Discussion on Twenty20 as a format of cricket

[Jono]

How can T20 not be cricket when Mahela Jayawardene is so good at it? Surely that is the benchmark? The criteria should be, if Mahela Jayawardene is good at this form of cricket, we should take it seriously.

If someone told you in 2006 that Mahela Jayawardene would be one of the best T20 openers at domestic and international level you'd have kicked that guy in the balls. Everyone thought it was going to be dominated by Afridi, Gibbs, Sehwag, Dhoni etc. but Mahela, Watson and other batsmen have showed that quality batsmen succeed at the format too.

 

[morgieb]

Still struggle to take it seriously, however I respect the format and feels that it can bring a lot of new fans into the game (has it though?)

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I do certainly enjoy T20 and get behind Pakistan just as passionately as I would for Tests and ODI's but of course it's not as important.

The only live cricket I have seen is a T20 which was very enjoyable and the atmosphere was great.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah, I think I was at the first T20 (although it was only a mash-up of NSW players) in Australia.

 

[uvelocity]

The only live cricket I have seen is a T20 which was very enjoyable and the atmosphere was great.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Absolutely. That's one of the key aspects with T20. You have to push the margins, that brings run-outs and outfielding right into the equation. Field quickly and you'll save the odd run here or there - which will often be crucial in such a short format. Likewise bowlers always have a chance because batsmen are pushing themselves to score quickly.

I don't think anyone should look to compare T20 and Test cricket. Give me T20 over an ODI any day. ODIs are so dependent on a pitch to produce a proper cricket game. ODIs where the bowlers are heavily reduced to a support act aren't good games of cricket, it happens in most ODIs - particularly the World Cup in India. Worse still are the pitches that are not only flat but the sort where the ball doesn't come on, so a mickey mouse bowler at 70-75mph is more effective than a good bowler at 90mph.

Ultimately T20 (and ODIs) means Test cricket can be afforded. People who are new to cricket don't usually skip straight to Tests, they're usually drawn in by shorter formats and then as they get deeper into the game they learn to appreciate Test cricket.

See that you still haven't stopped crying after the WC 2011 eng suffered.

 

[Spooony]

Test cricket any day. All the talent of a players is display in crickets true form. ODI is better than T20 as well. Pitch up the best ODI's ever vs the best T20 games ever and ODI will cream it and that stake

 

[Hurricane]

I think this world cup did a lot for me to change my opinion. The format of the cup was excellent. Two games a day during the Super 8 stage. Kept the whole thing moving along quickly.

 

[Spikey]

i think this was the first T20 WC many of us actually looked forward to

 

[Spooony]

The format is crap. Very unselfish and not good for the minnows especially cricket development in those countries. Minnows have lest chance to cause a upset in T20 because its harder for them to get quality bowlers than good enough batsman.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Test cricket any day. All the talent of a players is display in crickets true form. ODI is better than T20 as well. Pitch up the best ODI's ever vs the best T20 games ever and ODI will cream it and that stake

Most ODIs are T20s with the exciting bits being more boring with less of an importance, then you have of course 3-4 hours of nothingness added in.