Whats better. One day cricket or big bash cricket?

Whats better? And what age are you?

  • Big bash under 30

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • One day cricekt under 30

    Votes: 21 46.7%

  • Big bash over 30

    Votes: 7 15.6%

  • One day cricket under 30

    Votes: 16 35.6%
  • Total voters
    45

Remove this Banner Ad

ODI cricket is going to die, which is ironic as I thought it would be Test cricket when T20 was introduced.

You cant have ODI's and T20s. Its overkill of the shortened version of the game.

Which is not a bad thing. ODI cricket had its place, but with T20 its being crushed in terms of value and importance.
 
GROTTO said:
ODI cricket is going to die, which is ironic as I thought it would be Test cricket when T20 was introduced.

You cant have ODI's and T20s. Its overkill of the shortened version of the game.

Which is not a bad thing. ODI cricket had its place, but with T20 its being crushed in terms of value and importance.
Click to expand...
And thats just plain weird as odi is actually interesting. T20 is simplistic garbage.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

big_e said:
I disagree with the premise. There is time for everything, they just need to change the way everything fits in.
Click to expand...
They havent figured it out though. People have lost interest in cricket. People dont like too many competitions. They want to know who the winners and losers are. if you have too many competions they all end up winners and losers at some point and the sport loses its sense of purpose.
 
Feels like they already ruined things, the 20/20 endless leagues and teams are garbage to me

but I would love the old ODI tri series back and guess thats the unpopular view
 
The King! said:
Feels like they already ruined things, the 20/20 endless leagues and teams are garbage to me

but I would love the old ODI tri series back and guess thats the unpopular view
Click to expand...

give me the odi tri series anyday.

its a thing of the past unfortunately.

loved the touring countries coming over for tests and odi's and then having 2 full winter tours.
these days we have all these tours which last a month or less unless it's an england or india tour.

these bilateral odi's seem meaningless now although the odi world cup is still a showpiece.

just not sure how long odi cricket can last now.

pakistan supposedly host england for 7 T20's coming up soon. a sign of the times maybe.
 
The King! said:
Feels like they already ruined things, the 20/20 endless leagues and teams are garbage to me

but I would love the old ODI tri series back and guess thats the unpopular view
Click to expand...
I half agree.
You are right about the T20 crap but I think the tri-series worked in late 70's and 80's because there were less demands on teams in schedule.
Remember South Africa, were not around. World cricket was really Australia, West Indies, Pakistan, England, India and New Zealand with Sri Lanka starting to become a regular in late 80's. There are too many teams now that need to play each other that having three all in Australia at same time for about two months just does not allow for all other schedule demands that exist now. As the international schedule was not flooded too much there was more space for a tri-series here and it was interesting because the international players were not playing too many matches so teams would pick their best 11 available rathe than rotate 11 of your best 20 for an ODI. We probably only played 20 ODI's in a calendar year in early to mid 80's so nearly all ODI's were your best team picked. That just does not happen anymore as sides now play way too many ODI's. It probably over 30 so you rarely will see the Aussie ODI be the best 11. There probably two or three best 11 players rested nearly every ODI so they do not mean as much as back then when no one is really rested. Now the only time we see the best 11 start to show up for ODI's happens in the World Cup every four years.

Now they also play T20 internationals which only makes the schedule even more crowded. There no place for tri series and no point having a tri-series where it becomes meaningless because so many players rested it not the best 11 of each nation anyway.
They should reduce ODI's to 20 a calendar year and then maybe, they could become a little more meaningful. I'd scrap T20 internationals and if they want T20 cricket just make it the franchise disposable variety.

I think they need to get the balance right between the three formats.
20 ODI's a calendar year each nation.
Zero T20 internationals each calendar year.
T20 international tournament every three or four years which is their version of T20 world cup.
12 Tests a calendar year each nation.

