I have seen the light.

[rahuldravidfan]

Too much of anything, especially forced down your throat as if it is as essential to living as water, will put people off. Too much, too fast (not gradual) and too big for its boots.

As for the game itself, too runs orientated, too short and thus too lacking in time for any tactical nuances to take effect. How much can a match twist and turn in 40 overs?!?!?!? I went to the Test where Rob Key scored 221, England scored something like 400 runs in the day and it was boooooooorrrrrrrrringgggggggggggg. The contest between bat and ball has been turned into a contest of who can hit the most sixes, the most runs etc.

For me the most entertaining cricket is when batsmen have to FIGHT for their runs, sometimes even have to decide whether to just try and survive or take the attack to the bowler if he's moving the ball about and conditions help the bowlers. So what if T20 gets a result, it isn't just the result factor but how it was achieved. Sure bowlers can bowl well in T20, but the game is just too short, too fast and too pointless. I like ODIs with 50 overs, but not so much when the runs dominate that too. Tests can be good, but if only they'd give a bit more to the bowlers instead of making it so the pitch lasts five days (for the love of ?????)

You can have T20, but please could people who love it keep quieter about it and stop trying to persuade those who don't that they should, have to and it's somehow "the future of cricket". Because if it is "the future of cricket" then I can see it making cricket extinct, I doubt cricket will last as much of a sport if it only lasts 40 overs a time. That would be like football turning to 30 minute matches.

It wasn't broke, and T20 was a pretty poor attempt to fix it anyway. It's real design was to draw people who might otherwise not be interested in cricket, not to become the direction cricket takes. You can't deny the impact it has made, but let's give it a chance to last long or fade before we try to change everyone's views on it. Who knows, those trying to force it on the rest of us may well be as bored with it by the time the rest of us get close to finding it appealing

Agree with para 2 & 3.

You said people should be quieter w.r.t calling T20 the future of cricket. Don't you think Test cricket lovers are a bit too opinionated with their "well-documented hate" for the shortest format of the game? Why do they have to go around forcing people to change their allegiance from T20 to Tests?

Imagine a guy XYZ. You like Tests, great. You don't like T20s, sweet. But when I dislike Tests and love T20, why should any purist have a problem with that? You don't like being told what to watch. So how does your pointer change to the exact opposite and why should you lecture people when they say the love T20s?

You like what you watch, someone else likes another format. Why can't we be at peace? Why do we constantly have to keep picking on each other?

Can't people live in harmony and not crucify the players, the boards and most importantly, the fans for loving T20s?

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Classic argument Howsie. I'm sure you made a school girl proud

 

[Howsie]

^^^ Classic argument. I'm sure you made a school girl proud

Oh yeah I probably did.

Now who are these "20/20 haters" that go gaga over 20/20 cricket then hate on it when it's over?

 

[OffCutters]

I

If it wasn't for the IPL-

1. Would Australia have found Shaun Marsh & David Warner?
2. Could Shane Watson have made a comeback without the help of his surreal stint with the Royals?

Seriously? There`s something called the Big Bash and State Domestic Cricket. Which, incidentally, are not money-whored competitions. They could`ve done by without the IPL.

 

[Iridium]

I think Australia would have found Marsh and Warner without the IPL. It's just the IPL/T20 helped bring attention to those players (and Watson) to the Aussie selectors. If there was no IPL, they would have been found on the domestic circuit, albeit a bit later.

 

[formula1man]

Agree with para 2 & 3.

You said people should be quieter w.r.t calling T20 the future of cricket. Don't you think Test cricket lovers are a bit too opinionated with their "well-documented hate" for the shortest format of the game? Why do they have to go around forcing people to change their allegiance from T20 to Tests?

Imagine a guy XYZ. You like Tests, great. You don't like T20s, sweet. But when I dislike Tests and love T20, why should any purist have a problem with that? You don't like being told what to watch. So how does your pointer change to the exact opposite and why should you lecture people when they say the love T20s?

You like what you watch, someone else likes another format. Why can't we be at peace? Why do we constantly have to keep picking on each other?

Can't people live in harmony and not crucify the players, the boards and most importantly, the fans for loving T20s?

Hey mate there is nothing we can do about it. People never change and don't want to be proven wrong once they have expressed their opinion.

You could wave an apple in their face and try to convince them its an apple not an orange but if they truly believe its an orange you can't change that. Our best bet is just not waste our time convincing them and not read the threads and posts about people hating bcoz it just ruins it for us.

they don't know what they are missing out on.

But i just want to say yes there is overkill. but its only overkill if you watch so much it becomes overkill. If you watch every match in a football season you will get bored and think its overkill, but you don't, you watch your teams games. It is the same with IPL. Its really exciting if you only watch matches you care about. T20 cricket is TV stations dream, It is the football version of cricket. And is great fun to watch with mates.

 

[Howsie]

Warner played for Australia before he even played in the IPL.

 

[formula1man]

what's wrong if the guy now loves T20 cricket.

