What an awful concept

[jammay123]

the thing about t20 is that it will get younger spectators or those who think cricket is rubbish into liking it and enjoying it and they will then hopefully get into test and odi cricket which i know works a i have freinds who said they never liked cricket but didnt understand it and they watcjed a few twenty over matches and understood and enjoyed it which i think means that it not only makes money for cricket but also helps build crickets foundations. and a game like tonights in cape town will do wonders for the game

 

[SJS]

the thing about t20 is that it will get younger spectators or those who think cricket is rubbish into liking it and enjoying it
and they will then hopefully get into test and odi cricket which i know works a i have freinds who said they never liked cricket but didnt understand it and they watcjed a few twenty over matches and understood and enjoyed it which i think means that it not only makes money for cricket but also helps build crickets foundations. and a game like tonights in cape town will do wonders for the game

The first part of that is correct but the second is not.

Those who were attracted to the game by odi's have not started liking tests also. Twenty 20 is even less likely to do that. What it does do is to reduce the importance, over time of the existing formats.

Trying to attract to the game those who think it is rubbish in the first place by changing it to suit their tastes doesn't guarantee permanent loyalties. Those who are in it for instant gratification will after they have had their fill need something more to turn them on as it were while those who are tradiional loyalists will have many among them who will be turned off.

The crowds at grounds and cricket fans in general will keep getting less and less interested in the finer aspects of the game and this is what will finally change the game in a irreversible manner (I still hope not) and the pantheon of great sports will be the poorer for it.

Fast food is not a replacement for great gourmet stuff but the latter needs more of those who appreciate it. Same with one night stands versus lifelong passions.

 

[Athlai]

SJS I liked ODI and despised tests for a good while, twenty20 probably influenced me personally to watch more cricket so I don't really see the evidence behind what your saying.

Isn't this exactly what happened when ODI cricket started?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Nice post from SJS. 20/20 has to be judged on its merits as a format of the game, not on this supposed influx of new fans to other forms of cricket. There's a lot of evidence that people who don't like cricket as a rule are showing an interest in 20/20, none that they are suddenly developing a taste for test and ODI cricket. The same applies to ODIs of course, there are many who like ODIs because they are "exciting" or whatever but find tests boring. The main difference with 20/20 is that it's more extreme, both in terms of the actual differences between the forms and the differences between how the forms are presented.

 

[Athlai]

Hmm whats that old saying, "No such thing as bad publicity"?, its ridiculous righting off the idea that twenty20 bringing in new fans will not make people more interested in ODI and test cricket. While its hardly going to make every twenty20 fan a fan of the other formats this larger exposure could see a real influx of promotion of the game to areas that previously had no exposure at all.

Will this interest be immediate? No probably not, but sticking to the same ol' was hardly going to draw interest into the game. Twenty20 also has its own benefits to the other forms of the game, though it will take years for this to develop amongst them.

When ODI cricket began I'm sure we are all aware on how it was accepted by many fans, yet its mark on the longer form of the game is obvious, strike rates have went up in the longer form of the game since ODI made its grand entrance onto the worlds stage. The same is going to happen once again, the powerplay overs and death overs of a match which have always been targetted will now be a cash in time.

I am very interested to see how bowling copes with this fresh wave of aggressive batting but to suggest that twenty20 is ruining the game is IMO ridiculous. Its a part of the game, it draws crowds, it brings in money. And without money cricket can not develop or expand, and the free publicity ain't bad either.

 

[Mister Wright]

In the beginning I wasn't a big fan of it, didn't see the excitement in it as most games are a one sided affair if a team gets 220+ (which is the only game I've watched Aus v S.A. at the 'Gabba). However, if it is a competitive match that goes right to the end it is pretty excitement.

Given that I don't like to see bat dominate ball, I'm not a huge fan, but given that there's been a lack of cricket to watch lately, I'll take anything atm.

 

[honestbharani]

Twenty20 is not as bad as people are making it out to be. Surely, it is not a TRUE test of the traditional cricketing skills, but it requires some interesting things of its own. Sure, the guys who can slog and take the pace off the ball are probably gonna be more successful in this format than the others, but then again, we have seen the same in ODIs with the likes of Larsen and Harris for New Zealand. And we didn't label them as rubbish bowlers, did we? Because it takes a bit of skill to do even that. If that was so easy, why culdn't Pollock or Ntini do the same and escape punishment?


As someone rightly pointed out, in the first game, the best bowlers were guys who were being genuinely quick... not the bits and pieces heroes...


