Why Do People Like Twenty20?

I don't think BCCI gave enough thought to the "fan loyalty" aspect. They had to act fast in the face of the ICL challenge. BCCI hired some experts on the business modelling which I have to say is quite good. However they have taken the fans for granted under the assumption that big circketing and bollywood names will sell.

Anchoring these teams around existing FC teams is a slightly better option i.e. something in the lines of English FC cricket. However the following for Domestic cricket in India is pretty much on the wane.

That is why I believe that ICL is better placed for success in the long run with their move to Country based teams which will give something for the fans to bond for or against.

At the moment the reaction of the fans at the IPL matches is like watching two sets of robots at play i.e. they get excited about the sixes and fours but nobody is really bothered about which team wins. That is not a good indication for long term success since more than anything else passion drives sport.

I remember once hoping that one of the innumerable Australian summer ODI's would be sufficiently rained off to allow as short a game as possible. I think at the time it was 25 overs a side. I thought it would be a refreshing change, just once, just for fun.

I never envisaged anything like it as a regular event.

I still feel that way. I have watched one 20/20 game on TV. It was enough for me. It has grave faults. It's like a diet of super-sized fast food. The proportion of genuinely even competitive games seems small. There's no time for ebb and flow, for engagement with an evolving plot.

I doubt whether many of the supposed new audience will graduate to the longer forms. I also doubt whether they will keep watching the ultra short form, because it offers such a limited range of skills and has such little variety.

I do think the suggestion that it be played in four quarters of ten overs is a good one.
However doubtless that would lead to demands that it become just ten overs a side.
And why not? Then it really would be as long as a football game.

I also doubt whether they will keep watching the ultra short form, because it offers such a limited range of skills and has such little variety.

Does it offer any less variety or skill than baseball, a game which has captivated America for 150+ years? As far as I can tell, baseball is just swing hard and hope to miss the fielders or swing short, tap and run.

If you're going to bastardise and shorten proper cricket to 50 overs, then you may as well as get rid of the middle 30 boring overs in ODI cricket and present it as a 20 over game.


Hoggard seems to agree:

It looks as though one-day international cricket in general is going to suffer, which should come as no great surprise because it has become boring in comparison with Twenty20 and Test cricket. If you're going to watch a one-day international you only have to watch the first ten overs to get a fair idea of what's going on. You can then go away and mow the lawn while the ball is knocked around for four or five an over for the middle period, then come back to watch the last ten overs when things liven up again.

So one-day international cricket may have a bleak future, but Test cricket, I think, should not be in too much danger. It is the highest form of the game, in which skill, rather than luck, plays the biggest part. And, crucially, it is the form of the game that matters most to the players and that, ultimately, is what makes for good entertainment for spectators.

T 20 is here to stay. It is exciting and makes is quick family affair unlike the other forms of Cricket. My doubts are more about the success of the current IPL format.

Henry wrote:I don't mind T20 at all. Test cricket will always remain my favourite form of the game, but cricket needs to adapt if it is to survive. I personally wouldn't shed too many tears if T20 eventually replaced 50 over cricket, as long as Test Cricket doesn't suffer.

gagging!!!!!!! I'm 100% in accord with Trev from Darlinghust

if it eliminates some of those amazingly boring 50 over matches then I'll rejoice again and again about it.

aye, you know the ones that so many of us refer to as JAMODIs?

On further consideration, I have to alter my previous judgment - I can see two positives.
First, the young Indian players will get a lot of value out of playing with the senior Internationals. It's already obvious that those youngsters look up to the best players - the Pontings and Gilchrists and Husseys etc - and look to them for advice and assistance. That has to be good for them in the long run.
Also, the International players will get more exposure to possibly the hardest overseas pitches on which to play and, hopefully, learn how to handle them better. Frankly, anything that could improve Punter's record in India has to be a good thing. If it does . . .

So, I can see some players benefiting from it. But not the game.

Who would have thought that all of this would be the result of a survey conducted by the ECB back in 2001.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:On further consideration, I have to alter my previous judgment - I can see two positives.
First, the young Indian players will get a lot of value out of playing with the senior Internationals. It's already obvious that those youngsters look up to the best players - the Pontings and Gilchrists and Husseys etc - and look to them for advice and assistance. That has to be good for them in the long run.
Also, the International players will get more exposure to possibly the hardest overseas pitches on which to play and, hopefully, learn how to handle them better. Frankly, anything that could improve Punter's record in India has to be a good thing. If it does . . .

So, I can see some players benefiting from it. But not the game.

Don't think the T20 pitches and bowling will prepare them at all for tests in India . . .

More exposure to the conditions over there has to be a plus, albeit a very, very small one.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:More exposure to the conditions over there has to be a plus, albeit a very, very small one.

aye - & not just the conditions inside the rope - just dealing with life under the microscope may drain some of the bogan from him.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:More exposure to the conditions over there has to be a plus, albeit a very, very small one.

aye - & not just the conditions inside the rope - just dealing with life under the microscope may drain some of the bogan from him.

What a concept ... exorcising the inner bogan ...

I've found a method of taking in these games that works for me. Record them all & fast forward through the superfluous drivel.

It's the match ups that I enjoy most. Lee, McGrath, Warne, Sharma v Hayden, McCullum, Gilchrist, Symmonds.

I've also enjoyed the camerderie between team mates who are Test match rivals. Perhaps we have found a way for the insular bindings of international touring to be shredded. For "foes" to share a beer & a meal.

I'm also looking forward to the BCCI & the ICC dealing with the Harbhajan & Sreesanth. It'll be a festival of posturing & vested interest slugging it out.