• 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.

Why is everyone so against 20/20?

Flem274*

123/5
Its fun for the whole family and might be quite handy for development of younger players. :ph34r:
I read far more posts than I answer too. :laugh: Top poster TBH
:) Thanks for the compliment, at least I think it was. Finding it hard to process stuff at 12:45am in the morning TBH.:laugh:
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To answer your question that you first asked. The main reason why people don't like Twenty20 cricket, is due to over kill of the format that seems to be taking place. People were happy with one off matches to start a series or tour. A World Cup/Championship is many people eyes is just over the top.

Some people are afraid that Twenty20 will take the place of ODI cricket. Many people believe there not enough room for all three formats and one has to go. With the potential extra money Twenty20 can raise it might reduce the number of Test matches and ODIs for more Twenty20 matches. I doubt this will ever happen personally, but i see nothing wrong with a couple extra Twenty20 matches instead of the boring 7 match ODIs, worse thing that ever happen to cricket IMO. But if there is limit to those series, there also might be more 2-Test Match series. The more Twenty20 Cricket, is likely to mean the less ODIs and Test unforuntely, or either some ridicoulous player burn outs, with too many matches. There are ways to have all three with a decent schedule, but the boards are too concerned with money to consider player burn outs.

The other issue is the nature of the games, and believe that the games are too batter oriented. A lot of matches seem one sides and over within 30 overs, there hasn't been many matches at International level that have gone the full distance. Also there a believe that the matches are very similar. They all seem to follow the same pattern and there much variety in the matches.

The other factor is the use of bowl off to decide matches. This is dire i have to admitt. Rather a tie any day of the week.

Personally I still think Twenty20 has its place in cricket. But i would be surprised if the boards and ICC don't kill it in the search for more money and quick money.

I think that answered your question, maybe.

The thing is they're all untrue tho and these myths get regurgitated over and over. Twenty20 is far less batter orientated than 50 over cricket. Bowlers always have a chance in Twenty20 because of the aggression, in 50 over cricket you're just powerless most of the time.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
The thing is they're all untrue tho and these myths get regurgitated over and over. Twenty20 is far less batter orientated than 50 over cricket. Bowlers always have a chance in Twenty20 because of the aggression, in 50 over cricket you're just powerless most of the time.
Yeah i know there untrue, but thats why people seem to not like it. Thats all headhunter asked, why people don't seem to like it.
 

Flem274*

123/5
The thing is they're all untrue tho and these myths get regurgitated over and over. Twenty20 is far less batter orientated than 50 over cricket. Bowlers always have a chance in Twenty20 because of the aggression, in 50 over cricket you're just powerless most of the time.
Hmmm it depends, bowlers that have a good yorker are going to enjoy 20/20 where someone that attacks a bit more and therefore may offer more boundary balls (Shaun Tait for example) will prefer 50 over cricket.
 

Majin

International Debutant
The only real T20 cricket I've seen was some of the West Indies T20 comp that was run by that American chappie. It was enjoyable enough to watch, really.
 

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
The thing is they're all untrue tho and these myths get regurgitated over and over. Twenty20 is far less batter orientated than 50 over cricket. Bowlers always have a chance in Twenty20 because of the aggression, in 50 over cricket you're just powerless most of the time.
Why not just say that without the abuse?
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
The thing is they're all untrue tho and these myths get regurgitated over and over. Twenty20 is far less batter orientated than 50 over cricket. Bowlers always have a chance in Twenty20 because of the aggression, in 50 over cricket you're just powerless most of the time.
The strike rate looks pretty while the economy rockets upwards.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Isn't that what happens in ODIs compared to Test Cricket...
Pretty much. ODI's have more length to them than 20/20 so personally I enjoy them more. Though it would have been fun to see McGrath clobbered all around the ground in 20/20. He would be doing the head shaking thing virtually non stop.:laugh:
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Isn't that what happens in ODIs compared to Test Cricket...
I always thought that at first, the strike rate remained similar while the economy went up a run or two.

Didn't ODI eventually end up increasing the pace in a Test match innings? Changing how the game was played?
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Pretty much. ODI's have more length to them than 20/20 so personally I enjoy them more. Though it would have been fun to see McGrath clobbered all around the ground in 20/20. He would be doing the head shaking thing virtually non stop.:laugh:
Just have to watch Bondy do it instead.
 

Flem274*

123/5
I always thought that at first, the strike rate remained similar while the economy went up a run or two.

Didn't ODI eventually end up increasing the pace in a Test match innings? Changing how the game was played?
Yup. 3 an over in tests used to be amazing but now it's pretty standard. if it's below 3 now it usually means Mark Richardson or Alistair Cook is batting.:laugh:
 

Flem274*

123/5
Just have to watch Bondy do it instead.
No he swears loudly instead.:laugh:

Yeah Bond doesn't have much of a consistent yorker. I though Gillespie would but boy was I wrong.:laugh:

Have a feeling that Tait, Bond, Lee etc are gonna get whacked. Malinga will be lethal though.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Yup. 3 an over in tests used to be amazing but now it's pretty standard. if it's below 3 now it usually means Mark Richardson or Alistair Cook is batting.:laugh:
Will 20/20 end with tests being consistently scored at 6 an over. All those poor bowlers. :huh:
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I always thought that at first, the strike rate remained similar while the economy went up a run or two.

Didn't ODI eventually end up increasing the pace in a Test match innings? Changing how the game was played?
Yeah and Twenty20 is already having a similar effect with batsmen are learning the hit out for longer period, resulting in more scores of over 350 and a couple scores of over 400.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
No he swears loudly instead.:laugh:

Yeah Bond doesn't have much of a consistent yorker. I though Gillespie would but boy was I wrong.:laugh:

Have a feeling that Tait, Bond, Lee etc are gonna get whacked. Malinga will be lethal though.
To be honest I think Malinga should always bowl em. :laugh: He seems to be able to.
 

Top