz lolz it's a waste of time? Great...

FFS

I like ODIs better than 20/20, but not every person who likes 20/20 talks like that, and you're not cool for trying to denigrate them in that way either!

 

[Jono]

Yeah they have fulfilled a role, but to me they seem more of a wicket-taking option in T20.

I've generally been quite the critic of 20/20, but if there's one thing it has done which is good, its that rubbish bowling by part-timers gets punished.

A lot of part timers have gone the distance in the recent IPL, and also during the 20/20 World Cup.

The problem however is when good bowlers often go for a lot of runs too, even when they bowl reasonably well, due to shortened boundaries, flattest of the flat tracks, and of course the lack of slips after the 3rd over.

 

[weldone]

Only bowed 11 overs in 7 T20Is, if he was required to play the same role as specialist rather then only bowl on rank turner. Then I'm sure his figures will increase significantly.

Exactly...I don't know how people say so much based on t20 stats from such a small sample...it's not only about dilshan, i'm amazed when some1 say batsman x has an average of 45 in t20. later i discover that batsman has played 2 t20 matches...come on grow up guys...time hasn't come for discussing about t20 stats yet for most of the players...let them play a fair amount of matches and only then discuss about stats...it's like discussing about the test average of some1 who has played only 2 tests.

 

[weldone]

I'd say T20, because no match stays one-sided for long. The short timespan demands extra skills, planning and power. Nobody dominates a T20 scene.

ODI's, though, are on the decline. There have been too many win-the-toss-win-the-match results, and often a match becomes a foregone conclusion, even before innings break. Moreover, seeing so many average players succeed in this format but fail in Tests and T20's, they don't even seem to be a test of skill. T20 can match ODI's in agility and speed, while Tests are way ahead on skills, so ODI's are neither here nor there.

I would put almost the same words in a different way...ODIs are a bit of both...it is a good mix of agility, speed and skills...some people like that mix.

 

[slugger]

T20 stats can be worked out to a point.. but not enough players have played the game maybe aft 20 int. you will get a good idea..

however they say a par score in t20 is 150 if you use this as your base number you can work out a eco for the bowler.

a bowler with an eco @ 7.5 or better would be a good.

 

[weldone]

T20 stats can be worked out to a point.. but not enough players have played the game maybe aft 20 int. you will get a good idea..

however they say a par score in t20 is 150 if you use this as your base number you can work out a eco for the bowler.

a bowler with an eco @ 7.5 or better would be a good.

Yes, yes but after some1 plays 15-20 games at least...if a player plays 3 games and bowls 10 overs you can't judge him by his t20 stats i'm afraid...

 

[chaminda_00]

T20 stats can be worked out to a point.. but not enough players have played the game maybe aft 20 int. you will get a good idea..

however they say a par score in t20 is 150 if you use this as your base number you can work out a eco for the bowler.

a bowler with an eco @ 7.5 or better would be a good.

The big thing is that par scores are increase by about 10 runs each season so far in Twenty20 as batsmen get used to playing in Twenty20 and tempo that is required. Until this starts to level out it is really impossible to say a par score is that a good bowler does this many runs. ATM is pretty based on match by match, pitch by pitch and team by team. There no real patterns that have been shown to make any statistical comparsion of players yet.

Rating players now on the Twenty20 performances would be like rating Sobers as ODI cricketer after what two matches.