*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[_Ed_]

A brilliant post by Mr. Fuller.

 

[Fiery]

I wouldn't say "Twenty/20 is boring". Just cricket's equivalent to junk food. It's actually been a shot in the arm to cricket in some places, e.g Stanford Twenty20 in the West Indies.

 

[Natman20]

An ODI is completely different to me there are quite a few stages

First the Batting:

Opening - Surviving the new ball and getting used to the bowling attack. Establishing a partnership while also building up confidence allowing to steadily allow more boundaries and runs to flow while the field is strangled.
Middle Overs - Making sure that the score keeps ticking over with good singles and twos with the occassional boundary establishing a very good partnership without taking too many risks.
Near end - Building up risky shots but not getting overly dramatic (overs 38-42)
Final Burst - Attack any delivery without fear of losing a wicket unless the other stages have been deminished.

The charecteristics of each teams members allow for a different type of game changing all the time. A game is very exciting when players decide to alter the strategies. Strategy is the most important word in One Day cricket. Plans are set to make sure that batsman stay out in the middle and that there is a decent base to attack from or as some teams do they play aggresively at the beginning.

Secondly the Bowling

Opening - Quick bowlers are picked to produce the goods taking the first wickets and try to stop partnerships from beginning. These bowlers tend to sometimes be the most aggressive bowlers that can be hit for a few runs but still take wickets which are the most vital parts of opening the bowling. Generally if the run-rate needs to still be kept to a minumum then second bowlers sometimes get the opportunity to claim a wicket.
Middle Overs - In come the spinners, slow bowlers and fast-medium pacers that keep it tight. The aim of these overs is to stop the batsman from having the freedom to score runs easily.
Final Fling - Bowlers generally again the aggressive quicks bounce in again looking to bowl the ball in the perfect spot 'the yorker'. These bowlers must be accurate not to allow any room for the batsman to whack the ball for boundaries, these bowlers often fail as they bowl to full and their statistics are punished in this time.

When to aplly agressiveness in the game and when to apply pressure through stemming the runs is an important part of strategy and in the end determines whether the wickets are taken or they are not. Variation is sometimes the key to success. A plan is needed where the bolwers bowl and where the appropriate field placings are to claim a wicket.

A team needs to combine all of these skills and use emmaculate strategies to their benefit. The good thing about the game is that the strategies either work or they fail and when both teams are on song then there is the most thrilling competition.

Now to Twenty20. Automatically all strategies are eliminated except for the final overs plan. No longer are the strategies for field placement really that important as the bowling lines are quite predictable depending on the squads. Either batsman whack the ball or try to an get out or they have luck in finding the boundary consistently. Yes its exciting at times but really its over quickly and you can expect two things consitently, full balls and attempted plays at a shot. It doesnt matter who bowls really. There is no real enjoyment in this game for me as strategy is all gone because there is no time to set plans you just have to rely on luck not on clever thinking most of the time.

 

[pasag]

Very, very nice post.

 

[Tom Halsey]

TBH, this isn't a bad post.

My problem is that as a battle, it's more like the bowlers are forced to last the bout out and take it to points. And all these "highlights", "excitement" are down to one half of the game.

If what you are saying is that bowlers don't often bowl the batting side out, that criticism can be levelled at ODIs, too.

 

[Tom Halsey]

bowling aggressively to take wickets, bowling with attacking fields and so on are all part of the game in ODIs

What? As soon as the fielding restrictions allow, almost without exception you have 5 fieldes on the boundary.

 

[Scaly piscine]

An ODI is completely different to me there are quite a few stages

First the Batting:

Opening - Surviving the new ball and getting used to the bowling attack. Establishing a partnership while also building up confidence allowing to steadily allow more boundaries and runs to flow while the field is strangled.
Middle Overs - Making sure that the score keeps ticking over with good singles and twos with the occassional boundary establishing a very good partnership without taking too many risks.
Near end - Building up risky shots but not getting overly dramatic (overs 38-42)
Final Burst - Attack any delivery without fear of losing a wicket unless the other stages have been deminished.

The charecteristics of each teams members allow for a different type of game changing all the time. A game is very exciting when players decide to alter the strategies. Strategy is the most important word in One Day cricket. Plans are set to make sure that batsman stay out in the middle and that there is a decent base to attack from or as some teams do they play aggresively at the beginning.

Secondly the Bowling

Opening - Quick bowlers are picked to produce the goods taking the first wickets and try to stop partnerships from beginning. These bowlers tend to sometimes be the most aggressive bowlers that can be hit for a few runs but still take wickets which are the most vital parts of opening the bowling. Generally if the run-rate needs to still be kept to a minumum then second bowlers sometimes get the opportunity to claim a wicket.
Middle Overs - In come the spinners, slow bowlers and fast-medium pacers that keep it tight. The aim of these overs is to stop the batsman from having the freedom to score runs easily.
Final Fling - Bowlers generally again the aggressive quicks bounce in again looking to bowl the ball in the perfect spot 'the yorker'. These bowlers must be accurate not to allow any room for the batsman to whack the ball for boundaries, these bowlers often fail as they bowl to full and their statistics are punished in this time.

