Why is everyone so against 20/20?

[Richard]

Well, if wanting to preserve Test cricket, and thinking that it is the highest (or the only) form of the game is elitist, then I am proud to be one TBH. I hate the limited overs format. I hate the idea of it, I hate the execution of it, I hate the fact that it has taken over the international scene at the detriment of real cricket, and I hate the fact that when a overblown, over hyped piece of ****e tournament like the World Cup rolls around, the real game takes a back seat.

Yes, I suppose that makes me an elitist and part of a very small population of people, but so be it.

It hasn't taken over the international scene, and not everything that has come of it is to the detriment of the longer game. Plenty of things, indeed, are completely unrelated - the two games are more different now than they ever were.

I don't dislike there being breaks in the Test schedule, either, myself - it makes me think "ah, won't it be great to get back into the Test routine", which I have been for the last 2 weeks. I don't like **** tournaments like the WC, no, but I don't like **** "Test" series like Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh or India vs Zimbabwe either, they're even worse and even more of an abomination to the game than a single ODI between any team deserving of the status.

3. Sure it has, but would he be dropped from the Test side right now?

If he'd performed as **** as he did in the same number of games, very probably, yes. It just so happens that, of late, he hasn't in the Test game.

There is nothing 'wrong' with it in the sense that it is what is needed to win the game. But that's precisely my point - that fact that such strategies are almost essential to win a game. It's not like it's just a couple overs here and there. It's at least 40% of the overs in every game!

And personally, I wouldn't have a problem even if that was the case - which it's not. All games are different. Some require ****loads of defensive play, some all-out attack. And that is the way I like it. It's no different in Tests, there are countless shifts in the requirements. It's very, very closeted and intolerant to just expect every game to be a picture of attack-attack-attack. It gets very boring that way - and that's why I hate Twenty20, the attack mindset is rarely out of the picture. Bowlers have got no chance to defend to any decent degree, and batsmen can't afford to.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I've only just found this thread, but thought I would add my tuppence.

People who are slating Twenty:20 are both frustrating and exceptionally myopic.

Yes, twenty:20 isn't as interesting or satisfying as playing in or watchin a test match, but to me the point of it isn't to rival test match cricket or detract from it but appeal to a wider audience that can gain an easy access point in to the game that I love and go on to find test match cricket as a result.

I guess that its not surprising on an internet cricket forum where most members will be die-hard fans of the best game in the world that there is a large amount of snobbery shown towards the 'black sheep' of twenty:20, but I'm afraid that the critics couldn't be much more short sighted.

I coach a lot of youngsters, and many a time I have seen promising young bowlers give up the game as they 'get bored' and they go off and play another sport (rugby, soccer) instead. We need more 'Peter Tregos' - deciding to play cricket rather than football rather than losing more 'Phil Nevilles'. If by watching Twenty:20, even ONE youngster decides that fighting for his life in the game of cricket is more appealing than playing football, rugby or even NOTHING then Twenty:20 has acheived something.

The summer just gone, I played a couple of friendlies alongside a 15 year old Left Arm seamer. Already bowling at about 110-120kmh and accurate. I could immediately spot the mental frailties - as soon as the wickets stopped tumbling and the ball stopped moving; frustration crept in and he started getting angry with himself and bored. If he becomes disillusioned with the game, then NZ may lose the next 'James Franklin' - who knows? At least now, if he tells me he's thinking of giving up the game, I can take him down to the Basin and show him a game of Twenty:20, something that is 'more exciting' to his young eyes and can hopefully reignite his love for the game.

I would just ask those who dislike the game of Twenty:20 to stop being so churlish and get off your high horse. If you don't like it, don't watch it, but stop trying fighting your little battles to try and take it away from people who do enjoy it and can see more than a few benefits in the format.

 

[Richard]

Don't think anyone has tried to do that. Undoubtedly the Twenty20 game could have its benefits such as those you describe but... what if it goes the other way? What if people watch the Twenty20 stuff and think that that's the only way cricket can be interesting?

I can appreciate Kiwis, especially, being of that attitude given that the Twenty20s seem to have been a bigger hit there than in most places. But the rest of the cricket World can do without it, really. As I've said countless times - IMO it's very, very boring and if I was trying to get people into cricket, Twenty20 would be the very last thing I'd try and get them to like.

 

[Goughy]

Obviously I love it and I class myself as a cricket purist. ODIs from their inception have just been a comprimise and struggled with different rules to make them work.

Twenty20 is a pure game based on the simple principles of putting bat to ball and scoring as many runs as fast as possible. Basic cricket skills at its core.

If you want the other pure form of the game with balance between scoring and risk getting out then there is Test cricket. This is obviously King but Twenty20 is a valuable form of the game where there is nowhere to hide with high levels of intensity.

