There are two fundamental problems with T20. How would you solve them?

[sherb]

The toss isn't an issue.

If the stats say that the side batting first is winning a greater percentage of the games, then the side batting second simply needs to learn to chase better.

I mean it isn't as if the side batting second gets a lesser number of overs.

 

[Dan26]

No, the batsmen who is trying to score fails and gets out. The footy player is trying to kick a goal he fails and kicks a point.

That's not even remotely comparable.

A footy player who kicks a point has still scored. It's not an error like a cricketer going out.

As I said the best comparison with cricket is a player who gets a bad ball and tries to hit it for a four, but only gets a single. Is that a penalty? No. He just hasn't made the msot of the opportunity, but he is still adding to the score. Just like a footy player who kicks a point has added to the score. The team is slightly better off having got a point (een though a goal would have been better.)

You're acting as though kicking a point isn't a good thing. It's still an addition to the score and an asset to that team. It's not a "penalty."

 

[Dan26]

It's a terrible idea.

Go watch Indoor Cricket instead maybe?

Nothing wrong with Indoor Cricket. It's a great game.

 

[sherb]

Nothing wrong with Indoor Cricket. It's a great game.

It can't be a great game.

It gets no crowds and stuff all TV coverage.

 

[Dan26]

Wickets are important, but their importance is limited by the fact that overs are also limited. There is nothing wrong with this. Taking runs off for getting out is every bit a gimmick as the super goal.

It's nothing like the super goal.

Gimmick:In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.

That definition is the super-goal to a tee. The super goal is something that "stands out" but is of no relevance or use. It doens't solve a problem. It's a marketing ploy.

A loss of runs for going out is not a gimmick. It has relevance and it has a use. The relevance is to give more meaning to taking a wicket. To force bowlers to try to take wickets. Isn't that something you want? Bowlers to attempt to get batters out again? Don't we all want that?

This happens in Indoor Cricket and Indoor Cricket isn't a televised sport, where gimmicks are utilised. It's been part of that game for 30 years since Indoor started because the loss of runs for going out WORKS as a genuine penalty. There is nothing gimmicky about it in Indoor Cricket. It is part of the fabric of the sport.

If you're against the 5 run penalty, explain to me how you think the game would be worse off?

I've explained how I think the game would be improved. The rule has a function, and it solves what I consider to be a problem.

 

[Dan26]

It can't be a great game.

It gets no crowds and stuff all TV coverage.

Neither does Squash and that's a great sport.

The small confines of an Indoor Cricket field, and relative newness of the sport (it's about 25 years old) are not exactly compatible with stadiums that hold 20,000 people.

 

[Father Jack]

It's nothing like the super goal.

Gimmick:In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.

That definition is the super-goal to a tee. The super goal is something that "stands out" but is of no relevance or use. It doens't solve a problem. It's a marketing ploy.

A loss of runs for going out is not a gimmick. It has relevance and it has a use. The relevance is to give more meaning to taking a wicket. To force bowlers to try to take wickets. Isn't that something you want? Bowlers to attempt to get batters out again? Don't we all want that?

This happens in Indoor Cricket and Indoor Cricket isn't a televised sport, where gimmicks are utilised. It's been part of that game for 30 years since Indoor started because the loss of runs for going out WORKS as a genuine penalty. There is nothing gimmicky about it in Indoor Cricket. It is part of the fabric of the sport.

If you're against the 5 run penalty, explain to me how you think the game would be worse off?

I've explained how I think the game would be improved. The rule has a function, and it solves what I consider to be a problem.

The supergoal has a function as well, and that is because there is a problem that players don't get adequately rewarded for executing the skill of kicking a long goal. That, by your logic, means it is not a gimmick.

Of course, whether or not you believe this is enough of a problem to warrant a solution that tears at the fabric of the game is another question altogether.

Oh, and I don't care what they do in indoor cricket, it's a completely separate game with little relevance to the outdoor version.

 

[swingdog]

If you want to swing things back slightly in favor of the bowler, how about the following small changes:

1. No helmets for batsmen
2. No bouncer restrictions

If today's batsmen are as good as everyone says they are, then it shouldn't be a problem.

For those who aren't, then imagine the excitement as the replays on the big screen show blood pouring from the batsman's face?

 

[Faz 2000]

The problem is cricket is a quaint old gentleman's sport to be played over 5 days with breaks for tea, lunch and more tea, and T20 is marketed to Gen Ys with an iPhone and the attention span of a cheese sandwich. They are totally different things; it shouldn't even be called cricket. The fact that right arm slow pie-throwers who can *maybe* slog 20-30 runs are king goes against everything cricket is about.

