BBC BLOGS - Test Match Special
« Previous | Main | Next »

Move over 50-over cricket

Oliver Brett | 22:17 UK time, Saturday, 4 August 2007

ob66.jpgThe sun gently slipped towards the horizon, and fans with smiles on their sunburnt faces gently swayed between others coming in the opposite direction.

With the Kent v Gloucestershire decider still to come, it was the hour of contemplation at Twenty20 finals day.

Everyone – barring perhaps the odd diehard Sussex or Lancashire fan – was having a jolly good time at England’s premier domestic cricket event.

It is a fact almost universally agreed by every cricket viewer on these shores that Twenty20 is the best format of one-day cricket.

Too old to be an upstart in what is now its fifth year, and too young to be remotely predictable, finals day should be compulsory viewing for any executive at the frequently maligned International Cricket Council.

The last really memorable matches in 50-over cricket were probably the two matches between South Africa and Australia in the 1999 World Cup.

Since then, the ICC has presided over two further World Cups which attracted widespread criticism and yet it still maintains that 50-over cricket is the superior format.

India, the game's most heavily supported nation – who provide the lion’s share of the game’s money - are also reluctant to join the party.

Simon Cook celebrates a wicket for Kent in Saturday's final against Gloucestershire

India have played only one Twenty20 international and view the ICC World Twenty20 in September with so much suspicion that they have decided not to bother sending two of their best batsmen.

But let’s forget about the ICC and India for a moment.

The first two semi-finals at Edgbaston on Saturday proved once again that Twenty20 cricket is never boring.

Many of the big names, particularly Lancashire’s, shrivelled in the limelight.

Instead lesser stars such as Mark Hardinges and Darren Stevens (with the ball), plus Craig Spearman and dear old Rob Key (with the bat) were the toast of the two winning teams.

The Lightning failed to strike at all and the Sharks had plenty of bites before being gunned down in a classic finish by the Spitfires.

As the final got under way, the well-rested Gladiators re-emerged into the evening sunlight with swords drawn, ready to repel the sling-shots of Lasith Malinga.

Hamish Marshall hit 50 of the first 79 runs Gloucestershire scored, but when the natural light faded, so did he.

Kent Kolpakker Ryan McLaren removed Marshall and two others for another bit of magic – the first hat-trick of finals day.

And for the third time in the day, a precarious score in the 140s would be defended in vain.

Kent had almost made a mess of their first chase, though, and again got themselves into a nervous muddle after some excellent striking of the new ball.

Jon Lewis, his eyes burning with passion, appeared to turn the game decisively Gloucestershire's way in the final stages with two big wickets.

But with 20 needed off nine balls, the flashing blade of Stevens settled the issue.

Of the 22 men who appeared in the final, only Lewis is in England's 30 for the ICC World Twenty20.

Let's hope those selectors know what they're doing, because many feel they have not shown the kind of imagination which this terrific format requries.

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 11:09 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • Markymark wrote:

I don't think doing away with 50 over cricket is the way to go. Twenty 20 works as an entertaining alternative but lacks the subtlety of the longer forms of the game, the shifts of momentum. Twenty 20 is sort of like Basketball, entertaining but when it comes to it, its the end of the game that matters, might as well cut to the chase and play it as a 5 over game!!

50 over cricket needs regenrating somehow, its true, but only if you believe that one day cricket is all about thrilling finishes. No one complains that not enough test matches go to the last over, but somehow we expect one day matches to last all the way.

  • 2.
  • At 11:14 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • Jay C wrote:

How pathetic! A game designed to attract crowds in England, a game which even Andy Symonds says is taken as a bit of a laugh displace 50 over cricket. Is this a plot to try and make sure England actually win something with their 'expertise'?

20 over cricket does not really test the skill of any team thoroughly enough. On their day any team can win, with 50 over cricket this does not apply to the same extent. If you want to see a few hours of slogging and to try again to get an American audience, then by all means do so, but the ICC and any other board (i.e. the ECB), would lose the little respect they may have still have.

  • 3.
  • At 11:15 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • Kartikey Srivastava wrote:

20/20 is a joke compared to real cricket.

And what is this about India not sending their 2 best batsmen. For a start, its 3 of the best. I dont know which one you have missed out although its not Sachin. From Rahul and Sourav, I just think you have chosen to forget Sourav.

They decided to skip it, they were not dropped.

