Any use of 20-20 cricket?

[slowfinger]

I know that 20-20 is good, but whats the use of it?
Is it so people get mored used to aggressive playing?

Really I don't find much use but do you?

 

[Unattainableguy]

I don't find much use of test matches that end up in draws.

 

[GIMH]

 

[slowfinger]

I don't find much use of test matches that end up in draws.

Really, those are the boring ones and you don't know till you find out...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's main purpose is to generate money.

 

[luckyeddie]

Bums on seats - especially kids attending their first cricket matches.

A typical county game at Derby might attract 250 people and a duck.

A Twenty20 game will attract at least ten times as many people, and roughly the same amount of ducks.

 

[GIMH]

 

[andruid]

Don't ducks like t20?

 

[slugger]

it is what it is.. coaches and players will discover its usefulness over time.. I expect thats your real question.. many elimantes of the 50/50 game have been applied to Test cricket.. strangely nothing from test cricket has been useful for odi's

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't ducks like t20?

I can only speak for one.

 

[andruid]

strangely nothing from test cricket has been useful for odi's

What about partnership building?

 

[The Sean]

I don't find much use of test matches that end up in draws.

Really, those are the boring ones and you don't know till you find out...

*sigh*

Sometimes I really despair...

 

[archie mac]

*sigh*

Sometimes I really despair...

Some of the greatest Test Matches have been draws, I just don't understand that line of thinking, I can imagine an American for instance that new next to nothing about the game thinking that draws must be boring

 

[slowfinger]

What about partnership building?

Of course not!
In tests you've got 5 days and in ODIS you have 5 hours

 

[stumpski]

I'm far from convinced that all the 'kids' who come to Twenty20s will develop into what you might call genuine fans. No doubt the players enjoy playing in front of a full house - with no fear of failure because risk-taking is expected of them - but I still believe it's there largely for football fans to have something to go to in the close season. It's cricket for people who don't really know (or care) much about cricket.

For me, as April is usually too cold and May too wet, the season really starts in July now.

 

[Richard]

It's cricket for people who don't really know (or care) much about cricket.

Yeah, that's its principle r'aison d'etre IMO, Simon Barnes said almost exactly that a little while ago. Obviously there's plenty of those who follow the First-Class game who've got involved too, but there's also plenty who haven't. Who feel it's so short it doesn't really feel much like cricket.

Obviously, you can't argue with packed houses, and while I always feel the "one-day and Twenty20 cricket exist to make money, First-Class cricket exists to play cricket" thing is over-simplistic (I feel the game would be massively lesser, not purely in financial terms, if the one-day [note, one-day, not one-evening] game didn't exist) the "bums on seats" case is inequivocal. If a competition gets spectators, you continue to organise it.

If the one-day and one-evening games didn't exist, though, more money would be made from Tests - and the fact that money can be made from ODIs (and Twenty20s) means that game is saleable.