Stop bashing Twenty20

[Unattainableguy]

Twenty20 is great. I have a question for all those people who are bashing twenty20 here: how many of you actually watch a test match without missing many overs? I bet none or very few of you yet you all have probably watched all the Twenty20's or at least the matches involving your teams. I personally don't hate test cricket, I like all the three formats equally (because I'm having a hard time deciding which one I like more ), but I've had situations where I stopped watching a test match for a session or the whole day because the batsmen were scoring too slowly or because there was no possibility of a result ( flat pitch, rain, etc so pointless to watch). So imagine someone completely new to the game.

But I agree with those who are saying fans, cricket players etc if they're exposed to Twenty20 more, they will start to pay more attention towards it than test cricket, but that's because test matches are usually boring the first 3 days, you're unsure of a result, pitches are flat, and you hear commentators saying how the pitch will take turn on day 4 or 5 or there will be more uneven bounce and it gets more flatter . So I think if any one of these things can be improved, people will follow test cricket with more interest, maybe instead of 5 days, make it 4 days ( 90 overs a day) but with pitches that offer a lot of assistance to the bowlers so you're guaranteed a result, this would mean batsmen more likely to get out because they would want to score quickly while they're there and not just block every ball they face. Good bowling will also get its rewards which isn't happening currently.

So do you think test matches should be reduced to 4 days with more helpful pitches to attract more fans?

 

[Richard]

I'll happily watch a Test regardless of almost anything. Even an Antigua bore-draw >>>>> a Twenty20 anyday.

And I really could not give a @!*$ about the pace of scoring, provided it's not obscenely slow or obscenely fast. Twenty20, pretty well without fail, is the latter, which is one of many reasons I dislike it.

 

[Matt79]

Actually I watched pretty much every over of the last Ashes series. I'm actually pretty convinced that as people get more exposed to Twenty20 the novelty will wear off, and the same-ness and predicability of the games will become apparent even faster than with ODIs...

 

[Unattainableguy]

I'll happily watch a Test regardless of almost anything. Even an Antigua bore-draw >>>>> a Twenty20 anyday.

And I really could not give a @!*$ about the pace of scoring, provided it's not obscenely slow or obscenely fast. Twenty20, pretty well without fail, is the latter, which is one of many reasons I dislike it.

lol

Did you even read my post or what I had to say or did you just look at the thread title and replied?

 

[Sanz]

Nope. Twenty20 is boring.

 

[Richard]

lol

Did you even read my post or what I had to say or did you just look at the thread title and replied?

I read most of it, but am shortly heading to bed, so not exhaustively.

No, I don't think Tests should be reduced - if anything, the opposite (where play is lost).

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually I watched pretty much every over of the last Ashes series. I'm actually pretty convinced that as people get more exposed to Twenty20 the novelty will wear off, and the same-ness and predicability of the games will become apparent even faster than with ODIs...

Seconded. On both counts.

I also watched pretty much every ball (well, every ball that Foxtel decided to show..) of the recent India in England series despite it being on at the most ridiculous time in Australia (when they showed it live, I think it was around the 8pm-3am range, although sometimes they delayed it which pushed me back to as late as 9am..).

I've watched a lot of the Twenty20 matches, because despite not interesting me even half as much as a good test match (except for that one game..), they are still more interesting than a lot else on TV. But I've had it on as complete background noise at times while I did other things and not even noticed three wickets falling.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, test cricket should not be changed and yes, 20/20 is boring. Unfortunately I'm not sure Matt is right, but I certainly hope he is. I've watched a reasonable amount of the 20/20 tournament, but certainly not with the sort of attention I'd follow a test series.

Anyway, I agree that more helpful wickets in test cricket would be a positive thing, or at least a bit more variation, but we've seen some improvement in this area in the last couple of seasons compared to say 2000-2005 or so.

 

[haroon510]

well test cricket is the real cricket... it is the test of batsmans' and bowlers' potentials, talents, skills and abilities.. think of it this way in four overs no bowler can get thier line and lenght and rhtem.. same with bating... no batsman would play thier natural game in twenty game... they would play for run rate more than thier natural game... there are certain batsmans that we wana see them play thier natural game... play with timing... be selective with thier shots.. thier style of bating is more interesting to watch then watching aggrassive batsmans hiting fours and sixes in every deliver... i think for the sake of that teste cricket should stay the way it is..