  • 4.
  • At 11:49 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • xxxCORRECTxxx wrote:

I couldn't agree more, and I've been banging this drum for quite a while. Why not just have the two best formats of the game - the pinnacle of quality, demanding Test Cricket and the brilliant, exciting Twenty20 format.

India will come around, there's that independent 'league' being set up over which'll cement its popularity (with ad money following) and force the Indian board to treat it with full attention, the Stanford Cup's going all guns over in the Caribbean (with Cuba & the Dominican Republic getting in on the act) and its popularity in England, Aus, SA & NZ could sell out tens of thousands (40/50/60k ?) of seats for big matches.

I can''t wait for the World Cup down in SA. I only hope we send a proper team, with Loye, Maddy et al, not some modified Test/50-over outfit with Cook & Bell refusing to score runs at the top of the order.

  • 5.
  • At 11:54 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • philip reeks wrote:

I'm a Kent fan and am happy to have won, but 20/20 is nothing short of a baseball style slog fest. There are little of no tactics, finesse or restraint, all of which of key parts of the 4/5 day game; which is real cricket. And who wants to grow up and be a bowler when all you do is seemingly get hit for a dozen each other? Our 45 over triumph in 2001 means more to me than this does.

  • 6.
  • At 11:58 PM on 04 Aug 2007,
  • Al wrote:

ODIs are a total joke compared to Tests (real cricket).

Twenty20 has recreated the niche in cricket that ODIs once had but have now lost in most parts of the world.

Agree that the selectors needed to be more creative with their squad - with the amount of Twenty20 we've played in England, we should be favourites for the WC. But if Monday brings and unimaginative squad, we won't be.

  • 7.
  • At 12:38 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Danny Moltrasi wrote:

Well, im not the biggest fan of 20/20 cricket but todays finals were great fun.

However, I wouldnt say 50 over cricket is a dead format, teams like the Aussies, SA, SL and so on still produce great games. I just think that if England were as successful as one of those 3 nations currently, we wouldnt be saying how rubbish the 50 over format was.

Also, surely the SA vs Aussie game of 400+ in both innings can be considered a "really memorable match"? If not, your standards are far too high.

  • 8.
  • At 01:28 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Henry wrote:

Twenty20 is:
a. entertaining
b. a good and valid cricketing challenge
c. clearly not a substitute for test match cricket.

50 over cricket is often a bit boring, but I agree with people who comment that the English might find it particularly boring because we aren't very good at it. I like the thought that these matches be used to blood up and coming talent (e.g. Denly, Bopara etc) in the international circuit. It would be good to play fewer international 50 over games in general and perhaps a few more Twenty20s in an English summer (and certainly another test match if possible). So what if Tendulkar/Vaughan don't play in them? Let's see Dhoni/Prior etc showing us what they can do.

What Twenty20 has taught us is that less is sometimes more. Although this dictum should not influence test match cricket, the World cup and other 50 over trophies should definitely take some note...

  • 9.
  • At 01:35 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • aldershot_ali wrote:

Doing away with 50-over cricket is not the way to go.

Twenty20 is exciting because it is a good TV sport, and a fun alternative to get more people involved - an evening out at the cricket, seeing some big names, lots of big hits etc.

But that's all T20 is - a fun alternative. We do not need all of the 50-over cricket played nowadays (Do we really need 7 ODIs against India?), but you definitely need it, because there is a danger that you could overegg the pudding with regard to Twenty20, like with 50 over cricket recently.

So lessen the number of ODIs (three or five in a series, or a three way series), and keep T20 as it is.

  • 10.
  • At 04:59 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • K. Kumar wrote:

ODI(50-over) cricket as a concept is too old and belongs to the 70s. For the purists, let 5-day cricket stay. For the fast-food generation (hey look at the # of fast-food outlets sprouting up in sub-urban India), only 20-20 will do. Bring it on!!!

Don't we know how tough it is to keep the eyes open between the 20th and 38th over of an ODI? If it were 20-20, it's non-stop action. Even if all of us reject it, the fast(er)-food generation will definitely embrace that...

  • 11.
  • At 05:11 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Nick Tye wrote:

Robert Key should be in the England one day team. He exudes class - he is better than bell and shah. Come on, let's pick the fat man!

  • 12.
  • At 07:31 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • tinker wrote:

50 over cricket has proven itself now for over 30 years and yet people want to get rid of it for a form of the game that has only just started?

