Would you rather watch T20 than these tests?

Seriously?

S'what test cricket is all about for me. The ebb and flow.

Turn up to T20 and you know what you're going to see. Not so in test cricket....

The answer is obvious but it would be exactly the same answer if you were asking about ODIs.


Test cricket

Daylight.

More daylight.

Night-light.

De-light.

Energy-saving light.

Afternoon delight.

20/20s

Daylight.

ODIs

No. But I'd rather be watching the Windies/Aus Test than the England one - looks a cracker.

The England/NZ game is a battle of who is the least inept. Fun to watch, but soul-crushingly depressing at the same time.

Tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2020s >>>>>50 over.

I'd rather watch someone eat shit than Twenny-Twenny.

Anyway, an Antipodean double by tomorrow evening in these two entertaining Tests...

Augustus wrote:I'd rather watch someone eat shit than Twenny-Twenny.

So you've seen twogirlsonecup then?

Erm, no, the description alone leaves irremovable images stained in my mind. There are levels of deviancy beyond even your average 20 year-old male's levels.

I think tests have it all over T20 but I don't think that the shorter forms of the game are as predictable as you say. Every format turns up surprises. Test cricket though holds the suspense over five days and can be as fickle as a Melbourne day.

I enjoy both forms of the game, but T20 will never come close to any First Class cricket never mind a Test match for me.

The new shorter format has a place in modern cricket, and anything that brings new fans to the game has got to be good for it as long as it doesn't damage the overall integrity of the sport as a whole.

The IPL needs to be carefully negotiated just as Packer was in the 70's, but Test cricket, and Tests like these in particular will always ensure the longer form of the game survives, and I have no problem with T20 as long as people don't try to pretend that it's something that it quite patently isn't . . . I.E. Of any great importance.

Who, besides the seeming millions of Indians with ADD, is actually still watching the IPL? I tried, looked at some of it early in the piece, but just like the CWC of 07, it just goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on... For something supposedly 'designed to bring a quick result in a game that goes on for too long' has anyone else spoted the irony.

Personally, I'd like to se the IPL decide that what they need is even more t20 cricket. Expand the IPL two by another couple of weeks, hell, make it go for three months. Play every single day. Overkill will fairly quickly kill the beast. Or at least scale it back.

It took ODI cricket about 30 years to reach it's use-by date, but for the first 10 years or so, there weren't a lot of ODI matches played (it could even be argued that the 50-over game didn't really explode in number for another 5 years or so on top of that) so it took a while for the shortcomings of the game to be exposed by the sheer volume of matches played.

The ICC cleverly, I thought, jumped on the t20 bandwagon very quickly in order to captialise, and also cleverly put severe restictions in place on the number of t20 matches a national team can host, and play, in a year. Did they realise that overexposure to the product will diminsih the appeal fairly quickly? One can hope so, after all, there has to be someone at the ICC with something working above the neck.

Of course, I could be wrong, and not taking my own advice of never underestimating the capacity of the general public to be stupid.

Zat wrote:Who, besides the seeming millions of Indians with ADD, is actually still watching the IPL? I tried, looked at some of it early in the piece, but just like the CWC of 07, it just goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on... For something supposedly 'designed to bring a quick result in a game that goes on for too long' has anyone else spoted the irony.

Personally, I'd like to se the IPL decide that what they need is even more t20 cricket. Expand the IPL two by another couple of weeks, hell, make it go for three months. Play every single day. Overkill will fairly quickly kill the beast. Or at least scale it back.

It took ODI cricket about 30 years to reach it's use-by date, but for the first 10 years or so, there weren't a lot of ODI matches played (it could even be argued that the 50-over game didn't really explode in number for another 5 years or so on top of that) so it took a while for the shortcomings of the game to be exposed by the sheer volume of matches played.

The ICC cleverly, I thought, jumped on the t20 bandwagon very quickly in order to captialise, and also cleverly put severe restictions in place on the number of t20 matches a national team can host, and play, in a year. Did they realise that overexposure to the product will diminsih the appeal fairly quickly? One can hope so, after all, there has to be someone at the ICC with something working above the neck.

Of course, I could be wrong, and not taking my own advice of never underestimating the capacity of the general public to be stupid.

