Why is everyone so against 20/20?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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.

The difference between me and you is that I support Twenty:20 as a format and can see the benefits in it. However, people with difference desires can find that the means to achieve those desires could be the same. Twenty:20 is at its best with (i) High attendances (players get the benefit of learning to play in front of big audiences. Increased pressure etc.) and (ii) Two good teams competing (all the 'names' your average punter wants to see, and fit to do so). In order to ensure that attendances remain very high, games shouldn't become too frequent and the more games played, the more likely players are to be injured.

Therefore, as a big fan of 20:20, I don't want it to be oversold as you would then diminish what are two of the main positive points of the game. You don't want it to be oversold as you think the product is poor and it would dilute interest in other forms of the game? (is that right?)

Two completely different desires, but with the same means to achieve it.

 

[Flem274*]

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Please don't argue with it. It's hopeless and you're only encouraging it. Just let it go fantasize and belieive in it's own superiority somewhere else. Oh and Scaly I like 20/20 BTW so no use ripping into me.

I like it especially to start and end a tour and also would be good for ODI development.

 

[Richard]

The difference between me and you is that I support Twenty:20 as a format and can see the benefits in it. However, people with difference desires can find that the means to achieve those desires could be the same. Twenty:20 is at its best with (i) High attendances (players get the benefit of learning to play in front of big audiences. Increased pressure etc.) and (ii) Two good teams competing (all the 'names' your average punter wants to see, and fit to do so). In order to ensure that attendances remain very high, games shouldn't become too frequent and the more games played, the more likely players are to be injured.

Therefore, as a big fan of 20:20, I don't want it to be oversold as you would then diminish what are two of the main positive points of the game. You don't want it to be oversold as you think the product is poor and it would dilute interest in other forms of the game? (is that right?)

Two completely different desires, but with the same means to achieve it.

I don't think anyone with any long-term mind wants to see it overdone.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I was giving two extremes of the spectrum. If I was referring to you I would have removed the pipe-smoking part and replaced it with illiterate.

 

[cover drive man]

i dont know much about cricket but im just wondering why so many people on this webside hate 20/20?

Possibly because twenty twenty has only ever been a bit of a fun sideshow which the icc are trying to change in my opinion.

 

[1-9-7-7]

I love all forms of cricket...

 

[headhunter]

i know 20/20 is not as good as one day or test!!!

but its just the way people on here start up a 20/20 is boring society!!!
is is handy for people who are working and want to see a game in its entirety!!

 

[Richard]

Oh, undoubtedly it is, and certainly none of us begrudge people who like to do a day's work then watch a full game the opportunity to do so.

We have only ever had 2 central points:
a) for us personally it's a boring format.
b) it should not be overdone, or indeed used at international level at all, for a wide variety of reasons

 

[Dick Rockett]

but its just the way people on here start up a 20/20 is boring society

It's just a little bit of fun. It's not serious at all.

 

[headhunter]

Oh, undoubtedly it is, and certainly none of us begrudge people who like to do a day's work then watch a full game the opportunity to do so.

We have only ever had 2 central points:
a) for us personally it's a boring format.
b) it should not be overdone, or indeed used at international level at all, for a wide variety of reasons

id have to agree with you point about 20/20 internationally!!!
it should not be overdone infact the 20/20 world cup is a good idea it will be fun to watch but it 20/20 internationally should not be played much besides it!!

Demostically i feel it is taken seriously and is interesting!!

 

[Richard]

Easy on the exclamation-marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









(Yes, this post was deliberately ironic )







(And it's domestically, not "demostically" )

 

[1-9-7-7]

Easy on the exclamation-marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









(Yes, this post was deliberately ironic )







(And it's domestically, not "demostically" )

Ah the poor childs illiterate leave him be

 

[headhunter]

Easy on the exclamation-marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









(Yes, this post was deliberately ironic )







(And it's domestically, not "demostically" )

Well done i suppose after over 30,000 posts il be able to spell to :P

 

[headhunter]

Ah the poor childs illiterate leave him be

Shut up

 

[atisha_ro]

i may repeat myself but i didn't get a real debate on my idea.
what if, instead of these harsh rules about no-ball, which seem to discourage every attempt of good pace bowling (and a pace bowler surely will step some 2 no-balls before adjusting rhythm - in practice anyway), Twenty20 will simply reduce the number of wickets in the innings?
say, 6 wickets and it's over.
that would give more motivation to the bowlers and make the batsmen more cautious and clever instead of the slog-slog-slog mantra.
basically it would become a short and intense contest between best bowlers and best batsmen in the teams, and fielding would be of utmost importance.

 

[headhunter]

i may repeat myself but i didn't get a real debate on my idea.
what if, instead of these harsh rules about no-ball, which seem to discourage every attempt of good pace bowling (and a pace bowler surely will step some 2 no-balls before adjusting rhythm - in practice anyway), Twenty20 will simply reduce the number of wickets in the innings?
say, 6 wickets and it's over.
that would give more motivation to the bowlers and make the batsmen more cautious and clever instead of the slog-slog-slog mantra.
basically it would become a short and intense contest between best bowlers and best batsmen in the teams, and fielding would be of utmost importance.

i was actually thinking of something like that maybe if your bowlers were not alowed to bat and your top 6 or 7 can!!!!!!!!!!!
making it a 6 or 7 wicket innings
but that would just make it even worse IMO

 

[1-9-7-7]

i may repeat myself but i didn't get a real debate on my idea.
what if, instead of these harsh rules about no-ball, which seem to discourage every attempt of good pace bowling (and a pace bowler surely will step some 2 no-balls before adjusting rhythm - in practice anyway), Twenty20 will simply reduce the number of wickets in the innings?
say, 6 wickets and it's over.
that would give more motivation to the bowlers and make the batsmen more cautious and clever instead of the slog-slog-slog mantra.
basically it would become a short and intense contest between best bowlers and best batsmen in the teams, and fielding would be of utmost importance.

You have a valid point.
But no doubt theres a flaw there which I can't find
No offense but these ideas usually do have one.
Good job though

 

[Raghav]

i dont know much about cricket but im just wondering why so many people on this webside hate 20/20?

Its more of a luck involved. Cricket is pure classic and we dont want to see luck to dominate cricket.

 

[SightForTheGods]

Less strategy and more swinging...Not fun at all.

 

[JBMAC]

In answer to Thread Title......It Just AIN'T Cricket!