An idea about 20-20 cricket and One Dayers

[courtjester]

It's interesting to see 20-20 cricket emerge and become the most popular form of the game. It's also interesting that as 20-20 emerges, people whinge about one-day cricket (50 overs) being too long and boring.

As a kid growing up I can remember people saying how much they loved one-dayers but found tests boring. I guess in a world of instant gratification and shorter attention spans, 20-20 reaches its target market. I have to say I dont mind 20-20, i'd much prefer a test, but as a cricket lover I'll take the game in any form.

There are two problems that I see with 20-20:
If the team batting first fails badly, the game is useless.
And it lacks the one thing that I love about cricket. The ability to consolidate and regroup after trouble and win from almost any position.

My proposal is that 20-20 should be changed to 40-40, with each team batting twice for twenty overs each time. This combines the elements of 20-20 that people love (the big hitting and risk taking in batting) with the added bonus of matches not being over too quick and teams being able to have a second dig if the first one fails.

I think this could become the standard version of one-day cricket, combining one dayers and 20-20 into a far more exciting brand of cricket.

Interested in your thoughts and ideas.

[Caesar]

I think 40 overs is better than 50 even if you don't split them. The rhythm of the game in England's Pro40 competition seems to endorse that, as it works out to cutting out 10 of the middle 'boring' overs after the first lot of fielding restrictions, and before the batting team feels close enough to the end of the game to cut loose without fear of being bowled out.

The problem with your solution is that it ignores one of the biggest reasons for T20's conception - bite-sized cricket that fits into an evening of 3 hours or so. 40 over matches of 2 innings each take way too long.

I don't like T20 but it fits a defined need.

[Subaru Impreza]

It's interesting to see 20-20 cricket emerge and become the most popular form of the game. It's also interesting that as 20-20 emerges, people whinge about one-day cricket (50 overs) being too long and boring.

As a kid growing up I can remember people saying how much they loved one-dayers but found tests boring. I guess in a world of instant gratification and shorter attention spans, 20-20 reaches its target market. I have to say I dont mind 20-20, i'd much prefer a test, but as a cricket lover I'll take the game in any form.

There are two problems that I see with 20-20:
If the team batting first fails badly, the game is useless.
And it lacks the one thing that I love about cricket. The ability to consolidate and regroup after trouble and win from almost any position.

My proposal is that 20-20 should be changed to 40-40, with each team batting twice for twenty overs each time. This combines the elements of 20-20 that people love (the big hitting and risk taking in batting) with the added bonus of matches not being over too quick and teams being able to have a second dig if the first one fails.

I think this could become the standard version of one-day cricket, combining one dayers and 20-20 into a far more exciting brand of cricket.

Interested in your thoughts and ideas.

Sorry for me I have seen games in Twenty20, where the team batting first has made scores of around 110-120, and made a game of it. IPL, Champions League T20 there were many games were low scoring contests made for good viewing. Its not all about batting in T20, alot of things can bring you back into the game: good bowling and good fielding.

Dont think for a second that scores of 170+ make for a good game. I believe T20 it gives you time to consolidate, if you have a bad start by losing 2-3 early wickets.

[stmookeyj]

It would kill ODI's if the overs were split, may as well have a T20 double header. I can live with a reduction to 40 overs or even taking the PP's out of the skipper's hands and having 15 at the start with 2 out and the next 15 with 3 out if they keep it at 50

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

It would kill ODI's if the overs were split, may as well have a T20 double header. I can live with a reduction to 40 overs or even taking the PP's out of the skipper's hands and having 15 at the start with 2 out and the next 15 with 3 out if they keep it at 50
An expantion on that idea would be instead of the current system where the bowling 95+% of the time takes the powerplay from overs 11-15 and the batting is usually taken after over 40. People consider the boring middle overs to be 15 - 40 so...

Restrict the captains options of only being able to use the powerplay between overs 15-40 or even 20-35 and make sure the power plays are taken during the middle overs to spice things up a little.