The format is fine. SJS is right in saying that there is no real guarantee that Twenty20 fans will get into tests and ODIs as well. But put it this way: if there is a guy who never gave a damn about cricket and suddenly got interested in Twenty20, he will still wanna at least check out the scores in the newspapers when the other versions are on, just to see how his favourite player/team is doing... And at least a percentage (however small it may be) will definitely start to get a little more interest in the other formats of the game as we go on. For instance, my cousin became an instant fan of Chris Gayle after the first game. She doesn't give a damn about cricket, in all honesty but she liked the way he batted (she used the word that he batted like a cinema hero fighting off the bad guys in a movie).


What I expect to happen over time is that say, in the next year or the year after that, we get to see a really good knock from Gayle in a test (maybe a flat track or whatever) and she reads about it. She is already a fan of him and watches a lot of Twenty20, she might wanna check out the highlights of his innings and then perhaps watch the next test he plays in, maybe just for as long as he is batting but slowly but surely the interest builds up. Of course a lot is left to chance here, but at least there is a CHANCE that someone will become a new fan. That is very important.


But the responsibility, IMO, lies now with the curators. Yesterday's game showed that even a track with a bit in it for the bowlers, produces a very interesting game of Twenty20. That is the path that we should follow because just having flat tracks all the time will def. kill the game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think we will see some fans move from Twenty20 to other formats eventually, especially so with younger fans of it. Twenty20 brings young fans into it, they like it and a lot will start playing cricket themselves and eventually a lot of them, as they get more mature and find themselves more into cricket generally, will develop interest for the other formats.

 

[GIMH]

The argument about T20 making average players good and vice versa can easily be applied to ODIs as well though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The argument about T20 making average players good and vice versa can easily be applied to ODIs as well though.

Yeah, most complaints about 20/20 can also be applied to ODIs. It's still limited overs cricket, after all. The main issue I have with 20/20 is that the issues I have with ODIs are exacerbated. I generally see 20/20 fans saying that they feel 20/20 removes the problems from ODIs, such as boring middle overs and whatever else. For me, 20/20 takes the problems with ODIs and makes them worse, while diluting the things I enjoy about them. That is, defensive fields and defensive bowling, the dilution of concentration and the ability to play a long innings as an important part of batting, the glorification of big hitting over other, more subtle feats of skill, less opportunity for class to show through as the game progresses and so on.

Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.

I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Chemosit]

The argument that 20-20 will not introduce fans to the longer versions of the game is BS. I have 2 mates who are going to watch the next Sydney Test. Previously, the were anti-cricket and had never been to a match of any sort before. They are now die hard cricket fans (all forms) after watching some of the 20-20s on tv last year. One has even decided to play for his local club. I'm sure that however strange my friends may be, they are not the only ones.

 

[SJS]

Yeah, most complaints about 20/20 can also be applied to ODIs. It's still limited overs cricket, after all. The main issue I have with 20/20 is that the issues I have with ODIs are exacerbated. I generally see 20/20 fans saying that they feel 20/20 removes the problems from ODIs, such as boring middle overs and whatever else. For me, 20/20 takes the problems with ODIs and makes them worse, while diluting the things I enjoy about them. That is, defensive fields and defensive bowling, the dilution of concentration and the ability to play a long innings as an important part of batting, the glorification of big hitting over other, more subtle feats of skill, less opportunity for class to show through as the game progresses and so on.

Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.

I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.

Agree completely.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, most complaints about 20/20 can also be applied to ODIs. It's still limited overs cricket, after all. The main issue I have with 20/20 is that the issues I have with ODIs are exacerbated. I generally see 20/20 fans saying that they feel 20/20 removes the problems from ODIs, such as boring middle overs and whatever else. For me, 20/20 takes the problems with ODIs and makes them worse, while diluting the things I enjoy about them. That is, defensive fields and defensive bowling, the dilution of concentration and the ability to play a long innings as an important part of batting, the glorification of big hitting over other, more subtle feats of skill, less opportunity for class to show through as the game progresses and so on.

Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.

I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.

that is one way of putting it, but there is a scope for big hitting as well. Cricket is not JUST about playing long innings, power hitting is also part of cricket. The thing is, while in test cricket, there is a place for almost every cricketing skill and the people who are good at many of them become the best players there, in Twenty20 and ODIs, we are starting to see that only certain styled or skilled players are being successful.

It may be good or bad, but there was a time when most test batsmen played slowly (compared to today's standards) even on flat tracks... The thing is, with batsmen starting to redefine what are risky shots and what aren't, if we see more shots in cricket, it is not such a bad thing. At the end of the day, defensive batsmen will keep coming into their own because there will always be difficult tracks in test cricket, teams WILL want to use home advantage.