 

[1-9-7-7]

I coach a lot of youngsters, and many a time I have seen promising young bowlers give up the game as they 'get bored' and they go off and play another sport (rugby, soccer) instead. We need more 'Peter Tregos' - deciding to play cricket rather than football rather than losing more 'Phil Nevilles'. If by watching Twenty:20, even ONE youngster decides that fighting for his life in the game of cricket is more appealing than playing football, rugby or even NOTHING then Twenty:20 has acheived something.

Well said man.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Don't think anyone has tried to do that. Undoubtedly the Twenty20 game could have its benefits such as those you describe but... what if it goes the other way? What if people watch the Twenty20 stuff and think that that's the only way cricket can be interesting?

I can appreciate Kiwis, especially, being of that attitude given that the Twenty20s seem to have been a bigger hit there than in most places. But the rest of the cricket World can do without it, really. As I've said countless times - IMO it's very, very boring and if I was trying to get people into cricket, Twenty20 would be the very last thing I'd try and get them to like.

Well, this is typical of the myopic commentary that I was talking about.

When I lived in England, I watched quite a bit of county cricket. I made the mistake of walking into the Rose Bowl once during a County Championship match and doubled the attendance. I tried to get into a Twenty:20 game there without the usual invite and was turned away at the gates as it was full! I would guess the crowd there that day was 10,000 strong maybe? How many of them were kids getting a view of live cricket with some top class players for the first time? How many of them walked away having had a thoroughly enjoyable day and went into their gardens when they got home and immediately tried to emulate Shane Warne, Michael Katich or even sodding Sean Ervine?

And what if people prefer playing Twenty:20 to 4 day or test match cricket? Is it wrong for cricketers to actually want to play in front of a crowd, or is this 'selling out'? Frankly, if a player keeps involved in cricket because they want to play 20:20, they'll have to play a fair amount of 4 day cricket in order to get there! End result, a professional cricketer playing first class cricket as a result of Twenty:20

Now, don't get me wrong, what I don't want is saturation. This is the problem with the tired ODI format - they've raped the golden goose so often, that the eggs she lays are rotten to the core. One 20:20 international per tour, a 20:20 world cup every 4 years, and maybe a Club world cup every 4 years would be enough to keep the crowds wanting more, whilst not detracting from the focal point of any team's international calendar - test cricket.

From a coaching point of view, Twenty:20 was supposed to 'wreck players' techniques'. On the contrary, what has happened is that we've seen intelligent bowling reap the benefits. Bowling to a plan, variations on the ball etc. have certainly increased as a result, and whilst some players (Saj Mahmood for example) have failed abysmally to translate this into another medium (ODI cricket) I would suggest that these sort of variations will ultimately enhance the test game as well.

 

[Richard]

Well, this is typical of the myopic commentary that I was talking about.

When I lived in England, I watched quite a bit of county cricket. I made the mistake of walking into the Rose Bowl once during a County Championship match and doubled the attendance. I tried to get into a Twenty:20 game there without the usual invite and was turned away at the gates as it was full! I would guess the crowd there that day was 10,000 strong maybe? How many of them were kids getting a view of live cricket with some top class players for the first time? How many of them walked away having had a thoroughly enjoyable day and went into their gardens when they got home and immediately tried to emulate Shane Warne, Michael Katich or even sodding Sean Ervine?

And what if people prefer playing Twenty:20 to 4 day or test match cricket? Is it wrong for cricketers to actually want to play in front of a crowd, or is this 'selling out'? Frankly, if a player keeps involved in cricket because they want to play 20:20, they'll have to play a fair amount of 4 day cricket in order to get there! End result, a professional cricketer playing first class cricket as a result of Twenty:20

But if they're not interested in the First-Class or OD stuff because all they care about is Twenty20... you're little better off than without them.

Championship attendances are a waste of time - not for a good 70-odd years has English First-Class cricket been popular, and never has it been anywhere else in the cricket World. Yes, Twenty20 games are impossibly more popular, but are most of those who like the Twenty20 game going to be any real use to the real game? Very possibly not.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Well, by writing off the game you are preventing the opportunity for this happening. As I said, even if one player ends up at the top of the game because of 20:20 then it would have had the desired effect.

And are you possibly being even more short sighted by ignoring the possibility that a teenager who loves 20:20 may mature into an adult who loves test match cricket?

