Twenty20 VS One-Day

[badgerhair]

Personally I wouldn't have any objection at all to seeing 20-over cricket displace 50-over cricket in the subsidiary role to Tests.

Me neither.

I thought 20-20 was going to be dreadful, but when I watched it on TV, I found it far more fun than those dreary, drawn-out 50-over affairs - in which nothing actually happens for 20 overs of each innings anyway.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[luckyeddie]

CricketWeb cliche

 

[Rich2001]

I don't see why both OD and 20/20 can't live side by side, they are different sorts of cricket just like Tests and OD matches are there is no need to replace anything IMO.

I also agree with Neil that people's opinion of 20/20 just being a slogging match and will just develop the wrong sort of players isn't true and anyone who has seen the games will know that 20/20 has alot to offer the players as well.

- Improvised shot making, to try and find the gaps in the tight fields - Loads of players on the rope make boundary shots actually quite hard, and teams are happy to give away 6 singles.

- The above will help in the longer version of the game, in the last 15 overs etc where teams need to up the rate.

- Makes the bowlers try/improve things like yorkers/slower balls and bowl a better line and lenght.

- Improves the fielding of players, who know they can't give runs away and will go to extreme lenghts to prevent runs etc.

- 20/20 generally regardless of ablity will be close games, well at least the vast majority will go right to the wire hence improving the players ablities of performing under pressure.

- The time limits and rules, force bowlers to improve over rates - Something that is shocking in cricket at the momment, where I saw a team recent do something like just 12 in the hour... in 20/20 they have to do 20 in a hour and a half - If they can do it then, they can transfer that into the longer game.

- Captains get to learn as they can try new fields and experiment a bit - Thinsg they can then take into the longer games.

And that's just off the top of my head

 

[Sudeep]

CricketWeb cliche

...or DD cliche!

 

[Craig]

Personally I hope not.

I usually switch off sometimes when a ODI is on, so I think there is next to no chance I will watch a Twenty20 match.

 

[Loony BoB]

I love ODI's because they can build up so much suspense for the last overs and it makes it all so much more worthwhile. I'd hate to see them go. While I wouldn't care if Twenty20 cricket became more popular than ODI's (right now, let's face it, ODI's are more popular globablly) and were put into Cricinfo stats and all that, but I wouldn't want ODI's to be binned.

A Twenty20 cricket final to decide the "World Champions" would be a bit of a farce in my opinion.

 

[marc71178]

I usually switch off sometimes when a ODI is on

Usually sometimes?

 

[Tom Halsey]

I was at the Finals day at Trent Bridge last year - and I'm sorry, but there's no way that it can be defined as baseball with stumps.

My remaining memories of the day (apart from Jamie Grove's 11-ball over) are Alex Gidman's fantastically improvised fifty against Surrey, and then in the final when James Ormond took 4-11 with a quite excellent display of seam bowling.

Personally I wouldn't have any objection at all to seeing 20-over cricket displace 50-over cricket in the subsidiary role to Tests.

I completely agree.

But I wouldn't want ODI's to be binned though, contrary to your last paragraph.

I think they should live side by side.

For example, an English summer could consist of 3 20Twenty's against New Zealand, 3 Tests against New Zealand, a NatWest Series, and 4 Tests against The West Indies. Perfect.

 

[Langeveldt]

For example, an English summer could consist of 3 20Twenty's against New Zealand, 3 Tests against New Zealand, a NatWest Series, and 4 Tests against The West Indies. Perfect.

Bit confusing to keep track of though? Are two different formats (along with their rules and regulations) not enough?

Knowing the filth who run our game, if its more profitable, then they will do it...

 

[marc71178]

For example, an English summer could consist of 3 20Twenty's against New Zealand, 3 Tests against New Zealand, a NatWest Series, and 4 Tests against The West Indies. Perfect.

Burnout

 

[Mr. P]

Stick with ODI's. IMO there is more skill needed in ODIs then Twenty20.

The ODI format can twist and turn either way and there is more then one dimension to it, as the game can slow or speed up at any time. The last 10 overs of an ODI is a slog fest anyway, can we just keep it at that.