And whatever you said about big hitters getting their way, that can be avoided if we provide pitches with a bit in it for the bowlers. In my opinion, the ideal Twenty20 pitches should help bowlers more than the batsmen, because, if the bowlers see a bit in it for them, it will encourage them to bowl in a wicket-taking manner, with catchers in place. That then gives the opportunity for the skillful batsman to find the boundary more easily than if they had defensive skills. With fielders in the deep, you will need power to hit boundaries regularly. But with attacking fields, the finer skills of batting like timing and placement will be enough, even if one doesn't have too much power. Also, it is ONLY 20 overs, so batsmen will start going after the bowling at some point, and if the pitch is difficult for strokemaking, that is when the bowlers get into their own in this format of the game.


AS I said, there is no reason to just turn away from Twenty20, saying very generalized stuff about it like FTBs ruling the roost etc. With common sense and good planning, this format can also come to a level where only really good players get good results and the also rans get found out... Plus, cricket has been in need of a shortened version for a long time now, if it has to survive in today's market...

 

[Nishant]

Thanks ICC!!!

Just to fill in your coffers you have been able to devise a format where class cricketers like Pollock and Nitini will become a liability for their team and mediocre FTB like Gayle and Kemp will rule the roost..

im sorry.....but if these bowlers cant change and adapt to different situations where they have a bigger challenge...they are no good anyway....no need to diss the format of the game. They should learn how to bowl in different situations....if they cannot do it, be it Pollock or any other bowler...they can sit at home and watch the game on T.V....but i dont think its right to start bashing a format of the game just because it doesnt suit bowlers.

 

[howardj]

Twenty20 To Hit Test Cricket For Six: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22430847-5007146,00.html

 

[JBMAC]

Twenty20 isn't Test cricket, so there will be aggressive sloggers who are successful in this format of the game. Equally, we have seen in the past that those players willing to play genuine cricket strokes and ooze aggression can also be successful. You don't have to be a slogger to succeed, you just have to be able to play your shots.

You are only partly right...20/20 isn't cricket

 

[sideshowtim]

You are only partly right...20/20 isn't cricket

I really hate it when people say this. It is complete and utter ignorance. Twenty20 is certainly cricket. It just requires a completely different strategy to other forms. Of course, Tests are the greatest, most pure form of the game, and that will always be the case. It has been for 130 years and has survived through wars, boycotts and cheating, why would it change now? It seems people who claim Twenty20 isn't cricket are threatened by its impact on Test cricket.

This tournament has thus far proven that there is a definite strategy to the game of Twenty20. You have to time your innings very well...You have to find the right balance between attemping to keep wickets in hand while keeping the run rate up. It's not as easy for batsmen as some make out. They have a lot to think about. As the length of the innings shortens, the more one mistake can cost an entire game. We've also seen in this tournament so far that clever bowlers will do well. Bowlers who know what kind of deliveries to bowl to the batsman at the other end will certainly succeed. All of the Australian bowlers have bowled splendidly in the last two matches...It's not just all batsmen.

The shorter format also places high importance on fielding, and the better fielding teams will be rewarded. Just as one mistake in batting can cost you the match, one dropped catch can do the same. It'll do wonders for fielding standards in all forms as taking your catches becomes increasingly important.

So yes, it is cricket. To claim otherwise is pure elitist nonsense.

 

[sideshowtim]

Twenty20 To Hit Test Cricket For Six: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22430847-5007146,00.html

As I said...Test cricket has survived pretty much everything you can think of. I don't see why it would die off because of this....It could possibly mean less ODI's are played....but too many of those are played these days anyway, so why does it matter?

I think the ICC has handled this T20 phenomenon very well. With the creation of this international tournament and also the creation of the IPL they are avoiding the catastrophe that happened with WSC cricket. And if Tests could survive that sh*t storm, who's to say they won't survive T20?

Test cricket is the format prefered by every International cricketer in the World. Ask them which format they'd rather be successful at and they'd all give you the same answer. As long as all cricketers have this passion, which has been built by years and years of love for the game, Test cricket will be around. People who love the game enough to play it professionally will always see Test cricket as the epitome of the game.

 

[NZTailender]

Have to say, I've loved every minute of the tournament so far. More than I enjoyed the ODI World Cup.

 

[jot1]

im sorry.....but if these bowlers cant change and adapt to different situations where they have a bigger challenge...they are no good anyway....no need to diss the format of the game. They should learn how to bowl in different situations....if they cannot do it, be it Pollock or any other bowler...they can sit at home and watch the game on T.V....but i dont think its right to start bashing a format of the game just because it doesnt suit bowlers.

Amen to this ..... and what sideshowtim said and honestbharani, in his last paragraph.
20/20 is exciting, fast and crowd-pulling. As a cricket fan of all forms of the game, I get to see much more. Different types of shots, bowling and fielding and more players. Different strategies.
I see lesser teams doing well. Which can only lead to more confidence. Exposure to better teams betters their abilities.
I say keep all 3 formats. In this instance, IMO, more is better.