This wouldnt have anything to do with england being a total joke in 50 over cricket and their arch rivals australia being 4 time world champs....of course not.

  • 13.
  • At 07:58 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Chris Birch wrote:

I believe that there is room for both formats if you put the 50 over game on a diet. There is no doubt that the full day match can provide a thoroughly entertaining day or day/night out, but this format has become saturated over the past 10 years or so. I lost interest in the last World Cup by the end of the 1 st week because I knew that so few of the early games mattered, as was simply bored by the time the real stuff came around.

A limit should be put on the number of one day games any nation can play in a year. This would force the likes of India to embrace Twenty/20 as a means of keeping the cash registers ringing (and we all know how important that is).

  • 14.
  • At 08:50 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • trevor ray wrote:

with shortened boundaries and pantomime costumes, think school playround, think tip-and-run, think Telly Tubbies, and you have a form of what was once cricket for the seriously dumbed-down accountants. A sad indictment of our acceptance of the inadequate.

  • 15.
  • At 08:53 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

20/20 is going to be a great attraction to the younger generation.
If that is going to lead to more kids taking up the sport, I'm all for it.
It also will provide great entertainment over a period most people can spare.
Many say that too much cricket is being played and something has to give. I disagree. If specialists were being picked for each form of the sport, we would have different players in each form of the game, with the odd exception.
That offers others an opportunity to represent their country. Central contracts tends to mean that you have to stick to the same group of players, even though they are not the best suited to a particular form.
Seperate managers for each form would be an interesting step.

  • 16.
  • At 09:16 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Patricia wrote:

There is room for both forms of the limited overs game. Twenty20 gives county cricket clubs and players some success while giving us great cricket. But 50 overs can still be enjoyable to watch and provides valuable experience for bowlers and batsmen alike.

  • 17.
  • At 09:45 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Paul Ransom wrote:

20-20 is clearly the superior one day format; and what's more it's very TV friendly. The 50 over version seems laboured in comparison. Still, having said that, the best format is, without doubt, Test cricket. Long may it live.

  • 18.
  • At 09:51 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Aadhar Sharma wrote:

It's all very well lauding twenty20 cricket for what it has done in terms of popularity and encouraging cricket to innovate and move forwards but no way should the new format replace 50 over cricket as the main one day game.

As far as I see it, the 50 over game represents a real game of cricket whereas twenty20 is a slogfest (but great to watch as I can testify!!).

  • 19.
  • At 11:19 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • JTW wrote:

"It is a fact almost universally agreed by every cricket viewer on these shores that Twenty20 is the best format of one-day cricket."

Drivel. I hope this was intended as a provocative comment - if not this journalist needs to find something less challenging than cricket to cover. Even the 50 over pyjama game removes a great deal of the character of the sport but at least still allows time for some of the strategy and subtlety to emerge.

Biff-bang-wallop-out Twenty20 bears as much relationship to cricket as a burger caravan to a Michelin 5 star restaurant. I'm delighted to see it bringing people to grounds and getting them interested, as long as we don't mislead them into thinking that this is what the game is always like.

  • 20.
  • At 11:24 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Geracka wrote:

Twenty20 is a novelty. It may have provided us with our first piece of silverware for too long, but there's far too much luck involved for it to be a truly serious code.

  • 21.
  • At 11:25 AM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Mr K wrote:

Test cricket is being undermined by these cheap sideshows and that mustn't be allowed to happen, otherwise the true skills of the game will be lost.

I like ODI's but in the last 10/15 years they've increased the amount of matches played that you begin to lose count and I'm sure the players go through the motions too.

If they played less the players would be more concerned about winning.

In test cricket if you lose a series at home/away you have to wait '4 years' to rectify your mistake, in ODI's a few weeks then another meaningless match is just round the corner.

I find it a shame that some of the better teams like Australia have many good players that rarely/never get a chance to play international cricket due to the competition for places.

We should find ways for these players to be seen at top level cricket rather than having to watch spineless teams like Windies, Zimbabwe et al.

Why can't we change ODI's make it a squad game, when you bat you pick 11 batsman, when you field you can have any squad player bowl.

Or let Australia and anyone else with a decent back up squad to have a 'B' team on the test & ODI circuit I'm sure they'd be better than half the teams around at least. It would be quite exciting to see an Aussie B team trying to undermine the seniors and prove the selectors and the rival players wrong.