 

[Loony BoB]

On another note: While Cricket Max was originally popular in NZ, I've not heard anything about it for quite some time now, and it seems it might have died out. Cricket Max was around before Twenty20, I'm pretty sure. Not exactly the same but it was a similar idea that took off and (seemingly) died out. Kind of like a good song that gets played too much on the radio.

EDIT: Just checked Google News Search and only one article even mentioned Cricket Max let alone gave details of it still being an up and running contest: New Zealand is the only other country to have experimented with a shorter format at the top level, playing three Cricket Max internationals over the last eight years. -BBC, June 8 2004

 

[Waughney]

How exactly did it work? I can remember something about each side having 2 innings each but I'm not sure.

 

[Loony BoB]

How exactly did it work? I can remember something about each side having 2 innings each but I'm not sure.

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat..._07OCT2000.html

http://www.dangermouse.net/cricket/club.html - the variations of cricket played around the world, with basic rules listed.

 

[Waughney]

First link doesn't work but second one explains it well enough. Always wondered why it was called Cricket "Max"

 

[one_dayer]

Kind of like a good song that gets played too much on the radio.

Football is on the tv every day in England and its the most popular sport, so obviously people dont get bored of that song because it is taken seriously as a sport, same could happen with Twenty20 if it is marketed correctly and not treated as a mess about, you never know. Was Cricket Max taken seriously or was it just a one off mess about? 10 overs a side does seem too short to be honest.

 

[Craig]

Usually sometimes?

Well I have never said I was the most educated

 

[badgerhair]

Stick with ODI's. IMO there is more skill needed in ODIs then Twenty20.

The ODI format can twist and turn either way and there is more then one dimension to it, as the game can slow or speed up at any time. The last 10 overs of an ODI is a slog fest anyway, can we just keep it at that.

How many 20-20 games have you actually seen?

If, as I suspect, the answer is "zero", then I really don't see how you can possibly comment on it, because you are doing so in ignorance of what a 20-20 game is actually like. You might just as well comment on the redundancy of five-day cricket if all you've ever seen is ODIs as make the comment you have.

What 20-20 did for me is provide some fun and enjoyment which I've never managed to get from the 50-over rubbish. To succeed in 20-20 cricket, you need to be an excellent batsman, while in 50-over rubbish, just about any incompetent seems able to do well.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mr. P]

How many 20-20 games have you actually seen?

If, as I suspect, the answer is "zero", then I really don't see how you can possibly comment on it, because you are doing so in ignorance of what a 20-20 game is actually like. You might just as well comment on the redundancy of five-day cricket if all you've ever seen is ODIs as make the comment you have.

What 20-20 did for me is provide some fun and enjoyment which I've never managed to get from the 50-over rubbish. To succeed in 20-20 cricket, you need to be an excellent batsman, while in 50-over rubbish, just about any incompetent seems able to do well.

Cheers,

Mike

True, I have never seen one, ok.

But I fail to understand your logic when you say "To succeed in 20-20 cricket, you need to be an excellent batsman, while in 50-over rubbish, just about any incompetent seems able to do well."

Surely in 20-20 cricket all the batsmen have to do is hit the hell out of the ball? (Obviously there are exceptions) In 50 over cricket, there are portions of the game for that type of play, and other bits for the defensive, setting-up-a-good-total-without-risk game.

Surely the better batsman is the one who can do both? John Davison, for example may excell at 20-20, but in 50 overs he is terrible. On the other side of the scale, I cannot imagine a Kallis or a Hussain doing well in 20-20, but they are marvellous in 50 overs.

I do respect what you say however, so naturally everything I say could be wrong. I eagerly await your reply.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You're the first person I've seen to call Hussain a "marvellous 50-over batsman". Ever.

Very, very few shots in Twenty20 are blind slogs - simply because if you lose the big wickets early then you are well and truly screwed. As many key wickets on finals day were 'traditional' dismissals (LBW/Bowled/Ct Keeper/Slips). Concentration needs to be total for all 120 balls (+ some more if David Stiff's bowling), whereas in 50-overs there are dead patches.