So now what do you prefer? ODI's vs 2020s

[Goughy]

I assure you - if you go through a ODI crowd, and a domestic-Twenty20 crowd, in this country only (may easily be different elsewhere), there'll be far more in terms of number and percentage of the Twenty20-domestic crowd who are not cricket fans than the ODI lot. Though, as I said, there'll be more than a few of both.

By-and-large, in this country, if you don't like cricket, you don't like ODIs either.

Thats mainly because the prices are different. ODIs are far more expensive.

What makes T20 so good (in regards to what it is) is its accessability in terms of time invested, cost to watch live and simplicity of concept.

 

[James_W]

I don't have any problem with T20, but I prefer ODI cricket.

 

[Protean]

I find I always fall asleep in the middle of and ODI, unless it's an exceptional game, so I vote for 2020. Test cricket over both obviously.

 

[Richard]

But if I have to watch limited overs crap, I'm going to go watch a format where part time crap bowlers can't get away with bowling their crap like they can in ODI middle overs.

They can't, very often, though. Mostly that sort of stuff gets smashed or at least milked.

If you want to bowl well in the middle overs of a ODI, you need good accurate seam-bowlers, not part-time spinners, and 5 or even 6 men inside the circle, not 4.

 

[Richard]

I dont fall into either camp, though Im assuming you are putting me into the latter.

Ive watched a lot of OD cricket. I just dont think its relevant any more.

It was always an inferior product to Test cricket (just as T20 is) but there was a niche for it to fill and it had some value.

Now its a pretty pointless exercise, where the main motivation for continuing it is the game lasts longer so more ad revenue.

I have enjoyed OD cricket, its just passed it best and has been surpassed.

You are honestly telling me that there was ever a time when you "liked" one-day cricket (be it domestic or international)?

Because the comments you've made about it down the years on here really don't suggest that TBH.

 

[shortpitched713]

ODIs over English baseball any day. No refinement in the 20-20 game, even at the highest levels. For that reason as far as a four hour spectacle goes I'd rather watch baseball. At least in baseball its actually hard to smack the ball over the fence. In the 20-20 game they're just bringing the ropes in. 20-20 is cricketing gluttony, and sooner or later fans will return with massive stomach aches.

 

[Goughy]

You are honestly telling me that there was ever a time when you "liked" one-day cricket (be it domestic or international)?

Because the comments you've made about it down the years on here really don't suggest that TBH.

Ive been a member of this forum for 2 of the 17 years Ive been an avid cricket fan. Hardly think that gives you a full knowledge of my historical cricket followings.

I think ODIs are dated and redundant. That doesnt mean that there wasnt a time when they were important. I (like most people roughly my age) never cared for them like Test cricket. The Texacos were always a fun add on. However, that doesnt mean that I didnt enjoy it once.

Its just that their time has been and gone. ODIs filled a role and a gap. That same role is now being filled by a different product.

 

[Richard]

Ive been a member of this forum for 2 of the 17 years Ive been an avid cricket fan. Hardly think that gives you a full knowledge of my historical cricket followings.

Of course it doesn't, but you've made a fair few posts, many of which I've read, in which you've mentioned the issue a fair few times and I've never detected the merest hint of warmth towards the one-day game from you TBH. I'd have thought I might have done if you'd once enjoyed them.

Evidently I was wrong.

 

[Swervy]

Evidently I was wrong.

well something worthwhile had to be said!!!

 

[aussie]

ODI's since 20/20's still basically rely on close result to satisfy the viewer & the balance between the bat & ball is woefully unfair. But that does not say i don't like 20/20's its good stuff because its the only form of the game that can get the world interested in cricket which is why i commend IPL and hope it gets better & better in the coming years.

For the those who claim ODI's are dead. Well lets look at it on the criteria of players performing excellently & probably taking that form into test cricket?

In countries outside Australia, England & South Africa where the standard of domestic cricket is way below the standard of test cricket, success in ODI's is the prefered way by the selectors in moving a player into the test side.

Look a India with Yuvraj, such a superb ODI & 20/20 but hasn't really made that transition into the test side after all these years. Then you have the many India openers over the years who have plundered domestic bowling like Gandi, Ramesh, Jaffer, Das, Chopra but have struggled to to maintain that level on the international level.

