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

[Tassieboy]

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.

Yeah, I see exactly where you're coming from, mate. Sport that has little context means nothing to me.

 

[Tiff]

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my opinion of T20.

Apart from my old man and my Uncles, and some guys from my old cricket club, all my good mates are entrenched in the T20 fad. They basically think I'm weird, and call me an out of touch old fuddy duddy.

At only 25 it is a pretty sad state of affairs.

 

[Simple Jack]

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.

Not stupid at all. I thought the other night's one dayer which was reduced to 32 overs gave us a very good game.

I would have no problem with Thirtytwo32 replacing T20.

Personally I think the main problems with T20 are

1. The results are irrelevant. T20 is fine as entertainment, like going to see the WWE, but I find it almost impossible to accept as a legitimate sport. The only time I can remember even half caring about a T20 result was when we were in the World T20 final against England a few years ago. I didn't care enough to stay up and actually watch the game, but I did log on to cricinfo some time the next day to see how it went.

2. Too much gimmicky crap. The dancers, the fireworks, the announcing of the players' names etc is really just ridiculous.

3. The boring middle overs. Between about overs 6 and 16 the batsman really are just knocking it around with the spinners on, hitting a boring 'along the ground' boundary every now and then. If they lose wickets early on they bat conservatively. Way too boring.

My idea is a new exciting format called Ten10. Gets rid of those boring middle overs and means we could increase the advertising revenue for the TV broadcasters. Extra ads between overs, extra ads during the innings break would pad it out nicely giving us a couple of hours of sport. I mean soccer is only 90 minutes, rugby and league are 80, do we really need to sit around for 3 hours, stuff that.

 

[Simple Jack]

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my opinion of T20.

Apart from my old man and my Uncles, and some guys from my old cricket club, all my good mates are entrenched in the T20 fad. They basically think I'm weird, and call me an out of touch old fuddy duddy.

At only 25 it is a pretty sad state of affairs.

By the way, I'm 20, and all my mates who actually are interested in sport think T20 is gimmicky crap and tests are the best form of cricket.

There is hope.

 

[Tiff]

I had been thinking about it for a while and it's funny you mentioned it because it was that 32 over ODI the other night that put the nail in the coffin for me. T20 is simply too short.

Happy mediums people.

I personally like the nostalgic voices of Lawry, Benaud and Greig, and pretty boy is as smooth as mussells, and during test matches when the other loons are a tad more discreet, I can handle it. However the way those idiots handle this T20 is a joke.

I'm sick to death of hearing tubby and slats laughing in the background at their crappy jokes about each others playing days. You know that "hehahehaheha" you can just hear from the mics?

We're all well aware of their T20 antics. That's 10% of the T20 problem.

Other than that, isn't it a great time for cricket? At least it's a hot topic!

 

[R00StaR]

I prefer test matches best, thought id get that out there first.

But those saying ODI and T20s lack context, really? Tests you play to win the series and improve rankings. ODIs you do the same but also build for the world cup. T20s do all that plus have a domestic tournament.

The logistics of a test championship are a nightmare, the shorter forms its easily done.

Im sure most of the players are thankful for t20, rather than playing front of 200-1000 people they're being watched by 15-30k and another 150-200k on TV, plus earning a quid towards their quest of being full time professionals. (hello higher standards)

People carry on like the BBL was at the expense of test matches. It wasnt, its extra cricket we get to see (since SS has close to no viewer interest).

I prefer eating bananas over apples, but only ever eating bananas? No thanks.

Dont like it, dont watch thats fine, but dont treat the rest of that do like short form cricket as brain dead morons because it doesnt fit 'your' tastes. And no im not 12, id played the game for 25 years straight and watch most tests/ODIs even if i have to set the alarm to get up at 2-3am.

 

[The Passenger]

but what context did those two T20i's have??

you're merely backing up my point regarding the world cup (both T20 and ODI). those games are for something. you can see it in the players.

domestic one day games (50 and 20 over) are for something. you can see it in the players.

the majority of test series are for something. occasionally when it's some teams turn to trounce bangladesh you an see the teams going through the motions a bit, but even in those series you can still see it means something - usually to players trying to cement a spot in their team.

but playing meaningless one day games (like australia touring bangaldesh just after the world cup for 3 one day games) are what hurts the short forms of the game.

the australian one day series has been struggling for for some time. they've tried all sorts to reinvegorate it but it just hasn't had the same impact as it had during the 90's and the first few years of this decade....

 

[Marlin01]

the australian one day series has been struggling for for some time. they've tried all sorts to reinvegorate it but it just hasn't had the same impact as it had during the 90's and the first few years of this decade....

I stand to be corrected, but I think I heard on Inside Cricket that the TV rights for Indian games are worth $20m to Cricket Australia, so if nothing else, they go a long way towards funding Test Cricket and development I suppose.