Are you paid money by Test cricket association to turn people away from T20 cricket.

I loved T20 from the very first match i watched. 2006 Aus V Saf. Maybe the reason why i dont mind T20 cricket is because it was around already when i started following cricket.

formula1man added 5 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

0.3 Sharma to Hayden: No ball 1: Sharma digs in a short one, it was too high and Hayden couldn't hit it for six, therefore a no ball must be called

0.2 Sharma to Hayden: Six, another one, wow what a start

0.1 Sharma to Hayden: Six, what a start, Hayden starts with a six

Get's pretty boring tbh.

BTW Sharma and Hayden were just the first two player's to pop into my head

Deccan V Sommerset

Wow six off every ball how boring. I count 6 not 120

Eagles V Sussex

Absolutely run dominated no tactics or skill involved at all.

 

[Howsie]

And this proves? That not every game is a high scoring slog fest, wow I didn't already know that, thanks for showing me this scorecard, I'm in complete love with 20/20 cricket :sarcasm

That post was just how I feel in general about 20/20 cricket, just like how you say ODI cricket is boring, maybe I should post up the scorecards of the 2007 Chappell-Hadlee series.

 

[formula1man]

No. It's dead rubber way to often. The first 5 overs are exciting. Then if the opposition takes an early wicket or 2 it becomes boring.

At least they don't get decided at the toss like ODIs. Its actually a little unpredictable. at least you get to watch 5 overs before you know the result. And an early wicket or two does a lot more harm to ODIs.

formula1man added 1 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

And this proves? That not every game is a high scoring slog fest, wow I didn't already know that, thanks for showing me this scorecard, I'm in complete love with 20/20 cricket :sarcasm

That post was just how I feel in general about 20/20 cricket, just like how you say ODI cricket is boring, maybe I should post up the scorecards of the 2007 Chappell-Hadlee series.

but that was a run fest with heaps of sixes how can that be exciting.

 

[Howsie]

At least they don't get decided at the toss like ODIs. Its actually a little unpredictable. at least you get to watch 5 overs before you know the result. And an early wicket or two does a lot more harm to ODIs.

formula1man added 1 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...



but that was a run fest with heaps of sixes how can that be exciting.

Because it was proper cricket, it involved actual tactics. NZ were at one point 4/41 chasing 340, they had to rebuild. Anyway that's not my point, my point was that the last two games were close and that the toss does not decide the game.

Howsie added 1 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

At least they don't get decided at the toss like ODIs. Its actually a little unpredictable. at least you get to watch 5 overs before you know the result. And an early wicket or two does a lot more harm to ODIs.

Haha what, if you lose two or three early wickets in a 20/20 game the game is pretty much over.

 

[formula1man]

Because it was proper cricket, it involved actual tactics. NZ were at one point 4/41 chasing 340, they had to rebuild. Anyway that's not my point, my point was that the last two games were close and that the toss does not decide the game.

Howsie added 1 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...



Haha what, if you lose two or three early wickets in a 20/20 game the game is pretty much over.

I could give you another scorecard to prove you wrong but then you'll just make up another argument.

you see what i mean Rahuldravidfan? you just can't convince them the apple isn't an orange.

formula1man added 0 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

Because it was proper cricket, it involved actual tactics. NZ were at one point 4/41 chasing 340, they had to rebuild. Anyway that's not my point, my point was that the last two games were close and that the toss does not decide the game.

Howsie added 1 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...



Haha what, if you lose two or three early wickets in a 20/20 game the game is pretty much over.

that post was in response to someone saying an early wicket kills T20s

 

[mattfb]

that post was in response to someone saying an early wicket kills T20s

Obv they do, because theres no time to rebuild so if your chasing a big total your shot.

 

[Howsie]

I could give you another scorecard to prove you wrong but then you'll just make up another argument.

you see what i mean Rahuldravidfan? you just can't convince them the apple isn't an orange.





that post was in response to someone saying an early wicket kills T20s

Another scorecard for what? How would it prove me wrong? I don't like 20/20 cricket as much as I like test and ODI cricket, pretty simple really. But prove me wrong with another scorecard

And WTF is up with your Orange/Apple affection? It's quite clear to me that 20/20 cricket isn't ODI cricket.

Howsie added 2 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

BTW F1Man, you actually did say that losing two wickets early in an ODI does a lot more damage to a team then a 20/20 game. Tbh I don't see how you can come to that conclusion

 

[blake]

It's kinda funny listening to all these whiners who cry about Twenty20. I enjoy watching Twenty20, I think the IPL perhaps goes a slight bit overboard and I don't watch that, but I like watching the International Twenty20s alongside the KFC Big Bash matches in Aus.. and it's very entertaining, good to go to for a quick match.

Whilst test cricket is the true form of the game, how many of you sit down for every single day for 7-8 odd hours five days in a row? It's good to watch sessions, but just for a quick bash Twenty20 is great to watch.

I'm not sure why everybody has a problem with it..