 

[Prince EWS]

well test cricket is the real cricket... it is the test of batsmans' and bowlers' potentials, talents, skills and abilities.. think of it this way in four overs no bowler can get thier line and lenght and rhtem.. same with bating... no batsman would play thier natural game in twenty game... they would play for run rate more than thier natural game... there are certain batsmans that we wana see them play thier natural game... play with timing... be selective with thier shots.. thier style of bating is more interesting to watch then watching aggrassive batsmans hiting fours and sixes in every deliver... i think for the sake of that teste cricket should stay the way it is..

Who are you and what have you done with haroon?

 

[Burgey]

Not a huge fan of T20 tbh, but if it brings more people to the game and broadens its appeal so be it. The challenge for the ICC and the various governing bodies is to somehow transmogrify this support into a broader support for longer forms of the game. Given their record on other matters, they will no doubt fail in this endeavour.

 

[Matt79]

I'm just wondering whether the cluster that was the ODI World Cup now was entirely the result of incompetence or whether the ICC wants to move to T20 as the standard, so did their best to kill off the joy of the ODI WC before organising what must be acknowledged as a well run, nicely atmosphered tournament to-date in SA.

 

[Unattainableguy]

I'm not saying completely remove test cricket. What I mean is with time people will be less inclined towards test cricket because of Twenty20, so something must be done to make it more attractive. Five days is too long with batsmen blocking and letting go a lot of deliveries which makes it frustrating to watch sometimes. And on top of that you're not even sure of a result. For people who have watched test cricket before, it's not a problem but for newcomers esp now with Twenty20, they'll find it hard to develop interest in test cricket.

And believe me it's human nature to keep things the way they are, but if some of those changes I've mentioned are implemented, it will be for the betterment of the game.

And only one affirmative so far

 

[Johnners]

Who are you and what have you done with haroon?

haha awta

 

[pasag]

I've watched nearly every single game of the tournament and it has been interesting. Not the format so much but the fact most of the best players are in the same place, there are different teams every night and most games have something at stake because of the short nature of the WC. Also the the back to back nature appeals to me as one of my gripes with Twenty20s is it is over so soon. It has been run superbly as well. But the actual format? Still would have Tests and to a lesser extent ODIs anyday.

I hate sounding like an elitist, but Test cricket is real cricket and I believe the cricketing landscape should be based pretty much on full Test cricket tours with a couple ODIs here and there to mix it up abit. For me, there is no room for Twenty20s and at a maximum, one game every tour.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've watched nearly every single game of the tournament and it has been interesting. Not the format so much but the fact most of the best players are in the same place, there are different teams every night and most games have something at stake because of the short nature of the WC. Also the the back to back nature appeals to me as one of my gripes with Twenty20s is it is over so soon. It has been run superbly as well. But the actual format? Still would have Tests and to a lesser extent ODIs anyday.

I hate sounding like an elitist, but Test cricket is real cricket and I believe the cricketing landscape should be based pretty much on full Test cricket tours with a couple ODIs here and there to mix it up abit. For me, there is no room for Twenty20s and at a maximum, one game every tour.

I've changed my tune a bit. Before this tournament, I would have agreed with you but really, while I'm starting to grow tired of seeing it day after day, I'd still be for one Twenty20 international match per tour. I don't want to see it in tournaments, or taken extremely seriously, and I definitely don't want to see specialist Twenty20 squads. But as a warmup for a short ODI series using ODI squads, I think it has appeal as a one-off thing to the crowd. If we overdo it and play whole series of them or have tournaments like this one regularly, the dangers that many have predicted could well occur - not only will they become less "special" and just get boring, but they might start to seriously impact young cricketers who watch a Twenty20 series and then go and play Under 15s on Saturday.

I wouldn't care if I never saw a Twenty20 ever again to be honest, but I can see it having a non-serious place place at international level. Personally I think it is great at domestic level as it'll bring much-needed interest to that level of cricket as a whole, but I only like it as a one-per-tour type thing for international cricket. I do actually believe it has a place as that now though, where if you asked me a month ago, I'd have said no to international Twenty20 completely.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes to helpful pitches. No to four day Tests (less results). And most of all no to 20-20 cricket. I'll stop bashing it when James starts censoring me, and hardly any sooner.