When to aplly agressiveness in the game and when to apply pressure through stemming the runs is an important part of strategy and in the end determines whether the wickets are taken or they are not. Variation is sometimes the key to success. A plan is needed where the bolwers bowl and where the appropriate field placings are to claim a wicket.

A team needs to combine all of these skills and use emmaculate strategies to their benefit. The good thing about the game is that the strategies either work or they fail and when both teams are on song then there is the most thrilling competition.

Now to Twenty20. Automatically all strategies are eliminated except for the final overs plan. No longer are the strategies for field placement really that important as the bowling lines are quite predictable depending on the squads. Either batsman whack the ball or try to an get out or they have luck in finding the boundary consistently. Yes its exciting at times but really its over quickly and you can expect two things consitently, full balls and attempted plays at a shot. It doesnt matter who bowls really. There is no real enjoyment in this game for me as strategy is all gone because there is no time to set plans you just have to rely on luck not on clever thinking most of the time.

Nope. This guff about there being different stages in an ODI... There's the new ball stage where the ball swings, there's a contest. Then there's a large period of the time where it's restricting run-rates because you can only get players out through their error. So we get this rather long period where dobbers bowl, on average hardly go for more runs than guys like Flintoff who are obviously far better because it's not the worth the risk to go after them. Then we eventually get to the death over period where good or weak/bad bowling is actually rewarded again. Batting plays a huge part in the game, bowling is just padding the game out for half of it. Note that this applies for *most* ODIs.

Twenty20 games the ball is always new or newish, so the bowler can nearly always take wickets rather than just receive them through batsman error, the aggression levels of the batsmen make it more likely that good bowling will take wickets. You still have the opening period with the new ball against opening batsmen with the field restrictions. There are lots of strategies here, from both sides. Batting teams can have pinch hitters, look for a certain shot (like Loye does), they can just try to get through without losing a wicket, they can try and score as many as possible etc. Bowling sides can counter with fielding positions or bowling lines to stop a certain shot, go for wickets or just try and restrict etc.

There is more strategy in that first 6 overs than there is in most ODIs where games are so stereotyped. Then after the first 6 you have to keep reassessing what sort of totals you could chase or what sort of total you want to set, whether to keep attacking or have a couple of quiet overs. The bowling side might decide to get their weaker bowlers on while you're consolidating or you might try another over to get their set batsman out. The decisions to bowl whatever bowler are crucial whatever the stage of the game, make the wrong decision and they could get thumped for 20 and you lose the game because of it. The last few overs are obviously the same as ODIs. To say there is no strategy in Twenty20 just shows your complete ignorance of it.

 

[Richard]

TBH, this isn't a bad post.

My problem is that as a battle, it's more like the bowlers are forced to last the bout out and take it to points. And all these "highlights", "excitement" are down to one half of the game.

I find it very enjoyable to play (in Melbourne, the best part is that you bowl in 5 over blocks, and all from the same end, to make it even quicker, and the fielding restrictions are even harsher) but it's as though bowlers have to use Ali's tactics vs Foreman/Homer Simpson's tactics as a boxer for Twenty20 games.

D'you mean batsmen have to use Ali's tactics?

 

[Richard]

What? As soon as the fielding restrictions allow, almost without exception you have 5 fieldes on the boundary.

That simply isn't true.

How often to you hear commentators saying "[insert captain's name here] still has a slip, he doesn't need to, but he's being aggressive"?

I for one hear it plenty and plenty.

 

[silentstriker]

Nope. This guff about there being different stages in an ODI... There's the new ball stage where the ball swings, there's a contest. Then there's a large period of the time where it's restricting run-rates because you can only get players out through their error. So we get this rather long period where dobbers bowl, on average hardly go for more runs than guys like Flintoff who are obviously far better because it's not the worth the risk to go after them. Then we eventually get to the death over period where good or weak/bad bowling is actually rewarded again. Batting plays a huge part in the game, bowling is just padding the game out for half of it. Note that this applies for *most* ODIs.

Twenty20 games the ball is always new or newish, so the bowler can nearly always take wickets rather than just receive them through batsman error, the aggression levels of the batsmen make it more likely that good bowling will take wickets. You still have the opening period with the new ball against opening batsmen with the field restrictions. There are lots of strategies here, from both sides. Batting teams can have pinch hitters, look for a certain shot (like Loye does), they can just try to get through without losing a wicket, they can try and score as many as possible etc. Bowling sides can counter with fielding positions or bowling lines to stop a certain shot, go for wickets or just try and restrict etc.

