20-20 Or ODI
- Thread starter Acrowaroz
- Start date
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
As far as the competition of cricket goes, I have to say that 50 over cricket is much better. In 50 over cricket, everything is more valued. The World Cup is the biggest prize but on a smaller level, each run and wicket is more valuable in 50 over cricket. If you hit a six in 50 over cricket, it has an impact on the whole psycology of the bowler and the batsman and adds an intense mental battle but in twenty20, each boundary is just like a single in that it happens often throughout the innings. If you get a wicket in 50 overs, it is due to the pressure built or a good delivery whereas getting a wicket in the slog fest that is twenty20 is more due to the opposition trying to slog a ball and not middling it or edging it, it is less of a victory and more of an occurance.
However, twenty20 cricket is thouroughly exciting to watch and a fine day out. It introduces cricket to the younger generations with its gimmicks, mascots and big hitting. I feel that twenty20 needs to be used as it is now though, one domestic competition and one or two matches in an international series, no more, no less. It should in know way take over from 50 over or god forbid, Test cricket and should just be there for a brief period of entertainment. I also think the high intensity of the game is good but must be maintained. With just four overs per bowler in a high adrenalin environment, you will see plenty of quick bowlers and that is always good to see and you will see plenty of innovation with batting breaking the mould and it is always insightful to watch and adds more to the game.
I choose ODI cricket as I feel it the better contest but twenty20 has its charms too.
As far as the competition of cricket goes, I have to say that 50 over cricket is much better. In 50 over cricket, everything is more valued. The World Cup is the biggest prize but on a smaller level, each run and wicket is more valuable in 50 over cricket. If you hit a six in 50 over cricket, it has an impact on the whole psycology of the bowler and the batsman and adds an intense mental battle but in twenty20, each boundary is just like a single in that it happens often throughout the innings. If you get a wicket in 50 overs, it is due to the pressure built or a good delivery whereas getting a wicket in the slog fest that is twenty20 is more due to the opposition trying to slog a ball and not middling it or edging it, it is less of a victory and more of an occurance.
However, twenty20 cricket is thouroughly exciting to watch and a fine day out. It introduces cricket to the younger generations with its gimmicks, mascots and big hitting. I feel that twenty20 needs to be used as it is now though, one domestic competition and one or two matches in an international series, no more, no less. It should in know way take over from 50 over or god forbid, Test cricket and should just be there for a brief period of entertainment. I also think the high intensity of the game is good but must be maintained. With just four overs per bowler in a high adrenalin environment, you will see plenty of quick bowlers and that is always good to see and you will see plenty of innovation with batting breaking the mould and it is always insightful to watch and adds more to the game.
I choose ODI cricket as I feel it the better contest but twenty20 has its charms too.
skateboarder
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
I voted for 50 overs a side matches because they are an exhibition of skill and entertainment.
Twenty20 is without doubt a good way of introducing newcomers to cricket, but you have to think, the majority of the members of this forum became interested in cricket through Test matches. I became interested in cricket during the Ashes series in 2002/03 and an awful lot became interested in the game after the Ashes in 2005. A highly competitive, entertaining and sporting Test series can do more for the newcomer than any amount of Twenty20 at times.
I would welcome a Twenty20 competition at domestic level, like the Twenty20 Cup in the UK, and one Twenty20 International per tour. With World Championships and the Indian Cricket League Twenty20 is being thoroughly overused.
I voted for 50 overs a side matches because they are an exhibition of skill and entertainment.
Twenty20 is without doubt a good way of introducing newcomers to cricket, but you have to think, the majority of the members of this forum became interested in cricket through Test matches. I became interested in cricket during the Ashes series in 2002/03 and an awful lot became interested in the game after the Ashes in 2005. A highly competitive, entertaining and sporting Test series can do more for the newcomer than any amount of Twenty20 at times.