But I fear they won't and think the sport is in serious danger of the money for T20 cricket has ruined any hope of it staying a special sport.
I can seriously see it almost becoming a love fest of the billion people in India for T20 cricket and other sub continent nations and most of us that loved the sport in Australia will not care in a generation or two and the sport had it's time. Disposable cricket looks like it will eat up meaningful cricket. I will follow the cricket for as long as we are essentially playing our best 11 still in Test cricket and one day world cups but I think we might be only a decade away from the money pull for T20 cricket might see an end to this. Our population of under 30 million compared to well over a billion that crave disposable cricket is telling.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

footyfan1978 said:
As the international schedule was not flooded too much there was more space for a tri-series here and it was interesting because the international players were not playing too many matches so teams would pick their best 11 available rathe than rotate 11 of your best 20 for an ODI. We probably only played 20 ODI's in a calendar year in early to mid 80's so nearly all ODI's were your best team picked. That just does not happen anymore as sides now play way too many ODI's. It probably over 30 so you rarely will see the Aussie ODI be the best 11. There probably two or three best 11 players rested nearly every ODI so they do not mean as much as back then when no one is really rested. Now the only time we see the best 11 start to show up for ODI's happens in the World Cup every four years.
Click to expand...
The early 2000s Australia were playing around 30 ODIs a year but its less than 20 a year now in non-World Cup years.

The ICC gave the most context to bilateral ODI cricket that they've ever had in this cycle with the creation of the ODI Super League which has direct qualification to the World Cup but no one gives a s**t about it. South Africa are essentially forfeiting their chance of direct qualification to the World Cup so their players will play their domestic T20 league.
 
Cleavy said:
is there? how?
Click to expand...
Bunch of ways. Some of them anathema to many, but here goes.

ODI super league is a start but cutting those back a bit - qualifying against four teams instead of eight, and putting them into groups so the scheduling is easier.

Having an international tour include all three formats doesn't make sense. It should be a test phase, then an ODI phase and T20 phase. You kind of see it with teams playing Australia and then on to New Zealand, but it's not as common as it should be.

I will say that there should be T20Is only in the lead up to the T20WC, and likewise for ODIs. So if the ODI CWCs are in 2023 and 2027, and T20WCs in 2025 and 2029, then we'd be qualifying for T20Is in 24 and 25, not playing them in 26 and 27 - ODIs are on then - and back with T20Is in 28 and 29.

And four day tests, three test series for the WTC.
 
There is nothing I could be less interested in than franchise t20 cricket
Any internationals I’ll take at the very least a passing interest in but I don’t think I will ever get to a point with t20 internationals where I respect any of the nuance that supposedly exists. For bowlers perhaps I’m being unfair as they have to have a big skill and tactical set but batsmen don’t. At least in one dayers there are a number of ways batsmen can be effective
 
50 over cricket over 20/20 for me easily.

50 over cricket still allows for ebbs and flows in the game, whereas 20/20 matches really don't.

And I think that "ebbs and flows" are an integral part of the game.
 
50 Over for me....I like to see batters make big hundreds and bowlers be given a full set of 10 overs

T20 is okay but apart from your top 1-4 your 5-7 is basically wasted
 
PhatBoy said:
There is nothing I could be less interested in than franchise t20 cricket
Any internationals I’ll take at the very least a passing interest in but I don’t think I will ever get to a point with t20 internationals where I respect any of the nuance that supposedly exists. For bowlers perhaps I’m being unfair as they have to have a big skill and tactical set but batsmen don’t. At least in one dayers there are a number of ways batsmen can be effective
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree. When franchise t20 becomes the ‘default’ professional cricket format then I’ll simply follow cricket a lot less closely than I do now.
 
I've read some articles and a few podcasts where they are saying that the cricket calendar will soon replicate a soccer calendar, where each country will have franchise leagues (hoping they'd then expand this to franchise list-a and first class games), with weekends off to play international "friendlies" with other countries. And then breaks for WC in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Australian Cricket Awards
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Around the Wicket
A
PhatBoy
Favourite cricket anecdotes
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
worbod
worbod
Wormkilla
Test Mediocre cricketers to play 100 tests
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
happy_eagle
Most important position in Cricket ?
Replies
15
Views
811
Gethelred
Gethelred
Wormkilla
T20I How do you statistically determine a good T20 cricketer?
Replies
11
Views
333
Yoda_
Yoda_
Richard Pryor
Matthew Wade retiring from red ball cricket
Replies
4
Views
499
revo333
revo333
grumbleguts
New Year's Cricket Idea.
Replies
0
Views
366
grumbleguts
grumbleguts
Back
Top