The future of Twenty20 and ODI cricket.

O.K. I think we're well enough into the tournament to have this discussion now.

Put simply...

Does Twenty20 have a real future at international level?

Should it replace 50-over cricket as the dominant form of the limited overs game?

I was - and to some extent still am - a Twenty-20 sceptic. 50 over matches still allow batsmen to build an innings and things seem more natural. But...

The first week of this tournament has been more enjoyable than any One-Day International series I can remember.

Matches are closer, and if they aren't they're over quicker.

There are no dull, formulaic middle overs.

If we're going to have a form of the game for the masses, we might as well have one that's over in three hours.

Maybe it's just because the World Cup in the West Indies was so tedious, but this tournament has been like a breath of fresh air.

Cheers.

OD cricket won't 'die', but I see NO MORE 7 ODI series ever. Reckon most will be 'dwindled' down to 3 matches, with 2 or 3 T20s as well.

And by the way...

Are you able to edit your poll options. I mispelt occasional but I can't get in to change it.

I'm not up with what this new forum is capable of doing.

With teams playing 40 ODI's+ a year they become boring and lacking in intensity. We've seen a lot of poor ODI's recently and a lot of bowlers breaking down having to fit in all these ODI's with 10 Tests a year as well as domestic commitments.

20/20's are more TV friendly, more unpredictable and generally have closer finishes. If they can take a fair slice of those 40 ODIs then it will be a good thing. Freshen things up a bit.

If they are played on top of the 10 Tests and 40 ODI's then it will be overkill.

Agree with your comments Hass, if the one-day is dull it's better that it's dull for less overs - 50 overs and Twenty20 sharing time scheduled for shortened cricket.

Absolute cr*p ... detracts from the real stuff - converts orthodox and classical batsmen into slogsh!tehittingfreakknobs who look like prats once they return to the greater game and arena.

Won't last .... just like computers didn't.

FWIW - I genuinely feel that people will get bored of T20 quite quickly. It's a bit like rugby 7s - a bit of hit and giggle but ultimately unfulfilling as a contest.

JGK wrote:FWIW - I genuinely feel that people will get bored of T20 quite quickly. It's a bit like rugby 7s - a bit of hit and giggle but ultimately unfulfilling as a contest.

I have genuinely lost interest in the tournament as its gone on, maybe thats due to England generally sucking as its gone on though.

I think it has it's place at domestic level though, and with this new 'champions league' however that works out.

1 T20 game per touring side is fine too.

F**k that sh!t. I lost interest in the World Cup at the end of the 1st round.

Batfink Begins wrote:OD cricket won't 'die', but I see NO MORE 7 ODI series ever. Reckon most will be 'dwindled' down to 3 matches, with 2 or 3 T20s as well.

Oddly, the recent 7-match Anglo-India JAMODI series was the one I enjoyed the most in about 20 years.

Otherwise, I say kill 50-over off now and replace it with twenty20.

The only problem with Twenty20 is that there is very little for the bowler to do, unless it's a friendly pitch.

doremi wrote:The only problem with Twenty20 is that there is very little for the bowler to do, unless it's a friendly pitch.

There is plenty a good bowler can do..... Vettori for example.....

Twenty20 does exactly what limited overs cricket promised to do but never quite delivered.

The format is right to ensure that the better teams win most of their matches, but that minnows get the appropriate probability of pulling off a shock win every now and then to spice things up.

Any sport needs a certain proportion of shock results to retain a cosmopolitan public interest.

PearlJ wrote:

doremi wrote:The only problem with Twenty20 is that there is very little for the bowler to do, unless it's a friendly pitch.

There is plenty a good bowler can do..... Vettori for example.....

Absolutely! During this tournament, I'd say that the bowlers have been even more important than batsmen in deciding results. It's one of the more surprising results from the tourny thus far.

The 7 match series between India and England was totally unnecessary and it held no interest at all until the final deciding match. Had England gone 4-1 up at the mid point the last two games would have been a complete waste of playing time.

I think a 4-test series followed by 5 T20 games would have been far more enjoyable.

Hass wrote:And by the way...

Are you able to edit your poll options. I mispelt occasional but I can't get in to change it.

I'm not up with what this new forum is capable of doing.

Yes, you just edit your original post, and all the poll details should be on the bottom of it.

I've done it for you, being the champ I am.

T20 is okay but a heavy dose of these matches become too much. You don't even remember which teams played each other one day before!

I liked Ian Chappell's idea quite a lot:



How Twenty20 can combat player burnout



But I doubt if ICC can be this sensible!!

Chandan wrote:T20 is okay but a heavy dose of these matches become too much. You don't even remember which teams played each other one day before!

Something similar to the neverending series of ODI's that India plays, you mean?

20/20 is a carbuncle on the arse of international sport.