Some sageness in that lot, Zoggy.

To pass the time while I was waiting for the real cricket to come on from the Windies, I flicked between the Championship playoff Final between Bristol City and Hull, and the T20 match (Warnie's team v some other jokers). Even with the T20 getting down to a tight finish (the jokers were chasing 210 or so, and Mork&Mindy was smashing 'em all over the place) it was still tosh. Needless to say I watched the gripping theatre of the Championship game mostly.

I must say, one thing I find hilarious is the rabid and extremely raucous support when something good happens for the home team i.e. a run is scored (FFS), and then when a home wicket falls - cricket's chirping and pins dropping. PMSL.

skully wrote:

I must say, one thing I find hilarious is the rabid and extremely raucous support when something good happens for the home team i.e. a run is scored (FFS), and then when a home wicket falls - cricket's chirping and pins dropping. PMSL.

Aye - that sort of one eyed support is usually reserved for your average Convict cricket fan.

Tests>County Chapionship>20/20 for me

I have yet to even look at the IPL threads on here never mind take an interest in the games themselves.

And yet, I shall happily part with my hard earned for some 20/20 games, to introduce my boy to cricket and also have a good night out out with some mates who would otherwise not be seen dead at agame of cricket

We have a couple of cracking Test matches in progress, so the question is loaded.

I promise you sincerely that there have been plenty of times when I would have rather watched a village third grade 6 a side than the mind numbing "Test" match being played in front of me.

Wouldn't say the question was loaded, Mick, it was asked specifically with those two Tests in mind. I think some of the answers have been a tad loaded. And as someone who's sat through severla mind-numbingly dull days of Test cricket, I agree whole-heartedly with your 'under 6' sentiment.

But on the whole, and as distinct from the initial poster's question, I still infinitely prefer Test cricket to t20.

Tests
ODIs
Domestic ODs
Domestic 2020s
WACA Grade
International 2020s
IPL

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

skully wrote:

I must say, one thing I find hilarious is the rabid and extremely raucous support when something good happens for the home team i.e. a run is scored (FFS), and then when a home wicket falls - cricket's chirping and pins dropping. PMSL.

Aye - that sort of one eyed support is usually reserved for your average Convict cricket fan.

Actually BBB, I think that is one thing that sets English and Aussie supporters apart from the rest. While of course we heartily support our home side, we do show noisy appreciation of opposition deeds. Some of the biggest roars I've heard at Aussie grounds was when Viv Richards monstered one though midwicket, or BCL caressed one through the covers, or SRT smashed a beautiful on-drive.

Invader Zim wrote:
WACA Grade
International 2020s
IPL

Exactly mick...ppl talk as if all test matches are exciting and go to the wire. To be honest if it wasn't for the odi game, we'd probably still be stuck in the 80s bore draw mentality and cricket would be slowly dying. Even now, its hardly a massive crowd puller when compared to other sports. T20 pulls in crowds for a reason-people like it. And it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Zat wrote:.................. But on the whole, and as distinct from the initial poster's question, I still infinitely prefer Test cricket to t20.

Mate, it's probably fair to say that (almost?) anyone who is a member of this forum prefers Test match cricket. However, it's bul lshit to cite two great games of Test match cricket as a yardstick with the intent of bringing in a hail of anti T20 dross.

The crowds at a lot of T20 games in the UK go for the 'crack' rather than the cricket IMO. Totally different spectators mostly.

And its good fun.

Agreed some test cricket can be boring but a good test match beats any T20 hands down.

Red wrote:I think tests have it all over T20 but I don't think that the shorter forms of the game are as predictable as you say. Every format turns up surprises. Test cricket though holds the suspense over five days and can be as fickle as a Melbourne day.

aye!

JKLever wrote:The crowds at a lot of T20 games in the UK go for the 'crack' rather than the cricket IMO.

You poms really need to do something about your drug problem.

but a good test match beats any T20 hands down.

Agreed JKL.

Mick Sawyer wrote:However, it's bul lshit to cite two great games of Test match cricket as a yardstick with the intent of bringing in a hail of anti T20 dross.

Hardly BS mick, a genuine question. Hence I said 'these tests' rather than 'test cricket'