Other things cricket isn't about:
- fireworks
- dancing girls (and boys)
- Mark Nicholas
- exhilarating, pulse-pounding action.

Batting is supposed to be about concentration, and the test of wills and battle of nerves... not swing for the fence and see what happens. Bowling is supposed to be about working away at angles, finding that one that goes the other way, creating a plan to dig out a stubborn batsman... not taking the pace off the ball and hoping the batsman only hits it 82m to a fielder instead of 88m into the stands.

But I suspect I'm in the minority here... Just having my old man rant on why T20 irritates me. It's was fun actually.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The problem is cricket is a quaint old gentleman's sport to be played over 5 days with breaks for tea, lunch and more tea, and T20 is marketed to Gen Ys with an iPhone and the attention span of a cheese sandwich. They are totally different things; it shouldn't even be called cricket. The fact that right arm slow pie-throwers who can *maybe* slog 20-30 runs are king goes against everything cricket is about.

Other things cricket isn't about:
- fireworks
- dancing girls (and boys)
- Mark Nicholas
- exhilarating, pulse-pounding action.

Batting is supposed to be about concentration, and the test of wills and battle of nerves... not swing for the fence and see what happens. Bowling is supposed to be about working away at angles, finding that one that goes the other way, creating a plan to dig out a stubborn batsman... not taking the pace off the ball and hoping the batsman only hits it 82m to a fielder instead of 88m into the stands.

But I suspect I'm in the minority here... Just having my old man rant on why T20 irritates me. It's was fun actually.

Could not agree more, don't worry about response as most of Gen y won't have the patience to read your 8-10 lines. hahaha

 

[Quadzilla]

The problem is cricket is a quaint old gentleman's sport to be played over 5 days with breaks for tea, lunch and more tea, and T20 is marketed to Gen Ys with an iPhone and the attention span of a cheese sandwich. They are totally different things; it shouldn't even be called cricket. The fact that right arm slow pie-throwers who can *maybe* slog 20-30 runs are king goes against everything cricket is about.

Other things cricket isn't about:
- fireworks
- dancing girls (and boys)
- Mark Nicholas
- exhilarating, pulse-pounding action.

Batting is supposed to be about concentration, and the test of wills and battle of nerves... not swing for the fence and see what happens. Bowling is supposed to be about working away at angles, finding that one that goes the other way, creating a plan to dig out a stubborn batsman... not taking the pace off the ball and hoping the batsman only hits it 82m to a fielder instead of 88m into the stands.

But I suspect I'm in the minority here... Just having my old man rant on why T20 irritates me. It's was fun actually.

hear! hear!

 

[Righteo]

God, I'm bored of people on here mindlessly bagging out T20.

These words certainly go well together.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Nothing wrong with Indoor Cricket. It's a great game.

A great game to play.

A terrible game to watch.

 

[Cotchin 9]

The reason wickets are not as important as containment is because you are restricted as to who can bowl.

Since one day cricket was invented and now progressed to 20/20 I have never understood the format on Bowler restrictions.

A batsman can bat for the entire innings yet a bowler can only bowl 10 overs in one format and only 4 in the other.

Why should bowlers be restricted? Christ they make it hard enough as it is for the bowlers by playing on highways in these formats, an inch above the batsmans head is deemed wide????? An inch down leg side is deemed wide?????

And then the ludicrous situation of a bowler having a great day and has taken 3-21 and then some rule says you can't play anymore????

If Brett Lee is bowling well he should be able to continue for as long as the captain wants him to.

If not all batsman should have to retire after they reach 30 which would be silly.

Make it a fair game and you will see better cricket.

Hmm, I don't entirely agree. I think it's good if you have bowling restrictions, makes the game more tactical and a bit more exciting. Rather see 5/6 bowlers used with a variety of skills. Such as a quick like Lee, a spinner like Swann and a medium pacer like Ian Harvey from another era.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Hmm, I don't entirely agree. I think it's good if you have bowling restrictions, makes the game more tactical and a bit more exciting. Rather see 5/6 bowlers used with a variety of skills. Such as a quick like Lee, a spinner like Swann and a medium pacer like Ian Harvey from another era.

Can you name me another sport in the world where the two major skills of the game one is restricted yet the other is not? Well i would like to see a bloke come in and push some singles instead of belting me over the fence for some variety???? Would that be fair?

Should batsman have to retire after they reach 30?

Just ****in silly!!!

 

[R00StaR]

That's not even remotely comparable.

A footy player who kicks a point has still scored. It's not an error like a cricketer going out.