  • 22.
  • At 12:08 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • John Rudman wrote:

The 20/20 format is maybe to cricket what the 100m is to athletics. It gives certain types of batsmen, who maybe don't have the technique to last 50 overs, a chance to shine - and to entertain!
The 50-over format is more 400m/800m and the test match arena - well, the analogy weakens: decathlon? marathon?

As an introduction to cricket, this is certainly the format I will be taking my football-mad young son to watch. Once he's hooked, and as he gets older, then he can learn to appreciate the tactical nuances of test cricket and can enjoy a maiden as much as a slog-fest.

Well done Spitfires! Woolmer, Knott, Underwood, Luckhurst, Shepherd, Ealham & co would be proud.

  • 23.
  • At 12:13 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Peter, Audierne wrote:

Yes, it does make one wonder about the England 20/20 squad, doesn't it?

  • 24.
  • At 12:20 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Antony wrote:

I was at Edgbaston yesterday and I didn't see a slog fest. I saw some fast scoring while the fielding restrictions applied, some tense middle sections while the spinners and medium pacers showed some control and then a timed chase in the final overs leading, in two of the three games, to a tight finish.

All are the ingredients of the 50 over format but without lots of predictable chaff in the middle. The ODI format is popular in parts of the world where batting strips are flat and they're just longer slog fests.

Twenty 20 you have to keep some momentum going and you have to build an innings in the normal way. But everything's compressed.

I think Twenty 20 has the thrills and the spills while test match cricket is the superior version. I can't see what 50 overs does. It used to teach faster stroke play, innovation and better fielding, and bowlers who could bowl at the death used to develop better control for the longer game. Twenty 20 does that every day and twice on Sundays.

Internationally, instead of 3-way tournaments, why not have 4-way tournaments with two games a day and the hosts playing in the evening?

  • 25.
  • At 12:54 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • John T wrote:

20/20 better known as Kiddie Cricket

  • 26.
  • At 01:20 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Mihir wrote:

India have made a good decision about 20/20. Jus becos it attracts crowds in England dusnt mean that the ICC should make it a ODI format. Plus, loads of other teams also seem reluctant. I haven't seen Pakistan play anymore 20/20 than India have, whereas only England and Australia look 100% keen on it.

  • 27.
  • At 01:47 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Lou wrote:

Are the Ozzies that keen on it? Punter still doesn't sound convinced. That doesn't mean that they won't go all out to win the World Cup.

If the English team was better at the 50 over format, I am sure that Oliver Brett wouldn't be so keen on ditching it either. 20/20 is good fun but I don't know why there can't be room for all three formats.

  • 28.
  • At 02:52 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Charles Stewart wrote:

This is a valid point as I have been to two Twenty20 matches and really like their format.

The ICC and India diehards may soon become like the African or Indian Elephants, endangered species.

It is time for suspicion to give way to forward and innovative thinking.

  • 29.
  • At 02:55 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • alan r wrote:

the problem is with both forms of the one day game all the icc are looking to do is generate money and interest so they can continue staging tests as it´s the form of the game the purist fans and players prefer. they don´t treat them seriously as games.

however at least with 50 over cricket they can transfer the games most valuable commodity as far as interest is concerned over to test cricket: players.

twenty20 is exciting but i don´t see how the players that will excel in the game will be that useful to a test side.

say a young bowler emerges, he can take hat-tricks 3 or 4 times a season and is grabbing 5 wicket hauls every 6 or 7 games. he´s a twenty20 star. but in test cricket with no one biting at his more challenging bowls and his consistency average he´ll flounder. why is anyone fired up by twenty20 going to care when england play a test series without there favourite bowler. same logic could be a applied to an explosive batsman. capable of 50 off less than 15 bowls, but at tests he struggles to last over an hour.

in football man u or chelsea may only take part in 6 or 7 really great games a season from the 50 or more they play, but at least they can promise ronaldo, lampard, drogba, giggs and the like will be on the pitch. cricket dosn´t seem to get this, but while malinga may have been one of the poorer bowlers there people were dying to see him bowl, cause he´s a star in cricket terms.

20-20 is good for razzle dazzle and it´s great fun to watch, but too much focus on it but and cricket flaunts with creating something that will ultimately detract further from the form of the game they wish to promote. flintoff, panesar and pieterson are the big names now and they draw people to watch test cricket in england. as twenty20 progresses then you´re going to see new names dominating the cricket headlines, names which may not feature in tests and leave the less purist fan even more uninterested in what´s going on.