I would welcome a Twenty20 competition at domestic level, like the Twenty20 Cup in the UK, and one Twenty20 International per tour. With World Championships and the Indian Cricket League Twenty20 is being thoroughly overused.
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
20/20 is OK domestically, but when on the International stage it is just too short to determine a real winner of a contest.
20 overs is unfair on bowlers and is really discouraging to young bowlers. There is just not enough time to execute a bowling plan and getting slogged in 20/20 matches may affect confidence in other forms of the game. Its quite ridiculous that a WORLD CUP can be won in just three hours (That is ridiculous for Cricket).
Also, 20/20s don't normally show who is actually the better team, as there is more room for error.
I'am A LOT like you Lee! I first watched a Cricket series in 2002/03 (Ashes) when I was 12/13. That Steve Waugh hundred at Sydney got me hooked. I had watched the previous summer against SA as well, but thought meh. Then the 2005 Ashes was awesome!
Now kids are going to go to 20/20 games and play them and think awesome, watch Tests and go meh.
20/20 is OK domestically, but when on the International stage it is just too short to determine a real winner of a contest.
20 overs is unfair on bowlers and is really discouraging to young bowlers. There is just not enough time to execute a bowling plan and getting slogged in 20/20 matches may affect confidence in other forms of the game. Its quite ridiculous that a WORLD CUP can be won in just three hours (That is ridiculous for Cricket).
Also, 20/20s don't normally show who is actually the better team, as there is more room for error.
I'am A LOT like you Lee! I first watched a Cricket series in 2002/03 (Ashes) when I was 12/13. That Steve Waugh hundred at Sydney got me hooked. I had watched the previous summer against SA as well, but thought meh. Then the 2005 Ashes was awesome!
Now kids are going to go to 20/20 games and play them and think awesome, watch Tests and go meh.
skateboarder
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
Any child with an interest in cricket would play 20 overs per side cricket to start with anyway. My local club only entered it's youth teams into a 20 overs per side competition because it would mean that the matches could start at 6.30pm, after school, and be finished before it got too dark.
Any child with an interest in cricket would play 20 overs per side cricket to start with anyway. My local club only entered it's youth teams into a 20 overs per side competition because it would mean that the matches could start at 6.30pm, after school, and be finished before it got too dark.
Right Arm Around
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
Twenty20 is better, pure and simple.
Twenty20 is better, pure and simple.
TheDynamos
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
Odi's
Better stroke play too, they aren't just slogging for sixes. For my quick elaboration.
Odi's
Better stroke play too, they aren't just slogging for sixes. For my quick elaboration.
Left_Hander
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
Easily ODI's. Batsmen can build innings and bowlers can build pressure on batsmen and get them to play bad strokes. I won't go into explaining it anymore because I think Manee did a great job of that
Easily ODI's. Batsmen can build innings and bowlers can build pressure on batsmen and get them to play bad strokes. I won't go into explaining it anymore because I think Manee did a great job of that
Rohitpatel
New Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
Well I would go to 20-20 matches because it provide better matches and also make us happy to see more 6's and 4's. In this type of format we can't ignore weaker team and we seen two major upsets in this World-Cup.
Well I would go to 20-20 matches because it provide better matches and also make us happy to see more 6's and 4's. In this type of format we can't ignore weaker team and we seen two major upsets in this World-Cup.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
There is room for both of them as long as the international boards cut down on the number of 7 match series!
There is room for both of them as long as the international boards cut down on the number of 7 match series!
I
imported_MarkMiller93
Guest
Re: 20-20 Or ODI
the people who like the ODI's better are more then likely hardcore cricket fans.
20-20's as a favorite would be someone either new at cricket or just doesnt appreciate the game as much.
the people who like the ODI's better are more then likely hardcore cricket fans.
20-20's as a favorite would be someone either new at cricket or just doesnt appreciate the game as much.
. Whats wrong with a 20/20 at the start of every series then one at the end or two at the start or end seems good enough to me. 
