Can the three live together?

[sohum]

Really, some of your comments make me wonder whether you decided to just skip watching the Twenty20 World Cup and still make your arguments as if you analyzed every ball in them.

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.

"There is no building of an innings" -- This was disproved by India in their last three games. They maintained a run rate of less than 6 in their first 6 overs and yet managed to put up 180+ on the board (except for the final).

"No slowing down when in trouble" -- This is again false. When India lost early wickets in the final, they slowed down to recover and then built a base for a late onslaught.

"It's either slog and do well, or slog, lose quick wickets, ..." -- If you watched, you would notice that the two teams competing in the final really didn't do this. Pakistan tried to employ the strategy in the final and they ended up losing.

Do you see a recurring factor here? The teams that played like you expect Twenty20 to be played didn't get the full distance. It seems to me more that teams are having trouble understanding the game dynamics.

"There's simply no skill involved that is present in..." -- Well, there are skills in Twenty20 that are simply not present in Test or ODI cricket.

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.

Well, now you are distinguishing people as "true cricket supporters" or not based on whether they like Test cricket. I think it is possible to be a true cricket supporter without being obsessed with Test cricket. In fact, India, where cricket is considered a religion, easily enjoys more support for ODI cricket.

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

The bowler of the tournament was Umar Gul (not Afridi, imo) and guess what? He was going for wickets. He quickly found out that wickets were the best way to slow the runs down. A lack of quality bowlers and quality strategies does not mean that you blame Twenty20 cricket for bowler strategies.

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.

Tests generally have bigger crowds than Twenty20's? That's because Twenty20 never made in on a world stage prior to this tournament. I would be very interested in comparing to this year's turnout for the T20 International between India and Australia to the 3rd day of the infamous Mumbai test match a few years back. I think you would be quite surprised to find the results.

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.

Now, the topic is really can the three live together. Manee was playing devil's advocate, I feel. Twenty20 is here to stay but that does not mean Test and ODI's can be bid goodbye. And I have problems with the way you define good. Our current definition of good is based on a team's ability in playing Tests and ODI's. Obviously each of these games require different skillsets--which is how you have England, which is a good test team and a mediocre ODI team. Twenty20 brings new dynamics and new skills and assuming that the teams that were good in the other versions will also be good here is an incorrect assumption on your part.

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.

I guess you would also claim:

(1) Talent is not about hitting the ball well into the crowd six times in an over.
(2) Talent is not about scoring the fastest half-century in international cricket (3 balls more than the mathematical minimum)
(3) Talent is not about bowling it in the correct channel every ball in the over.

The problem here is that you are trying to compare different games using the same yardstick. Bowling it in the channel of uncertainty is good in both games, but it is more valuable in a Twenty20. Batsmen can leave it in the Test version, but in Twenty20 batsmen have to be talented enough to do something with it.

 

[harishankar]

Excellent post, sohum. You tell 'em.

 

[westindies2007]

For me this is How I See it.

Test Match: Is to see how long a Team can Last or how long a team can bowl out a team For. That's why it is call a Test. to test your skills.

20/20: How fast you can Score runs and stay in. and for bowler, to see how well u are really are, if u get a maiden in a 20/ 20 match u are a really great bowler, a tip all u have to bowl is straight No wide of bouncer if not u are going over the top, kept bowling at the stump and one shot will be a out ;.

ODI: It's a mix of Test and 20/20. u must stay in and also make runs fast. the bowler must bowl good, and try different technique to get out the batsmans.

 

[SaiSrini]

For me, the only thing why I say test cricket shouldnt lose its charm is because it provides the balancing act. An overdose of entertainment is not good and it becomes overfill.

Test matches between good teams is interesting and exciting to see. But a test match is more likely to throw up a very very one sided match. And seeing a team dominate another team in a one sided match for days together is boring to watch.

They might live together, but I can see the number of ODI's being played going down in the coming years. The more T20 catches up in popularity, the number of ODI's will reduce. But T20 will also energise ODI cricket in the sense that the par totals will increase enormously. But on the other side, it could lead to more one sided matches if the difference between the two teams is really wide.

For me, T20 is more entertaining than ODI cricket. I dont watch test cricket unless its India who play (even then, I watch only parts where the going on is interesting). So I vote for T20 now.

 

[aditya123]

What I'd like to see is a bit more integration in the games rather than just lumping them together in sets. For example this summer in England we had :

4 Tests vs WI
2 T20s vs WI
3 ODIs vs WI
then
3 Tests vs India
7 ODIs vs India

I'd have liked to have seen something more like

2 T20's vs WI
Test Series vs WI
Triangular ODI with all 3 teams
Test series vs India

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

India`s schedule is a bit more tight though,
June 2007 : 4 ODIs in Ireland vs SA/Ire
July 07-Sep 07 : Eng v Ind (3 Tests, 7 ODIs)
Sep 07 : T20 World Cup
Sep-Oct 07 : 7 ODIs vs Australia
Nov 07 : 5 ODIs and 3 Tests vs Pakistan
Dec 07-Feb 08 : India`s tour to Australia

 

[Cricketman]

I think people will eventually find t20's slow and boring and they'll bring the Hong Kong super sixes in. ;\

 

[Hooper]

I think people will eventually find t20's slow and boring and they'll bring the Hong Kong super sixes in. ;\

Dont say that...I will kill myself if they play Super Sixes internationally.

 

[RoboRocks]

I think people will eventually find t20's slow and boring and they'll bring the Hong Kong super sixes in. ;\

I think Twenty20 is enough shortening.
Although I feel that the public find Twenty20 fun and entertaining.
The real cricket watchers will still apprciate test matches and these as mentioned before are even contests between bat and ball and test players provide the best cricket even though its not the most entertaining as you will see in a twenty20 or a fast scoring ODI.

 

[smssia0112]

Well, now you are distinguishing people as "true cricket supporters" or not based on whether they like Test cricket.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said that a true cricket supporter is one who has been around since before Twenty20 cricket, one who can sit through more than 40 overs in a day. Those who only enjoy Twenty20 cricket and only came around to cricket because it got shortened are bandwagon jumpers.

I said that from that particular gorup of people, test cricket is almost unanimously popular, whilst Twenty20 is not.

I guess you would also claim:

(1) Talent is not about hitting the ball well into the crowd six times in an over.
(2) Talent is not about scoring the fastest half-century in international cricket (3 balls more than the mathematical minimum)
(3) Talent is not about bowling it in the correct channel every ball in the over.

Talent is a number of things. Power is only one of them. Economy is also only one of them. You can assume whatever you want, I never said any of that and I do not enjoy being accused of it.