Why is everyone so against 20/20?

[Flem274*]

I'm only againest it because the rope is too close, Anyone can hit a six.

Well not quite anyone, I'd love to see Chris Martin or Glen McGrath try.

 

[Richard]

I could've sworn McGrath had hit a six sometime...

 

[pasag]

Indeed just the one in either form in his 61 against NZ in 04.

 130.5  Vettori to McGrath, SIX, tossed up, slog swept away over mid
        wicket, a fantastic shot from the number eleven, and he shows his
        delight with a big grin on his face

 

[chaminda_00]

Well one person has argued the case for '87 and '96, but I can't believe anyone would for '79, it was truly awful according to near enough everything I've ever heard of it (which, revealingly, is not-a-lot).

Sri Lanka beat India in '79, it was our first WC win. Thats probably one of the major reason i liked the the tournment.

Looking at the tournment it probably wasn't the best actually. India were woeful, Australia basically sent a 2nd string side. Sri Lanka tired hard but were out of their league. Canada were no where near good enough. West Indies never really got tested and there were alot of one sided matches.

But personally when i think '79 i think Sri Lanka first WC win and its clouds everything else.

 

[Richard]

Haha, yeah. Same for Aus and 1987, I have to think.

 

[Hoppy1987]

should be a good world cup and i think oweing to the shorter game span should produce a few more close finishes!

 

[Scaly piscine]

To boil things down as simply as possible, since Scaly has done the same:

People don't like 20/20 because it's a perversion of the game of cricket at a core level. Where other forms of cricket are based around a contest between bat and ball, tempered by minor rule infringements and conditions and skill alone, 20/20 removes that in favour of the sort of mindless slogging that entertains people who don't know or appreciate the sport. It removes the length of the game which tests the concentration and application of players to ensure that batsmen never have to stop slogging, and so that something which would appear exciting to those who don't understand the sport would be happening at all times. The kind of people who like 20/20 are usually the same sort of people that only watch ODIs when there's 70 needed off the last 10 overs of a match, and to whom test cricket as a whole is boring. They are also the same crowd who complain that bouncers are unfair because they are difficult for batsmen to hit, and that the most exciting ODIs are by default those with the largest scores.

20/20 is also terribly dull to people who actually apprecaite the subtleties of the sport because of these reasons. While seeing someone hit a six has its own appeal, it's really only worthwhile within the context of a fair contest, and 20/20 is boring compared to a proper game of cricket for the same reason the home run derby isn't the most exciting game of the baseball season. Anyone who wants to see a batsman build a long innings, have an exciting tussle with good bowling, some attacking captaincy and field placings by the fielding team, a bowler working to a plan over a spell, the value of wickets over mere economical bowling, or wicket preservation over mere rapid scoring (under any circumstances), or momentum shifts over the course of a single match need not bother with 20/20.

One can only conclude that the reason so many English and South African people on this forum are 20/20 fans is because they had the earliest exposure to the format, and English fans in particular see 20/20 as "their" form of the game, and any successful distribution of the format to other nations would be a victory for English cricket. Plus, of course, England are terrible at ODI cricket. Fans in Australia, New Zealand and the subcontinent tend to approach 20/20 from a more balanced perspective, having no particular bias as to its quality or lack thereof based on its invention, and have thus judged the format on its merits in the seasons where it has been played domestically and internationally in those nations. So obviously, there's far more fans from those countries than from England who don't like the format.

Hope that summed it up fairly.

And straight away the first proper paragraph is a complete load of rubbish. So as usual because it's a long-winded post by a 'big name' people say great post...

You clearly don't know anything about the format when you say it moves away from a contest between bat and ball to 'mindless slogging'. It's just plain wrong. For a start there is far more of a contest between bat and ball in Twenty20 than there is in ODs. Bowlers can actually get people out for the entire innings... I know, I know, it's an alien concept to limited overs cricket. The fact that the ball is newish all the time is also a factor. String some dot balls together and the pressure heaps on the batsmen, the batsmen have to attack at nearly all times and this gives the bowler a chance on any pitch. In ODs the batsmen just attack when they want which means the bowlers are just relying on luck to get anyone out. Look at the World Cup final - when was the contest between bat and ball?

As for the mindless slogging... that simply just does not come off any more than it would in ODs. In fact that approach can be more effective in ODs because you'd be scoring at a rate so much higher than the norm - a 5 over burst where a team scores 50 runs is a big boost in ODs.

