Which did you enjoy more: World Cup or Twenty20 Championship?

[Swervy]

"Standard" ER in Tests - 3-an-over; "standard" ER in ODIs - 4-an-over.





"Standard" ER in Twenty20s... ^%$£ knows, really. I've always got the impression that 7-an-over was about it, but that may have changed of late (and only in the upwards direction).

That's massive - massive. And it's why I find it so hard to make it feel like cricket, really. It doesn't matter if the runs are garnered through pure blind swinging or through extension on "normal" cricket strokes (though if you play normally in a Twenty20 game you won't get that many), it's the run-rates that matter. I hate obscenely fast or obscenely slow run-rates.

mmm..I think it is pretty much morelike 5 to 5.5 rpo in ODIs now to be honest.

Not that that is really an adequate measure of how close on form of the game is to another!!!

 

[Richard]

It's not at all - bowlers with economy-rates that high virtually never last 5 minutes.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I just don't understand how a lover of cricket can want <<<what is hopefully>>> a great cricket event to be over quickly.

They don't want it over quickly, but they want it over in enough time for them to remain interested in it. The World Cup would have been too long even if the standard of cricket had been higher. Any tournament that lasts two months is clearly too long - the media, the general public (not huge cricket fans, but people with a passing interest) can't stomach that much. The whole affair becomes less of a spectacle (like the Twenty20 was) and more of an everyday occurence. There was nothing special about World Cup cricket in the end, as opposed to the football World Cup, which has a real atmosphere around it - there is little boredom.

On the subject, my Dad mentioned recently, while watching the rugby, that football is the only major sport around the world that seems to have found the best format for its World Cup. I argued that this was because the gulf in class between the worst team and the best team in football is much smaller than in cricket and in rugby (any team in Germany 2006 could have quite conceivably beaten any other). Can cricket ever have a satisfactory structure to the World Cup?

 

[Jamee999]

It's not at all - bowlers with economy-rates that high virtually never last 5 minutes.

5 an over is 250 (maybe 265 with leg byes and byes) which is a decent score in ODIs - now, certainly not a poor one.

 

[Richard]

Regardless of this, show me a bowler that's won a consistent place in a ODI-standard side with an economy-rate of even close to 5-an-over, unless their wicket-taking was seriously unusual(ly common).

 

[Richard]

They don't want it over quickly, but they want it over in enough time for them to remain interested in it. The World Cup would have been too long even if the standard of cricket had been higher. Any tournament that lasts two months is clearly too long - the media, the general public (not huge cricket fans, but people with a passing interest) can't stomach that much. The whole affair becomes less of a spectacle (like the Twenty20 was) and more of an everyday occurence. There was nothing special about World Cup cricket in the end, as opposed to the football World Cup, which has a real atmosphere around it - there is little boredom.

If this is so - and personally (though obviously I fall into the "huge cricket fan" spectrum you speak of) I don't feel it is - that's all the more reason to have the preliminary group-stages staged, say, 6 months previously - who knows, maybe even in somewhere different to the tournament proper - and have the authentic Cup start with the Super Eights. Have a qualifying stage (the ICC Trophy) for non-ODI-standard sides, then a qualifying stage where the little boys mix with the big, then a Cup. This would be an even better reason not to give games involving substandard sides ODI-status, had the stupid decision to give 8 undeserving sides ODI-status not already been taken.

And hopefully, next time, things will go as you aim them to go, with the best 8 teams qualifying for the Super Eights.

I don't see any reason to change the one-match-a-day idea (it's what works best for TV, and like it or not TV is the biggest reason we can even have a decent World Cup), and I like the Super Eight format for as long as we have 8 ODI-standard sides (this obviously depends on Bangladesh's progress in the next couple of years - if they become ODI-standard in that time it's a much more difficult question). I think the forumla is OK, basically - possibly it just needs three stages rather than two.

On the subject, my Dad mentioned recently, while watching the rugby, that football is the only major sport around the world that seems to have found the best format for its World Cup. I argued that this was because the gulf in class between the worst team and the best team in football is much smaller than in cricket and in rugby (any team in Germany 2006 could have quite conceivably beaten any other). Can cricket ever have a satisfactory structure to the World Cup?

I think it already did - most people acknowledged the structures of 1975, 1979, 1983, 1992 and 2007 as top-class (and possibly 1987 too, I'm not sure). Heck, even the 1999 one had its merits, though it also decidedly had its downpoints.

As tournaments expand, though, new formats have to be devised - and sadly, they're not always going to work as well as planned even if they are good ideas.

 

[Nishant]

2020 WC was one of the best tournaments we have seen in a long time!!!

2020 rulz!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

2020 WC was one of the best tournaments we have seen in a long time!!!

True (if you insert a "global" in there strategically). Certainly from an organisation POV.

2020 rulz!!!!!!!!!!

 

[slugger]

I think if a team required 36 runs off the last over you might appreciate it. So if 36 runs are scored at any over in any format is just as worthy who wants to put themselves in postion of needing 36 runs of the last over. I remember Alan Lamb Im not sure ir he still has the record but he scored 18 runs from the last over in and odi to win the match... it is rare and extremely rare that the last over of a test match will be the over to determin the winner.. i remeber mcMillan and Cairns got NZ of a whisker of doing this but because a test match has a defence component for teams to full back on a team can shut up shop and play for a draw..


ex:
The foundations were laid before Cairns lit up the Gabba with 43 from 38 balls, dragging the Kiwis within 21 runs of victory with just 18 balls remaining.