As I said the best comparison with cricket is a player who gets a bad ball and tries to hit it for a four, but only gets a single. Is that a penalty? No. He just hasn't made the msot of the opportunity, but he is still adding to the score. Just like a footy player who kicks a point has added to the score. The team is slightly better off having got a point (een though a goal would have been better.)

You're acting as though kicking a point isn't a good thing. It's still an addition to the score and an asset to that team. It's not a "penalty."

Well i think it is. After all your advocating changing rules to further penalise mistakes. I dont accept AF players are trying to kick points over goals.

In cricket, any form of cricket i think the penalty is pretty damn steep already. You get out, you leave the field and can not bat again for the game - now thats a penalty.

 

[Tiff]

I know this would never happen and it's a bit silly, but the only way I could see myself personally accepting the game would be to make it 30 overs or something.

It would add a fair amount of time to the game which breaches the attention span of our blow fly brained society (me included, bar test cricket).

It's just a bit more time to develop partnerships, put a bit more intelligence in the game.

Like I said its stupid but for me, T20 is just too short. Other sports are 3 hours long, but it works. Cricket needs to be longer, otherwise it's just not all that enjoyable to watch.

 

[Faz 2000]

Hey tiffpopo, actually I don't think it's stupid at all. What's clear is T20 and ODIs can't co-exist. Maybe a single format, somewhere in the middle is a way forward.

Might keep some of the EXCITEMENT* of T20, get rid of some of the boring 15-40 over tedium from ODIs, and create a format that could be the TV/pyjama/single day alternative to the real stuff.

If 20 is too short (which it is) and 50 too long (probably), then 30 a side or so could be a good compromise.

* to correctly get in the right state of mind for T20 you have to yell the word excitement, possibly with arm actions and pom poms.

 

[R00StaR]

Hey tiffpopo, actually I don't think it's stupid at all. What's clear is T20 and ODIs can't co-exist. Maybe a single format, somewhere in the middle is a way forward.

Im sure they can co-exist. However i agree 20 overs is too short if the only short format used and 50 overs can get bogged down in accumulation mode for long periods. Perhaps t20s live on in domestic comps such as the IPL and BBL while internationals played the 30 overs. I cant see it happening any time soon though, since the world cups for 20 and 50overs are massive events. But yes i could live with 30 over a side as a happy medium.

 

[jackn]

This happens in Indoor Cricket and Indoor Cricket isn't a televised sport, where gimmicks are utilised. It's been part of that game for 30 years since Indoor started because the loss of runs for going out WORKS as a genuine penalty. There is nothing gimmicky about it in Indoor Cricket. It is part of the fabric of the sport.

Do you think maybe it's also to do with the fact you don't actually go out in indoor cricket? I've got a feeling that could have something to do with it. That's why losing runs isn't a gimmick in indoor. It would be in t20 as players go out when they lose their wicket. That's enough of a penalty.

I feel this one was your worst argument yet for solving a problem which you seem to be the only one who cares about.

 

[Kong]

PROBLEM THREE
Nobody gives two shits about the result of any particular game.

This.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you who won the Twenty20 games last week. It means nothing. It's a glorified exhibition game.

 

[Marlin01]

It's a glorified exhibition game.

That's exactly what it is. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I really enjoy watching T20, but it is not and never will be a true test of a cricketer. For that reason, it should be left to the realms of the franchise leagues where it can provide a fantastic spectacle, but not try to pose as a legitimate cricket contest between nations.

 

[Kong]

Yeah, completely agree with that.

Have no problem with The Big Bash (though I didn't follow it at all), but having it on the international calendar is a terrible idea, IMO.

 

[The Passenger]

it's all about context.

just got home and watching SA v Vic and am captivated by it... why?? i'm either way about the 50 over game, but because i'm watching this because it means something to the players... they're playing in a competition to be the best domestic 50 over team in australia.

i'm not a big fan of T20 but i watched bits and pieces of the big bash and had some sort of interest in it... why?? because they were playing for something.

but playing meaningless international series, both ODI and T20I (and there are a lot of them), really devalues the games and anyone watching can feel when some players are just going through the motions, and because there is so much international cricket, a lot of the time the players really do feel like they are going through the motions.

if you cut down on the number of games, and made each game meaningful. playing for a title. it would give the games some context, and as a bonus i reckon it would increase revenue and cut down on expenditure.

 

[Tassieboy]

Yeah, completely agree with that.

Have no problem with The Big Bash (though I didn't follow it at all), but having it on the international calendar is a terrible idea, IMO.

Shhh, don't tell Dan - it's the "traditional form of the game".