 

[Jono]

But I've had it on as complete background noise at times while I did other things and not even noticed three wickets falling.

Haha so true.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Even an Antigua bore-draw >>>>> a Twenty20 anyday.

Test cricket >>>> Twenty20, but Twenty20 >>>>> an Antigua bore-draw.

 

[SJS]

I've changed my tune a bit. Before this tournament, I would have agreed with you but really, while I'm starting to grow tired of seeing it day after day, I'd still be for one Twenty20 international match per tour. I don't want to see it in tournaments, or taken extremely seriously, and I definitely don't want to see specialist Twenty20 squads. But as a warmup for a short ODI series using ODI squads, I think it has appeal as a one-off thing to the crowd. If we overdo it and play whole series of them or have tournaments like this one regularly, the dangers that many have predicted could well occur - not only will they become less "special" and just get boring, but they might start to seriously impact young cricketers who watch a Twenty20 series and then go and play Under 15s on Saturday.

I wouldn't care if I never saw a Twenty20 ever again to be honest, but I can see it having a non-serious place place at international level. Personally I think it is great at domestic level as it'll bring much-needed interest to that level of cricket as a whole, but I only like it as a one-per-tour type thing for international cricket. I do actually believe it has a place as that now though, where if you asked me a month ago, I'd have said no to international Twenty20 completely.

Frankly, I think Twenty 20 as a format is ideal for what's being done in things like the ICL and the Official Championship of BCCI and Australian Board. Club level games of a very shortduration to build a new 'clientele' used to supporting football clubs across national affiliations.

It can easily be managed on that scale due to the time frame of the matches. It will be fun without diluting the skill sets of international matches of the test level and the 50-50 format. The problem could be that the economics could overwhelm everything else. The amount of money being talked off for these 'club' games is so huge that players may gravitate towards the game in a way as to reduce the pool of skilled cricketers for the longer version.

It will have an impact on what is taught to young cricketers during coaching. One has already seen some impact of the 50-50 game on coaching all over the place. I have written about it before from first hand experience of visiting some of these coaching centres. The impact on account of Twnety 20 could be much greater. How are we going to ensure that young cricketers are taught (and are willing to be taught) the basic skills first.

For those who cant see what's happening in the longer version, I have nothing to say but to those who can understand it, just look at how even the international cricketers face upto the swinging delivery. Get one match where the ball deviates appreciably and you have captains of international sides talking negatively of the wicket.

Those of my age group who have played a decent level of cricket (not necessarily first class) will remember that it was so common to see the ball deviating appreciably in the nets in all good club sides and colleges and university sides. No one complained. But the coaches taught you how to play (or leave) the moving ball. In one generation (maybe almost two for a cricketer's active life span) we have seen how this skill is being lost.

This is a change that has taken place over time but that first and foremost because of a decline in bowling standards.

I have absolutely no doubt, for example, that but for limited over cricket and the stress it placed on run rate, a bowler like Harbhajan would not have changed his action (unconciously perhaps) to lose the flight and tantalising sudden drop he had in his early career. Having lost it, he isn't able to get it back. I am not sure he evcen wants to or understands how he was a better bowler before.

This may appear a bit off context but it really isnt. The demands of different formats are different and players will make adjustments to sit the newer formats. Some of the changes can be positive and will actually enhance the entire game including the longer version. The fielding, the better running between the wickets, the stress on fitness levels, the increased scoring rates and overall more positive attitudes of batsmen are some fabulous outcomes of the positive impacts that limited over game has had.

However, we have to be careful about the negatives too. Unfortunately these tend to be glossed over. And the reasons are commercial and not the long term vision of where the game is going.

Thas why even if Twenty 20 format was to become an integeral part of the game as a third format, its introduction should have been more gradual. This World Cup business and international Twenty20 matches may lead, one hopes not, to a stage where we may find it very difficult to do much about it later.

The fact that you dont find more top players talking in public about this isn't because they do not think so but because of more political considerations. Only the very blunt will go ahead and say what they feel.

Move around in top cricketing circles and hear what players say in private and you will realise its not an approval of the format by the players but a flow with the trend of the 'moolah'.