*Official* Twenty20 Is Boring Society Thread

[FRAZ]

My main problem with Twenty20 is that it's too batting-friendly. I feel the same with most ODIs (and some Tests as well), but at least there are some ODIs where the bowlers can dominate. I've yet to see a Twenty20 match where the bowlers have really dominated.

It's a batsman's world . I hate it tbh . I mean what is the fun of just watching the bat pathetically bullying a bowler whose hands are tied behind his back with strings of restrictions e.g. no bouncer ,no this ,no that .

 

[shortpitched713]

4-6 fielders behind the batsman also includes gully. You'd see 5, and at times 6, fielders behind the bat at some stage in just about every Test match.

Stop ruining my pedantry, he clearly said slips!

Once again thats still not a particularly common occasion though in which you see it. Not all that bothered that it doesn't happen in ODI, as there really isn't much use for it. I mean how often do you see a catch being taken at 4th slip? And how often do you see a ball fly over the slips into a vacant third man region? The later outnumbers the former by so much its ridiculous.

 

[shortpitched713]

Excitement due to the lack of middle overs.

You'll see better slogging in the last ten overs of a ODI than you'll see in Twenty-20 because higher order batsmen are given an incentive to build an innings (and their confidence), which is something that doesn't happen in Twenty-20. In addition you'll see smarter aggressive strokeplay in the first 10-20 overs of a ODI than you'll see in any other form of the game. The middle overs is akin to the old ball overs of a Test in which spinners dominate, and smart batsmen can't lose their cool and throw away their wickets. ODI cricket has something in it for everyone.

 

[Richard]

I hope it is not too late in the day (and this thread) but can I join?

I've only really watched 20/20 once, and that was for an hour with a hangover on a sunday afternoon...I was not impressed and my worst fears were confirmed...

You're never too late.

 

[Tom Halsey]

My main problem with Twenty20 is that it's too batting-friendly. I feel the same with most ODIs (and some Tests as well), but at least there are some ODIs where the bowlers can dominate. I've yet to see a Twenty20 match where the bowlers have really dominated.

I've never understood this view really.

Most batsmen average more in Test/First-class cricket than they do in international/domestic Twenty20 cricket.

 

[Dasa]

I've never understood this view really.

Most batsmen average more in Test/First-class cricket than they do in international/domestic Twenty20 cricket.

...because often batsmen will lose/give away their wickets trying to increase the scoring rate in limited overs cricket. Rarely are there such pressures in FC/Test cricket. Add to that the fact that limited overs means you can only bat for x amount of overs, and you can only get x amount of runs in that time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, but they're still losing wickets. And the fact that you can only get x amount of runs in that time surely doesn't favour batsmen either, does it?

 

[Richard]

I've never understood this view really.

Most batsmen average more in Test/First-class cricket than they do in international/domestic Twenty20 cricket.

You need to spot the difference between bat-friendly and batsman-friendly.

Twenty20 is certainly not batsman-friendly. Or bowler-friendly, for that matter. But it is bat-friendly.

 

[Dasa]

Yes, but they're still losing wickets. And the fact that you can only get x amount of runs in that time surely doesn't favour batsmen either, does it?

That factor itself doesn't. Other factors that have been discussed before do though.

 

[silentstriker]

It's batsman friendly because the chief purpose is to keep the runs down. Its similar in ODI too. Difference is that while I loathe that mentality, Twenty20 at least has the excitement factor and the fact that its over quick in its favor.

In any case, I'd be happy with just Test matches TBH. Would be even better if we got rid of bilateral tours and just had each side play every other side in their group (two groups total) home and way once every year, with a semi final and a final. Like 8 tests a year per side, and no limited overs for anyone. (If people want, they can still have bilateral tours in addition to that, like Ashes, and with only 8 tests and no limited overs, there would be space for that). It would totally rock IMO. But exactly zero chance of that happening, unfortunately. Partly cause its a huge change, and partly cause the weather and other factors in each country would make it difficult to come up with a set time.

 

[Richard]

Tours are a vital part of cricket IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Tours are a vital part of cricket IMO.

Maybe its just because I'm used to US sports, but I like having a winner declared at the end of each season.

And like I said, with a maximum of 10 tests and no limited overs stuff, you'd have plenty of time for tours like the Ashes. And the tours few care about won't happen.

 

[Jono]

It's batsman friendly because the chief purpose is to keep the runs down. Its similar in ODI too. Difference is that while I loathe that mentality, Twenty20 at least has the excitement factor and the fact that its over quick in its favor.

In any case, I'd be happy with just Test matches TBH. Would be even better if we got rid of bilateral tours and just had each side play every other side in their group (two groups total) home and way once every year, with a semi final and a final. Like 8 tests a year per side, and no limited overs for anyone. (If people want, they can still have bilateral tours in addition to that, like Ashes, and with only 8 tests and no limited overs, there would be space for that). It would totally rock IMO. But exactly zero chance of that happening, unfortunately. Partly cause its a huge change, and partly cause the weather and other factors in each country would make it difficult to come up with a set time.

Honestly, if you ever get in charge of cricket, I'll become a netball fan.

FFS SS, honestly.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Honestly, if you ever get in charge of cricket, I'll become a netball fan.

FFS SS, honestly.

I'm guessing after that post he hasn't slept for a good week...........

 

[Richard]

Honestly, if you ever get in charge of cricket, I'll become a netball fan.

FFS SS, honestly.

Saj?

 

[Richard]

Maybe its just because I'm used to US sports, but I like having a winner declared at the end of each season.

I grew-up with said thing with the British football, and I still like the idea of rolling tours, something I only realised about in about 1994.

And like I said, with a maximum of 10 tests and no limited overs stuff, you'd have plenty of time for tours like the Ashes. And the tours few care about won't happen.

Simple solution from that - drop Zimbabwe until Zanu PF is gone and forget Bangladesh until they can produce a decent team.

 

[silentstriker]

I grew-up with said thing with the British football, and I still like the idea of rolling tours, something I only realised about in about 1994.

Simple solution from that - drop Zimbabwe until Zanu PF is gone and forget Bangladesh until they can produce a decent team.

Agreed with all that actually. Still, I'd prefer every country play every other country on a regular basis, in addition to any bilateral tours (Ashes, IND-PAK) that people may want to have. A lot of times you can go about 5-6 years between tours of a country, and thats too long IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Honestly, if you ever get in charge of cricket, I'll become a netball fan.

FFS SS, honestly.

If I ever become in charge of cricket, I'd ban all limited over games, force better pitches for bowling, standardize laws across nations for things like drugs, remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from test status, add more A tours and FC tours for the minnows to go up against, and drive the game into bankruptcy because of all that.

 

[adharcric]

Agreed with all that actually. Still, I'd prefer every country play every other country on a regular basis, in addition to any bilateral tours (Ashes, IND-PAK) that people may want to have. A lot of times you can go about 5-6 years between tours of a country, and thats too long IMO.

That makes more sense. Looking at your original statement (which may have given Jono a seizure), you seemed intent on ruining cricket.

EDIT: You still do. Don't worry, I'll never let you get to the top of the ICC.

 

[Richard]

If I ever become in charge of cricket, I'd ban all limited over games, force better pitches for bowling, standardize laws across nations for things like drugs, remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from test status, add more A tours and FC tours for the minnows to go up against, and drive the game into bankruptcy because of all that.

Well, dunno about bankruptcy but the pockets of your jacket would probably be lined lesser than the Malcolm $peeds of this World.