Twenty20 - Good or bad for cricket?

[aussie1st]

It's one of the best things to happen to the County arena since I first visited Old Trafford.

Seriously though, strictly once a tour at International level. If we really want to expand Twenty20 worldwide then the ICC should try some sort of domestic Champions League sort of competetion. NSW vs Lancashire anyone? Regardless of how much of a mismatch it may be.

Mismatch to whom? NSW are at the bottom of our Twenty/20 comp, and to show their seriousness they have an NRL player in their 11

 

[symonds_sixes]

It's one of the best things to happen to the County arena since I first visited Old Trafford.

Seriously though, strictly once a tour at International level. If we really want to expand Twenty20 worldwide then the ICC should try some sort of domestic Champions League sort of competetion. NSW vs Lancashire anyone? Regardless of how much of a mismatch it may be.

That sounds like a good idea! The winner of each comp in Australia and England play each other around May or something and we alternate each year whether it's played in Australia or England.

 

[IloveGilly]

It's added more excitment into the domestic game and it's easier for people to really get adapted to cricket (Although it's not all slogging).

But at international level it should be limited.

 

[nightprowler10]

If we really want to expand Twenty20 worldwide then the ICC should try some sort of domestic Champions League sort of competetion. NSW vs Lancashire anyone? Regardless of how much of a mismatch it may be.

They had one two years ago, IIRC. It included champion teams from every country. Faisalabad Wolves won the whole thing. I thought it was a great idea, not sure why it hasn't happened since.

 

[moza1]

ah, I hate twenty20. It should be strictly a domestic/county cricket thing. I hope they stop playing it at international level. That probaly wont happen though so in that case it should be just a once a tour thing at international level.

 

[smssia0112]

Yes, because Cricket Max (which did that) was so successful wasn't it?

Wait... no it wasn't! It was pratically still-born when it was attempted in England. Whilst Twenty20 has been extremely successful. It has taken just 18 months for all test nations to play Twenty20 internationals, whilst it took more than three years for that to happen in ODI cricket, and there were only six test nations then.

To call the game one-dimensional is just bizarre. Sure, there is the occasional blow out game, but that happens in all forms of cricket. It certainly isn't any more prone to it happening than other forms of the game. And despite claims to the contrary, it has shown that that batsman that prosper consistently are those with orthodox techniques, whilst it has brought spin back in as a force in the limited overs game.

The idea of two innings each of 20 overs is just silly. It defeats the whole object of having a match that fits into less than 3 hours.

Occasional? You should see the Aussie ones, they are more than not blow-outs, and the game is one-dimensional, all it is is slogging, name me one player who tries to score at a strike rate of less than 100 and stays out there for a while. The whole point of the game is to feed minds who are too impatient to watch something that invloves more skill than excitement. ODI cricket is fine as it is, Twenty20 is just not like normal cricket, it gives no real point to bowling other than trying to remain economical, there are no real bags of wickets, they only bowl for 4 overs so even if they bowl them straight they get no time for real spells.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I have to disagree with Hayden. I think Twenty20 will come out worse for the other 2 forms of the game. Soon we'll have ODI matches where teams are having to chase down 500 and going at 12 an over and I don't particullary like the idea of a country going at a run-rate of 6 an over in a Test Match! Because if Twenty20 has any sort of effect on ODI & Test Match cricket then that's going to be it.

 

[nightprowler10]

I have to disagree with Hayden. I think Twenty20 will come out worse for the other 2 forms of the game. Soon we'll have ODI matches where teams are having to chase down 500 and going at 12 an over and I don't particullary like the idea of a country going at a run-rate of 6 an over in a Test Match! Because if Twenty20 has any sort of effect on ODI & Test Match cricket then that's going to be it.

That's ridiculous. You almost make it seem like cricketers have no self control and they will keep playing in T20 mode even in test matches.

 

[aussie_ben91]

It's all confidence mate, it's got nothing to do with poor self-control. More varying in stroke selections. Look at the impact ODI had to Test Cricket. It's not like Test Matches would be played like Twenty20, it would be more so like a ODI in a Test Match as far as runrates go.

 

[LA ICE-E]

ok here's the thing though its 20 OVERS! so the batsmen doesnt care if they get out as its harder to get all out in 20 overs than in 50 overs as if you set yourmind to just be agreesive in odi it wont work and you'll all out in about or near 20 overs so it wont go to 500 runs whatever....

If there's a 20-20 world Cup it only adds to an already packed international schedule. It's fun and it gets more involved and it could be a catalyst into getting more nations into Cricket.

International 20/20? Yes, replace the ICC Champions Trophy with it.

agree with it 20/20 championship replace champions trophy and get the title as the second to only the world cup to set things straight for new fans to cricket as to which world cup will be more important.....

Yes, because Cricket Max (which did that) was so successful wasn't it?

Wait... no it wasn't! It was pratically still-born when it was attempted in England. Whilst Twenty20 has been extremely successful. It has taken just 18 months for all test nations to play Twenty20 internationals, whilst it took more than three years for that to happen in ODI cricket, and there were only six test nations then.

To call the game one-dimensional is just bizarre. Sure, there is the occasional blow out game, but that happens in all forms of cricket. It certainly isn't any more prone to it happening than other forms of the game. And despite claims to the contrary, it has shown that that batsman that prosper consistently are those with orthodox techniques, whilst it has brought spin back in as a force in the limited overs game.

The idea of two innings each of 20 overs is just silly. It defeats the whole object of having a match that fits into less than 3 hours.

i agree with this too.. its pretty much my thoughts...but it should be 20/20 limited to one per tour for full members but the limit doesnt apply to associates/affiates as thats the right way to go with the minnows but not the big league....

 

[nightprowler10]

It's all confidence mate, it's got nothing to do with poor self-control. More varying in stroke selections. Look at the impact ODI had to Test Cricket. It's not like Test Matches would be played like Twenty20, it would be more so like a ODI in a Test Match as far as runrates go.

I don't think it would affect test cricket in a negative manner. No test match will go at 5-6 runs an over for more than a couple of sessions, just like it is now, mainly because of the way test cricket is played as opposed to OD and T20. I think many people would agree that ODIs are not just a shorter form of test cricket, it is a different sport in many ways, which is why I don't think T20 or ODIs can affect tests in such a big way.

Also, over the past 30 years or so, ODI cricket has only influenced test cricket in a positive manner. We are seeing a lot more results in the past decade or so than we used to.

 

[LA ICE-E]

but the question is..is 20/20 going to help odi/cricket or have a negative effect on it or not effect odi's at all but have a good/bad effect on cricket?

 

[mattfb]

It will not effect the good players in ODI but the young ones might get carried away if they score a hundred or a big score in Twenty-20 they might think ' if i can get a hundred in Twenty-20 i could get a 150 in OD cricket' whilst as the good players will not change there game

 

[Cricket_god]

There is nothing good ar bad its how you view it for some its the best thing
and for some its a waste but what matters is some like it so it is going to continue.