I haven't the time to bother replying the rest of your post, which seems just as flawed as the bit I have replied to.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That post was actually a joke, I thought that was fairly clear.

Obviously most of the arguments against 20/20 are legitimate ones, but I was deliberately over-simplifying things as a response to a post earlier in the thread...

 

[pup11]

I think nobody is against Twenty20 but i don't think it should be overdone, it would really be dire to see one country touring another country just to play a 5-match Twenty20 series.

I think using it as a tour opener is fine but taking it as a serious form of cricket ain't the right way to go.


You see they call it "HIT and GIGGLE" cricket for a reason, because its just meant to be played for fun and to entertain.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That post was actually a joke, I thought that was fairly clear.

Obviously most of the arguments against 20/20 are legitimate ones, but I was deliberately over-simplifying things as a response to a post earlier in the thread...

There are a few things that are personal preference obviously, but most of the stuff is just bollocks.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think nobody is against Twenty20 but i don't think it should be overdone, it would really be dire to see one country touring another country just to play a 5-match Twenty20 series.

I think using it as a tour opener is fine but taking it as a serious form of cricket ain't the right way to go.


You see they call it "HIT and GIGGLE" cricket for a reason, because its just meant to be played for fun and to entertain.

That's what all sport is or was. Except for horse racing, that's just dire.

 

[chaminda_00]

Haha, yeah. Same for Aus and 1987, I have to think.

The thing with 87, 92 and 96 it was anyone tournment to win, which why they were three of the better World Cups IMO. After India beat West Indies in '83, there were signs that the West Indies domination was coming to an end. With the matches played on spinner friendly conditions, it also changed the way a lot of teams played their ODI cricket. '87 was about the time slower balls become more commonly used and more ODI specific tactics where in place. Was a bit of a changing of the guard interms of One Day cricket IMO, that World Cup.

 

[Matt79]

Well, I still think Fuller's post made a lot of sense, plus he didn't have to resort to swearing or labelling people as Nazis in order to try and make his point.

 

[Richard]

The thing with 87, 92 and 96 it was anyone tournment to win, which why they were three of the better World Cups IMO. After India beat West Indies in '83, there were signs that the West Indies domination was coming to an end. With the matches played on spinner friendly conditions, it also changed the way a lot of teams played their ODI cricket. '87 was about the time slower balls become more commonly used and more ODI specific tactics where in place. Was a bit of a changing of the guard interms of One Day cricket IMO, that World Cup.

West Indies' domination of ODI cricket did come to an end with that Cup, though it's still something of a miracle that what happened did happen.

Yeah, the 1987 WC offered something totally different, undoubtedly. Going from England - three times - to the subcontinent was bound to offer a massive change of possibilities. Walsh and Pringle being caned in that Cup seems to be regarded as a particular watershed.

 

[Richard]

That post was actually a joke, I thought that was fairly clear.

Obviously most of the arguments against 20/20 are legitimate ones, but I was deliberately over-simplifying things as a response to a post earlier in the thread...

Well, I still think Fuller's post made a lot of sense, plus he didn't have to resort to swearing or labelling people as Nazis in order to try and make his point.

I thought there were some parts of Fuller's post that were serious, some which were obviously in jest, TBH. And it was very, very obvious what his principal intention was, ie a response to "an earlier post".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha. To clarify, it was just the tone of the post and the criticisms of the motives of those who happen to like the format that was meant to be in jest.

 

[Richard]

And I'd imagine most of us who Afridi 'd you for it spotted that. I certainly did.

Not really too surprising that the person who it was in response to missed that, whether it was deliberate or not I'd be less sure.

 

[Matt79]

Needed a:


YES THIS IS A JOKE

style epilogue for mine...

 

[Richard]

It's not Fuller's style, TBH. He's one of the the-masses-usually-get-my-irony types.

Can't go pandering to each and everyone.

 

[chaminda_00]

And I'd imagine most of us who Afridi 'd you for it spotted that. I certainly did.

Not really too surprising that the person who it was in response to missed that, whether it was deliberate or not I'd be less sure.

I must be slow cus i missed that. Mind you its been a while since i've read Fuller posts in CC in much depth, so its not surprising his jest in that post would go over my head. Mind you it seems Matt and Dale missed it as well.