View Full Version : Could 20/20 destroy cricket?
clucas91
26 Sep 2007, 22:23
As 20/20 grows in credibility, many have suggested that it has already made giant strides towards replacing ODI as the standard shortened form of cricket, however how could this affect the way cricket is played in the future?
Will club cricket organisations around the world now revert to playing 20/20 as the standard between local clubs? Will kids now be raised playing 20/20?
If so, then wont this promote and develop the skills that are inappropriate for how cricket is traditionally played?
Will the cricketers of 20 years from now be a bunch of sloggers who have no idea what its like to grind out an innings?
Marklar_33
26 Sep 2007, 22:45
Nah.
Its not that bad... I can see leagues of just 20/20 cricket though, much more attractive to play at club level for a lot of people, 3 hours, all over
Browney2006
26 Sep 2007, 23:02
As 20/20 grows in credibility, many have suggested that it has already made giant strides towards replacing ODI as the standard shortened form of cricket, however how could this affect the way cricket is played in the future?
Will club cricket organisations around the world now revert to playing 20/20 as the standard between local clubs? Will kids now be raised playing 20/20?
If so, then wont this promote and develop the skills that are inappropriate for how cricket is traditionally played?
Will the cricketers of 20 years from now be a bunch of sloggers who have no idea what its like to grind out an innings?
This wont happen junior cricket is like what, usually between 20-30 overs anyways??
King Elvis
27 Sep 2007, 00:12
Should be Domestic Level, and international 'B' Level.
Make it an under 23s World Cup or something, where you see the up and coming youngsters having a crack.
But I don't believe we should play our First XI in it.
Andrew Mc
27 Sep 2007, 09:27
As 20/20 grows in credibility...
You lost me there. 20/20 has as much credibility as a politician at a major sporting event.
Test cricket will never be touched, it is the sole form of the game that gives cricket any credibility.
The one day form of the game is stale, over played and lacking any real meaning outside the World Cup. It is simply played to make money.
Twenty20 is the breath of fresh air needed to breath some life into the boredom that has become one day cricket.
I think we should play the same amount of one day cricket, but half as ODI and half as Twenty20. Not as taxing on the players and definitely more entertaining for the fans. Some variety in the one day game is what is needed.
This wont happen junior cricket is like what, usually between 20-30 overs anyways??
In most competitions around Sydney these days (I coach junior cricket), Cricket NSW has introduced a new format where most teams compete in a 20/20 style.
chaddles
27 Sep 2007, 11:08
It is a disgrace that they actually had a 20/20 World Cup already. It is not a test of skill or composure, it is just a slogfest which appeals to anyone with 50% brain function.
To me cricket is played best at the test level, where it is more a mental battle between the bowler and batsmen, and the strategic capabilities of the captain. Too bad no team can push Australia for 5 days.
TigerCraig
27 Sep 2007, 11:54
In most competitions around Sydney these days (I coach junior cricket), Cricket NSW has introduced a new format where most teams compete in a 20/20 style.
Not in Manly - Under 11's up play 50 overs an innings over 2 weeks
You lost me there. 20/20 has as much credibility as a politician at a major sporting event.
Maybe with you, but it's pretty hard to deny that the 20/20 WOrld Cup was a better run event than the World Cup in the West Indies.
The grounds were full for a start.
King Elvis
29 Sep 2007, 19:24
Maybe with you, but it's pretty hard to deny that the 20/20 WOrld Cup was a better run event than the World Cup in the West Indies.
The grounds were full for a start.
Because the ICC completely ****ed the real World Cup up.
darcytiger
29 Sep 2007, 19:28
ive just come out of junior cricket in victoria (BHRDCA)
u12s is 42 overs (in case of a rain out 20/20 one dayer)
u14s is 42 overs (in case of a rain out 20/20 one dayer)
u16s is 50 overs (in case of a rain out 25/25 one dayer)
Because the ICC completely ****ed the real World Cup up.
I'm completely aware of the reasons, but events like that contribute greatly to the game's credibility.
lol any format where the cross bat slog is a good shot is just not cricket.
It is as close to cricket as multi-ball tennis would be to tennis. It is a farce, the fact it is popular just highlights that the average person is a moron.
lol any format where the cross bat slog is a good shot is just not cricket.
It is as close to cricket as multi-ball tennis would be to tennis. It is a farce, the fact it is popular just highlights that the average person is a moron.
Or a child
Some points that give 20/20 strong credentials IMO:
(1) The only reason a lot of the players go out there for a slog is because they haven't got used to the game yet. Don't forget that when one-day cricket took off, slogging was all the go.
Give it a few more years, the game will become more stable as people set realistic targets and strategies and people start to play more conventional cricket.
(2) 20/20 is a MUCH MUCH more "family friendly" game and IMO far from damage cricket, will help promote it. If you have a family with one or more females, you will know how difficult it is to get them to watch sport for more than 2 hours. They will complain about skin cancer, wasting time and not getting the (shoes and ballgowns) shopping done. 20/20 bypasses this by being condensed into a watchable period of time.