ODI's still have big role to play in world cricket.

 

[andruid]

Ive been a member of this forum for 2 of the 17 years Ive been an avid cricket fan. Hardly think that gives you a full knowledge of my historical cricket followings.

I think ODIs are dated and redundant. That doesnt mean that there wasnt a time when they were important. I (like most people roughly my age) never cared for them like Test cricket. The Texacos were always a fun add on. However, that doesnt mean that I didnt enjoy it once.

Its just that their time has been and gone. ODIs filled a role and a gap. That same role is now being filled by a different product.

Some of us have to live with the fact that with every passing day the possibility of the ICC snapping out of its instant-money-at-all-costs grow slimmer so do the chances of seeing our own lads playing, or being exposed to real cricket...ODI's are a tolerable becuse theyre is stiull the element of actual innings building, wicket taking and sophistication involved T20 is just a lewd gang bang where anybody who can swing a bat can get away with it...

 

[Manee]

I am undecided. I love the consistent thrill of a T20, but a good ODI contest tops all.

 

[Richard]

Look a India with Yuvraj, such a superb ODI & 20/20 but hasn't really made that transition into the test side after all these years. Then you have the many India openers over the years who have plundered domestic bowling like Gandi, Ramesh, Jaffer, Das, Chopra but have struggled to to maintain that level on the international level.

Ironically, the batsman who cashed-in domestically to the smallest degree (only averaged mid-40s in First-Class cricket compared to most of the best of his contemporaries who averaged in the 50s), Das, was IMO without question the best of that lot. Where so many of them were simply found-out by good-quality bowling, Das' only problem was that he so often gave his wicket away after doing the hard work. And there was never any consistency in how he did it; it could be dragging-on an absent-minded push outside off one minute, putting one straight down fine-leg's throat the next.

One of the most frustrating batsmen of my time. And the next-best - Aakash Chopra, who like Das has no technical flaws of great note - has been depressingly similar.

 

[Langeveldt]

ODIs over English baseball any day. No refinement in the 20-20 game, even at the highest levels. For that reason as far as a four hour spectacle goes I'd rather watch baseball. At least in baseball its actually hard to smack the ball over the fence. In the 20-20 game they're just bringing the ropes in. 20-20 is cricketing gluttony, and sooner or later fans will return with massive stomach aches.

Spot on IMHO...

 

[NZTailender]

Tests>>>>>>>>>>>T20>ODI's for me.


But you know, I tend to enjoy all cricket.

 

[slugger]

i fnd the ironic thing is many of the players that labled t20 cricket as a hit and giggle and seem to give the attitude they have no intentions of takking it serious .. were some of the first to enter into the whole IPL and ICL ex ponting and vettori .. if they thought it was a joke then why did the sign up and play there role in the skit. 10 years from now crickets going to be a very interesting landscape and depending where you sit on the matter these early players who signed up maybe seen as tearing the game apart or creating a whole new future for the game...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Twenty20 by a mile, ODIs were dead a while back. But like all middle children they can never accept their fate.

Quite. ODIs are tedious, repetitive and have a good 20 overs in each innings of 'drift'.

20:20 cuts out all the fat from the bloated, cancerous lump that is One Day Cricket.

I'd like to see an experiment of an ODI with 2 20 over innings per side. Like an over-restricted test match. Might make things a bit more interesting.

 

[andruid]

Quite. ODIs are tedious, repetitive and have a good 20 overs in each innings of 'drift'.

20:20 cuts out all the fat from the bloated, cancerous lump that is One Day Cricket.

I'd like to see an experiment of an ODI with 2 20 over innings per side. Like an over-restricted test match. Might make things a bit more interesting.

Or a tad absurd...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Or a tad absurd...

No more absurd than my face.

 

[honestbharani]

That happens in the stereotype far more than in the reality, TBH.

As I've said any number of times, of course.

As a die hard cricket fan, I find any cricket match interesting. I tend to see each and every ball bowled as a seperate event in itself and yet within the context of the match situation, the definition of what is a good ball and what is a good shot varies. But these subtleties apart, at the end of the day, if each and every match is providing very similar scorelines and are becoming predictable to a reasonable extent (which is true in general for the middle overs of ODIs, esp. batting first), it is going to kill off interest in that format, even for the die hard supporters.