Can the three live together?

[harishankar]

I can understand comparing T20 with ODIs. But Test matches are completely different and produce a different kind of excitement when the pitch conditions are right for a result and the teams are well-matched.

Of course, T20s will continue being popular because it packages cricket so well within a 3 hour time limit.

 

[Animator!]

Test matches are still the absolute pinacle. They're the battle that really detirmines who can cut it at that level.

 

[sd92]

Test's are awesome. They may not be the most exciting, but are the best form of cricket IMO/

 

[Gilly Fan]

And I'm pushing it a bit but a T20 tagged on the end of that vs india would have finished it off nicel

Yeah, but there was only a couple of days before the start of the T20 World Cup. So that's probably why there wasnt one.

 

[sohum]

Just about a decade or so back test cricket was starting to phase out before the Aussies decided to unleash a new brand of test cricket. Scoring at 4 an over became par for them, which was a big step up from the sub-3 that most other teams dealt with (and sometimes still do). This brought a resurgence in test cricket that I feel was driven by the popularity of ODI cricket creeping into the test game.

I feel Twenty20 could be a similar mobilizer for the ODI game. I also think the ICC should have guidelines in place for series lengths. They should cap off both bilateral ODI and test series at 5 matches. The ideal tour should be 4 tests, 5 ODIs and one Twenty20 if its a bilateral/isolated tour. If countries are touring back-to-back to a host nation, there should be triangular series of a maximum of 2 rounds.

I think this is where the ICC can afford to step in especially as player burnout has become an issue. As for the three surviving, I think they will--we'll just see ODI cricket become more frenetic.

 

[smssia0112]

After reading this article, I thought to myself, why on earth would people respect ODIs anymore? Scoring at six an over is an achievement in ODIs but it is the equivalent of failure in twenty20 and most teams can do it without trying in twenty20s.

And there is no skill involved in thrashing and bashing for 20 overs. There is no building of an innings, no long bowling spells, no slowing down when in trouble. It's either slog and do well, or slog, lose quick wickets, then be forced to continue to slog and get bowled out cheaply. There's simply no skill involved that is present with tests or even ODI to a lesser extent.

Test matches fail to produce results, time after time again and yet, twenty20 can produce a result in the face of a tie with a bowl out. Who would want to play test cricket (except the purist of course) when twenty20 is more fun and promises way more $$$ for less than 1/20th of the time.

Twenty20 is more fun in your opinion. The majority of true cricket supporters (not ones that only like Twenty20, but those who have been around for longer than this baby form has) enjoy test cricket more than ODI or Twenty20 cricket.

Twenty20 appeals to new supporters of the game who find Test cricket too long. That's their choice.

Twenty20 never produces 3 (or 7) hour thrashings, any destruction of a team is over in 1 hour and a half (Australia Vs Sri Lanka) and most of the time, the matches are extremely close since one good over can put you back in the game.

Thrashings are part of any sport. They do not make or break a sport that has been going on for a long time (ODI Cricket).

Fast bowlers display their pace and spinners, their guile more than any other form of the game and I am sure we can all appriciate that good line and length has a place too (Pollock Vs India, Asif Vs India), as it does in the test game.

Bowlers are shut out from Twenty20, they do not bowl for wickets, they can only bowl for economy.

How (and why) can ODIs and Tests survive when twenty20 is more fun, has less one sided affairs, more upsets, bigger crowds and a bigger display of talent from the cricketers

Possibly the most short sighted thing I have ever read. Test cricket on Boxing Day draws crowds in excess of 90,000 every year. Tests generally have much bigger crowds than Twenty20's. More upsets? That means that good teams can lose, which ruins all skill from good players. If in 20 years Twenty20 is the only form of cricket, what happens to supremely talented batsmen who aren't sloggers? They can't get a game.

As for more talent? That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life. It has more power, more slogging. Talent is the ability to stay out there for hours on end, defending and picking the bad balls for runs, saving your team from defeat.

Talent is not taking chances every ball and succeeding half the time.

 

[harishankar]

I had similar opinions to you, aus5892. But after watching a few games I did notice that:

1. Thrashing and bashing does not get you anywhere. You still need to play good measured cricket to score runs.

2. Bowlers who bowl only for economy go for plenty. Bowlers who take wickets succeed.

3. teams maintain intensity right throughout the game unlike in a ODI game where you go through a dull period in the middle.

4. The chances of getting close results are more in T20 because you cannot outbat the opposition without taking huge risks. It's still a game where batsmen need to be patient and bowlers need to take wickets. You cannot get very one-sided matches unless the teams are way too unmatched.

5. The game dynamics are definitely more enjoyable and I am still a Test cricket fan. You need not be only one or the other. You can enjoy all forms of the game equally without preference to one another.

So speak for yourself when you say "purists" don't like T20. Even Sunil Gavaskar who was sceptical initially about T20 now seem convinced that it's the way forward.

 

[smssia0112]

I had similar opinions to you, aus5892. But after watching a few games I did notice that:

1. Thrashing and bashing does not get you anywhere. You still need to play good measured cricket to score runs.

2. Bowlers who bowl only for economy go for plenty. Bowlers who take wickets succeed.

3. teams maintain intensity right throughout the game unlike in a ODI game where you go through a dull period in the middle.