(3) It has time advantages for the players as well, especially the bowlers. They spend less time playing and there is the potential for less "physically draining" tours. There is also less bowling requirements for bowlers, which means there is the potential for less injury and players pulling out due to tiredness.
red+black
1 Oct 2007, 15:15
I laugh at all of you supposed old-fashioned naysayers.
Justify your criticisms of Twenty20 cricket given that 50 over cricket supposedly wasn't real cricket 30 years ago and would ruin real cricket.
Twenty20 is here to stay :thumbsu:
This wont happen junior cricket is like what, usually between 20-30 overs anyways??
We played 42.
We play 40-40 one-day games.
I laugh at all of you supposed old-fashioned naysayers.
Justify your criticisms of Twenty20 cricket given that 50 over cricket supposedly wasn't real cricket 30 years ago and would ruin real cricket.
Twenty20 is here to stay :thumbsu:
It's just not that entertaining, you never see a big innings, how many international tons have been scored? bowlers get mauled even if they are bowling half decent.
The way Afridi and the other Paki guy bowled there spin effectively will probably mean we will see 11 batsmen who can bowl a bit of medium or spin for 2 or 3 overs because that's all that is needed.
If it gets really serious that's what will happen.
I want to see more test cricket, where records etc mean something.
Adrian Shelton
1 Oct 2007, 23:32
The praise guys like Greig and Atherton heap on it on Cricinfo is scary!! Who's pulling their strings?
King Elvis
2 Oct 2007, 00:23
The praise guys like Greig and Atherton heap on it on Cricinfo is scary!! Who's pulling their strings?
20/20 is an equaliser.
Teams can't go with Australia for five days in a Test - they can go with us for one or two days, but not five.
One Dayers are similar.
But 20/20 brings everyone down to the same level.
GrassKat
4 Oct 2007, 20:06
20/20 is an equaliser.
Teams can't go with Australia for five days in a Test - they can go with us for one or two days, but not five.
One Dayers are similar.
But 20/20 brings everyone down to the same level.
Will 20/20 see the end of the bowler who cannot bat? Guys like Watson (when fit) will be used to open the bowling, cos they can bat too? To bowl in 20/20 you'll need to be an allrounder.
Will 20/20 see the end of the bowler who cannot bat? Guys like Watson (when fit) will be used to open the bowling, cos they can bat too? To bowl in 20/20 you'll need to be an allrounder.
Not at Domestic level, the best bowlers here has been a specialist spinner (Who's interestingly awful in Fc games)
Phil McCreviss
5 Oct 2007, 13:02
It is a disgrace that they actually had a 20/20 World Cup already. It is not a test of skill or composure, it is just a slogfest which appeals to anyone with 50% brain function.
To me cricket is played best at the test level, where it is more a mental battle between the bowler and batsmen, and the strategic capabilities of the captain. Too bad no team can push Australia for 5 days.
Maybe its because Australia didnt win the 20/20. If they did, I am sure to you it would be the best thing since sliced bread
DeadlyAkkuret
5 Oct 2007, 13:22
Maybe its because Australia didnt win the 20/20. If they did, I am sure to you it would be the best thing since sliced bread
I think you have some serious, unresolved issues with Australia mate. No one rates the T20 game, as much as you want it to mean something, it never will.
chaddles
5 Oct 2007, 17:54
It is a disgrace that they actually had a 20/20 World Cup already. It is not a test of skill or composure, it is just a slogfest which appeals to anyone with 50% brain function.
To me cricket is played best at the test level, where it is more a mental battle between the bowler and batsmen, and the strategic capabilities of the captain. Too bad no team can push Australia for 5 days.
Maybe its because Australia didnt win the 20/20. If they did, I am sure to you it would be the best thing since sliced bread
Your an amoeba, so of course you'll find Twenty20 interesting. Don't even waste my time watching the crap unless there is absolutely nothing else on- i'd even watch your fave show Home and Away before that tripe, and i f'in hate that show!
Any true cricket fan will say the same thing-
test cricket>one day>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Twenty 20
Maybe its because Australia didnt win the 20/20. If they did, I am sure to you it would be the best thing since sliced bread
You like putting words into peoples mouths dont you, i can speak for myself, champ.
I didn't want us to win because it may have meant t20 became more popular here. I have foxtel and hardly watch a t20 game at all.
Phil McCreviss
7 Oct 2007, 23:14
I think you have some serious, unresolved issues with Australia mate. No one rates the T20 game, as much as you want it to mean something, it never will.
No issues mate. Its just that if the Aussies dont win something its not important.
Now if there was a scenario like Australia not being the best Test team or ODI team in the world and they knocked off the T20 World Cup I can assure you that form of the game will increase in popularity here.
DeadlyAkkuret
8 Oct 2007, 03:03
No issues mate. Its just that if the Aussies dont win something its not important.
Now if there was a scenario like Australia not being the best Test team or ODI team in the world and they knocked off the T20 World Cup I can assure you that form of the game will increase in popularity here.
Well, speaking only for myself here, i wouldn't be any more interested in T20 even if Australia had won. I find it meaningless and quite boring.