I don't think there's any coincidence in the fact that every first class player I've spoken to loves playing and being part of 20:20.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Personally I'd much rather have an immature child love Twenty20 cricket but think other cricket is a bit boring than a long format pipe-smoking snob who regards Twenty20 and its followers as worthless.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Now, don't get me wrong, what I don't want is saturation. This is the problem with the tired ODI format - they've raped the golden goose so often, that the eggs she lays are rotten to the core. One 20:20 international per tour, a 20:20 world cup every 4 years, and maybe a Club world cup every 4 years would be enough to keep the crowds wanting more, whilst not detracting from the focal point of any team's international calendar - test cricket.

I think with that particular paragraph you've undermined your argument. Most "anti-twenty20" types don't begrudge its existence, but would rather it remained a sideshow at the carnival, rather than being the star attraction. It's more than possible to criticise the format in general but still acknowledge its right to exist, which I feel is the gist of the "anti" argument by and large.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Personally I'd much rather have an immature child love Twenty20 cricket but think other cricket is a bit boring than a long format pipe-smoking snob who regards Twenty20 and its followers as worthless.

Not all its followers, just you.

 

[Goughy]

Personally I'd much rather have an immature child love Twenty20 cricket but think other cricket is a bit boring than a long format pipe-smoking snob who regards Twenty20 and its followers as worthless.

Not all its followers, just you.

Not just him, myself as well. Having people (especially more women and kids) turned on by the sport rather than turned off by the numerous 'cricket bores' that exist is surely a good thing.

Apart from that from a personal POV its a damn good game to watch and play.

Interestingly Scaly (not that Im really bothered but I did notice) is also criticised when he is being inclusive rather than being elitist. Like Richard its like he can never win. Maybe they are too similar

 

[1-9-7-7]

Not all its followers, just you.

Zing.

 

[Richard]

Interestingly Scaly (not that Im really bothered but I did notice) is also criticised when he is being inclusive rather than being elitist. Like Richard its like he can never win. Maybe they are too similar

How about no?

Never have I been more insulted on these forums.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think with that particular paragraph you've undermined your argument. Most "anti-twenty20" types don't begrudge its existence, but would rather it remained a sideshow at the carnival, rather than being the star attraction. It's more than possible to criticise the format in general but still acknowledge its right to exist, which I feel is the gist of the "anti" argument by and large.

You've picked the wrong point to pick up on there (if that makes sense). My comment was regarding saturation in general as much as with saturation in 20:20. 7 tests in an English summer and back-to-back tests are just as bad for saturation as suddenly having hordes of 20:20 internationals.

Plus, I don't see this as such a problem at domestic level.

 

[Richard]

Well, by writing off the game you are preventing the opportunity for this happening. As I said, even if one player ends up at the top of the game because of 20:20 then it would have had the desired effect.

And if 5 or 6 other players are dragged down, or have their priorities addled?

And are you possibly being even more short sighted by ignoring the possibility that a teenager who loves 20:20 may mature into an adult who loves test match cricket?

No, of course not. It will happen of times. But I don't think it'll happen anywhere near as often as some would like to think. It's a bit like feeding a kid chips hoping they'll eventually come to like jacket potatoes.

 

[Richard]

You've picked the wrong point to pick up on there (if that makes sense). My comment was regarding saturation in general as much as with saturation in 20:20. 7 tests in an English summer and back-to-back tests are just as bad for saturation as suddenly having hordes of 20:20 internationals.

Plus, I don't see this as such a problem at domestic level.

Most people do regard 7 Tests as a saturation and have from the start. But I'd still infinately prefer that to 6 Tests and a Twenty20 International (or, worse, 3 Twenty20 Internationals). IMO, the international game simply does not remotely need Twenty20.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Not just him, myself as well.

You misunderstand. His contention is that people like me (ie. those who don't like Twenty20) think of its supporters as "worthless". What I was trying to say is that I certainly only rank him among the fans of that format as such.

You've picked the wrong point to pick up on there (if that makes sense). My comment was regarding saturation in general as much as with saturation in 20:20. 7 tests in an English summer and back-to-back tests are just as bad for saturation as suddenly having hordes of 20:20 internationals.

I certainly don't think it's the wrong point. If you acknowledge that perhaps Twenty20 should be limited to only one game per tour and the occasional tournament, then you agree with most people who don't like the format.

I don't think any reasonable person thinks it shouldn't exist simply because of their own distaste for it, but that given it's novelty value and questionable contribution to the general player skillset, it should be kept to a minimum. That the international calendar is already crowded is relevant to a certain extent, but is really a separate issue.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You misunderstand. His contention is that people like me (ie. those who don't like Twenty20) think of its supporters as "worthless". What I was trying to say is that I certainly only rank him among the fans of that format as such.

Complete bollocks.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Personally I'd much rather have an immature child love Twenty20 cricket but think other cricket is a bit boring than a long format pipe-smoking snob who regards Twenty20 and its followers as worthless.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.