4. The chances of getting close results are more in T20 because you cannot outbat the opposition without taking huge risks. It's still a game where batsmen need to be patient and bowlers need to take wickets. You cannot get very one-sided matches unless the teams are way too unmatched.

5. The game dynamics are definitely more enjoyable and I am still a Test cricket fan. You need not be only one or the other. You can enjoy all forms of the game equally without preference to one another.

So speak for yourself when you say "purists" don't like T20. Even Sunil Gavaskar who was sceptical initially about T20 now seem convinced that it's the way forward.

I didn't say that purists don't like T20, I said that they prefer Test Cricket. It is not a matter of deciding for me. I just don't like Twenty20 cricket.

 

[harishankar]

I didn't say that purists don't like T20, I said that they prefer Test Cricket. It is not a matter of deciding for me. I just don't like Twenty20 cricket.

I would say give it a chance. I did too and I'm really starting to enjoy it.

Although I say this because India won, I also think it's a game where the level of intensity can be very high and the quality of cricket has a role to play in deciding the winner or loser.

Like you, I prefer Test cricket, but I'm not writing off T20 as a game which can replace ODIs. I think it can really overtake ODI cricket in the level of interest given a chance.

 

[manee]

And there is no skill involved in thrashing and bashing for 20 overs. There is no building of an innings, no long bowling spells, no slowing down when in trouble. It's either slog and do well, or slog, lose quick wickets, then be forced to continue to slog and get bowled out cheaply. There's simply no skill involved that is present with tests or even ODI to a lesser extent.

Twenty20 is more fun in your opinion. The majority of true cricket supporters (not ones that only like Twenty20, but those who have been around for longer than this baby form has) enjoy test cricket more than ODI or Twenty20 cricket.

Twenty20 appeals to new supporters of the game who find Test cricket too long. That's their choice.

Thrashings are part of any sport. They do not make or break a sport that has been going on for a long time (ODI Cricket).

Bowlers are shut out from Twenty20, they do not bowl for wickets, they can only bowl for economy.

Possibly the most short sighted thing I have ever read. Test cricket on Boxing Day draws crowds in excess of 90,000 every year. Tests generally have much bigger crowds than Twenty20's. More upsets? That means that good teams can lose, which ruins all skill from good players. If in 20 years Twenty20 is the only form of cricket, what happens to supremely talented batsmen who aren't sloggers? They can't get a game.

As for more talent? That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life. It has more power, more slogging. Talent is the ability to stay out there for hours on end, defending and picking the bad balls for runs, saving your team from defeat.

Talent is not taking chances every ball and succeeding half the time.

You seem to be an agressive approach to me which is clearly ignoring the final line of my post.

 

[Cricketman]

I don't really mind.
ODIs>T20
As long as they limit twenty20's to the odd one or two and then the rare tourny i'm fine with it.

 

[Animator!]

I don't think even the ICC are going to be money orientated enough to schedule more than one or two 20/Twenty games a tour so I don't think it's ever going to take off as an indiviual format, people will enjoy it for what it is, a big of fun at the end/start of a tour, and the World Cup is almost like a carnival in cricketing terms.

 

[Norbert]

Test's are awesome. They may not be the most exciting, but are the best form of cricket IMO/

You know...Test purists have been saying this for some time...and I just want to know, without any attempt @ confrontation, if Test's aren't "exciting" then what adjective describes them that makes them more fun to watch (not play, I want audience value here) then ODI, or for that matter Twenty20?

 

[smssia0112]

You know...Test purists have been saying this for some time...and I just want to know, without any attempt @ confrontation, if Test's aren't "exciting" then what adjective describes them that makes them more fun to watch (not play, I want audience value here) then ODI, or for that matter Twenty20?

First off, they are interesting. A game can swing at any time, not just within 40 hours. They are entertaining to watch. The atmosphere is magnificent. The players face more pressure, and must be more skillful and gritty to make it.

It is a true "Test" of a cricketer's abilities. There are times when there is aggression, and times when there is defence. Times when wickets are falling, and times when batsmen are scoring runs. There is a widely even balance of what cricket was invented for in the first place! Slogging was not that reason.

You seem to be an agressive approach to me which is clearly ignoring the final line of my post.

And yet you did not say it as though it were a question. I read that line, and I read the rest of the post. They were implied, not asked.

I would say give it a chance. I did too and I'm really starting to enjoy it.

I gave it a chance. When it first came out, I though to myself, 'how exciting.' But after watching it, and watching tests around it, I decided that it wasn't so exciting. It was a lot more repetitive. I did not find it interesting or desirable to watch.

While I could sit and watch a test for hours on end, I found myself channel; surfing as it dragged on.

 

[usy]

Bowlers are shut out from Twenty20, they do not bowl for wickets, they can only bowl for economy.

Even though I agree with most of your comments, I'm sorry but, I don't agree with this.

If I bowl for economy, and I succeed, The wickets come automatically. It's just that if it's your day, your the Man of the Match, or else you are slogged.