Fleming's approach was refreshing for an Australian public which has put up with touring teams which have worked on safety-first cricket, with some even refusing to play under lights in Test matches.

"It's about the traditions of a game and it's about breaking new mould and if you can create entertainment, I'm massively for it," Fleming said.

"I'm convinced it's the way Test cricket has to go entertainment-wise."

The fifth day was extended to 105 overs because of the previous rain delays, and it was rewarded with plenty of action.

But it was still headed for a draw until Cairns and Craig McMillan (23 not out from 22 balls) scared the wits out of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath in the final overs, taking 31 runs from two overs.

But McGrath pulled the shutters down when he bowled a wide line outside off-stump, just inches inside the legal width, and Waugh later defended the tactic.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

WC for me. I'm not a fan of the 20/20 format, and didn't get much out of any of the games, with perhaps one or two exceptions. I wasn't a big fan of the WC either, but it had some good games, and it's difficult to give the tournaments a fair comparison anyway because of my issues with the format. It's like comparing the fairly average 2006/07 Ashes to the awesome 1999 ODI world cup or something.

 

[R_D]

Nah. He\she who believes Twenty20 > Test cricket has no right to call themselves a cricket fan, merely a Twenty20 fan.

If you like 20/20 doesn't mean you think test > 20/20.

 

[R_D]

Ther was no stagnation in the T20 tournament (I mean a whole Boody month of second round group matches played so leisurely you's have thought the tournament was going backwards literally) and the Windies fans certainly didn't make such an unholy fuss about their early elimination from the T20 world cup as the Indian and Pakistan fans did which kinda helped everyone else enjoy the Tournament

How did that disrupt other team fans ?
If you're team gets knocked out early when you expect them to do pretty well, than don't you expect fan to get upset but i don't see how that disrupted everyone else . Didn't see Indian/Pakistani fans going around saying don't enjoy this, India, Pakistan are out.

 

[Richard]

If you like 20/20 doesn't mean you think test > 20/20.

No, of course not, but I did not suggest it did.

 

[GIMH]

Nope. AFAIK he's always quite liked the format. More Brits than not have done - it's symptomatic of the jump-on-the-latest-bandwagon attitudes so common in these isles.

I hope you're not suggesting that I jumped on any T20 bandwagon

Yeah, always quite liked the format domestically, and generally internationally as well.

TBH Richard, and anyone, I can understand why you don't wish to watch. However, for me, and it's a similar line of thought to yours in the WC, the more Cricket on my TV the better, and a bit of variation can help avoid saturation

 

[Richard]

I hope you're not suggesting that I jumped on any T20 bandwagon

Nah. I basically only say that to counter-patronise the stupid idiots who say that those who dislike Twenty20 are just people who don't have a clue what they're on about and reinforce each others' misformed ideas.

 

[SJS]

the more Cricket on my TV the better, and a bit of variation can help avoid saturation

I quite like that attitude. I too watch T20 (not all matches though) for the same reasons. My problem is not that T20 is boring (though my sig said that) but because I am seriously worried that cricket, which is suffering from lowering of standards in some areas will suffer further.

I liked watching some of the T20 games but would have missedthem if I had to go to see a really nice movie.

I wouldn't do it if India were playing Pakistan or Australia in an odi and I would take five days off from anything I had scheduled if itwas a test match.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think it already did - most people acknowledged the structures of 1975, 1979, 1983, 1992 and 2007 as top-class (and possibly 1987 too, I'm not sure).

Depends on whether you include the spacing of games as the structure (WRT 2007).

 

[GIMH]

That's fair enough. For me I guess I enjoy T20 and ODI about the same, but love love love a good Test match, alas I hardly saw any live Test action this summer because I didn't get Sky Sports until the end of the India series. The thing with my lifestyle at the moment though, is that I rarely get the time to watch a full day's play, but a T20 I can get away with.

In summary, I would rather watch a Test match than any other Cricket, but I get to watch limited overs Cricket more (proportionally) so in that way both of the shorter forms are good for me at the moment.

 

[Richard]

Depends on whether you include the spacing of games as the structure (WRT 2007).

As I said (think it was earlier this thread ) I don't have a problem with the one-game-a-day format. It's what works best for TV, and like it or not (and I don't mind terribly TBH) TV is what keeps cricket's coffers from being bare.

I think if you start the Tournament Proper at the Super Eight stage, it'd work very well.

 

[Richard]

The thing with my lifestyle at the moment though, is that I rarely get the time to watch a full day's play, but a T20 I can get away with.

That's actually pretty much true with me. I'm very fortunate in that I can take a long-wave radio to work and listen to TMS throughout a day, with no interruption. There's no part of my job that listening to a radio impedes upon.

I also take gym trips often enough, which sometimes means I miss highlights, but I can easily enough watch a different set as there are always two, sometimes three, screenings.