There is more strategy in that first 6 overs than there is in most ODIs where games are so stereotyped. Then after the first 6 you have to keep reassessing what sort of totals you could chase or what sort of total you want to set, whether to keep attacking or have a couple of quiet overs. The bowling side might decide to get their weaker bowlers on while you're consolidating or you might try another over to get their set batsman out. The decisions to bowl whatever bowler are crucial whatever the stage of the game, make the wrong decision and they could get thumped for 20 and you lose the game because of it. The last few overs are obviously the same as ODIs. To say there is no strategy in Twenty20 just shows your complete ignorance of it.

Exactly. ODI games are about as scripted as you can possibly get. All the powerplays are taken straightaway 99% of the time. It breaks down into three sections stereotypically.

The "skills" that are required in ODI are basically a combination of Twenty20 and Tests without the excitement or mastery of either.

 

[silentstriker]

That simply isn't true.

How often to you hear commentators saying "[insert captain's name here] still has a slip, he doesn't need to, but he's being aggressive"?

I for one hear it plenty and plenty.

Wow, a whole single slip? Put four-six men back there, and then come talk to me about aggression.

 

[Richard]

It's more than TH said was usually there and that was all I meant in that post.

 

[howardj]

Sign me up to this. There's no cut and thrust; no ebb and flow to Twenty/20.

In short, it's the dumbing down of cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Sign me up to this. There's no cut and thrust; no ebb and flow to Twenty/20.

In short, it's the dumbing down of cricket.

That's ODI. Most times you know who is going to win by the 20th over in the second innings anyway.

All limited overs is dumbing down of cricket. What matters is that if it can still be exciting despite the dumbing down. Twenty20 is, ODI is not (IMO).

 

[howardj]

That's ODI. Most times you know who is going to win by the 20th over in the second innings anyway.

All limited overs is dumbing down of cricket. What matters is that if it can still be exciting despite the dumbing down. Twenty20 is, ODI is not (IMO).

Fair enough. I think ODI's are just long enough though that batsmen have to think and accumulate - they can't afford to slog at everything like they can in Twenty20.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough. I think ODI's are just long enough though that batsmen have to think and accumulate - they can't afford to slog at everything like they can in Twenty20.

The thing is that the accumulation phase of ODI tends to be total crap, as both sides are happy just playing defense without any aggression. That's why I hate it. It's not the scoring rate, its the lack of aggression from both camps.

In Tests, you'll see a really aggressive bowler or batsman at one end most of the time. You'll have two-three slips, and some good variation in bowling. You'll see a leg spinner letting the batsmen have a few boundaries to set him up. You'll see a Kallis hold together the batting lineup despite a barrage of fast bowling with five slips behind him. All that makes the cricket absolutely exciting. You'll see the fortunes of team change from one session to another. You see the despair on the face of a team when they ruin four days of good work by playing a couple loose shots or a single spell of bowling that snatches victory from four days of being crushed.

ODI's have none of that, and instead just has two teams content to score a run here and there by just hanging back and not doing much. ODI pretends to have those things, and has them to such a small degree that it leaves you unfulfilled and unsatisfied. At least Twenty20 has aggression from one side and you know what you're getting.

 

[howardj]

The thing is that the accumulation phase of ODI tends to be total crap, as both sides are happy just playing defense without any aggression. That's why I hate it. It's not the scoring rate, its the lack of aggression from both camps.

In Tests, you'll see a really aggressive bowler or batsman at one end most of the time. You'll have two-three slips, and some good variation in bowling. You'll see a leg spinner letting the batsmen have a few boundaries to set him up. You'll see a Kallis hold together the batting lineup despite a barrage of fast bowling with five slips behind him. All that makes the cricket absolutely exciting. You'll see the fortunes of team change from one session to another. You see the despair on the face of a team when they ruin four days of good work by playing a couple loose shots or a single spell of bowling that snatches victory from four days of being crushed.

ODI's have none of that, and instead just has two teams content to score a run here and there by just hanging back and not doing much. ODI pretends to have those things, and has them to such a small degree that it leaves you unfulfilled and unsatisfied. At least Twenty20 has aggression from one side and you know what you're getting.

Top post mate. Still, Twenty20 is not my cup of tea. But your points are well made.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

20/20 is B.O.R.I.N.G!!

Bring back Cricket Max

 

[Tom Halsey]

That simply isn't true.

How often to you hear commentators saying "[insert captain's name here] still has a slip, he doesn't need to, but he's being aggressive"?

I for one hear it plenty and plenty.

It is true, because almost always 5 fielders are on the boundary - whether one of the 4 in the ring is a slip or not.

 

[Jamee999]

JR Grey is the latest member, then...

Good for him.