  • 30.
  • At 03:09 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Daniel Ghagan wrote:

50 over cricket should not be dispensed with completely, it should just be scaled back. With players complaining of burnout, 7 match series should be replaced with 5 match series, or twenty20 fixtures. In domestic cricket, the pro40 league should be abandoned.

  • 31.
  • At 03:16 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Vernon Needham wrote:


  • 32.
  • At 03:40 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

The games yesterday were an excellent advert for the short(er) version of thr gane.

I love cricket and can very rarely sit through a full 50 overs ODI- ok, 20/20 is a bit of a slogfest why not have 30/30- bit more tactics- but quicker than 50 over games where the powers that be have not come up with a solution for the tedious passages of the play during the middle part of the innings..... needed.

  • 33.
  • At 03:43 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Shammi wrote:

Hit and giggle....

  • 34.
  • At 04:23 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Pizzawheel wrote:

I agree, and not just because England are so dire at ODIs. Cricket in it's purest for is 5-day test cricket. In the modern world we need an abbreviated form that will attract audiences.

The 50-over format is fine but still take s a day off work whereas the evening spectacle of 20/20 is perfect for the western spectator, which is wy it had taken off so much in England and to a lesser extent SA & Aussie/NZ.

I'm not sure where the Indian (& Pakistan/SL) suspicion comes from, but they've always been far more into ODIs than the other teams above. Maybe because they don't have the competition of soccer and other sports that 20/20 takes on head-on.

20/20 is definitely one of the best things to happen to the county game for years though.

  • 35.
  • At 04:52 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • smudger wrote:

I was at birmingham yesterday, a fantastic day's cricket, the last two games were as enthralling as any recent sporting event. all in glorious sunshine. better set the TomTom for the Rose Bowl

  • 36.
  • At 04:53 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Maff wrote:

I disagree almost entirely.

Twenty20 has deservedly been successful so far, but that should not mean the 50 over game is written off. I think it's a very lazy comparison.

There have been loads and loads of exciting 50 over games since 1999: remember the pre-2005 Ashes one day series, or England's game with Sri Lanka in the last World Cup.

In my view the most overlooked reason to keep 50 over games at the top level is that it is this format that is most widely used in amateur leagues, and I think it's incredibly important that there is this link with the top level of the game.

And imagine if the 50 over one day series that accompanies a test tour was replaced by 6 or 7 2020 games. It would soon get very tedious, and that's the only real problem with 50 over cricket at international level - too much of it.

  • 37.
  • At 05:32 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Third_Umpire wrote:

Test match is the thing of past, in the next few decades nobody will be playing test. Apart from ASHES look how many times we have seen full attandance in a test match in the past 5 yrs !!! I Think ICC should start playing One-day instead of test. ASHES should be decided between seven one days and twenty20 should be played instead of one day. so in a tour 5 one day and 7 20-20 are ideal. I m sure slowly no one will be watching one day after all who has time to sit in the ground for the whole day ?? twenty20 is the next cricket and it will be standrad in the next one or two generations !! goodbye Test Match !!!

  • 38.
  • At 05:39 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Amar wrote:

So just because England are pathetic when it comes to one-day matches they wish to scrap it altogether for some 20-20 trash?

  • 39.
  • At 05:45 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Colin Morrison wrote:

I've been of the opinion for a while now that 20/20 surpasses 50-over cricket in almost every way. 50-over cricket has become formulaic, and too much of it is played - look at the present England - India series, where a 4th Test was sacrificed in favour of 2 more ODIs, making for a over-long 7 match series - I'd be surprised if the last two matches at least aren't dead rubbers, with India having already sown up the series by then.

Indeed, 50-over cricket now falls between the two poles of instant gratification (20/20) and purists' delight (Tests).

The principle problems are that it still takes a whole day to play (you can fit two or three 20/20 matches in to the same period, as aught to happen in international 20/20), and the middle overs are deathly dull, as the bowling side gives up trying to take wickets and brings on the trundlers, while the batting team nudges singles every ball into an unprotected inner field. Zzzzzz....Part of the blame for this falls on the poor quality of the white ball, which goes soft quickly, and flat pitches.

All of the skills that have been honed in limited overs cricket seem to come even more sharply to bear in 20/20 - it is by no means a mindless slogfest. England could do worse than to spot new talent for their ODI side in the domestic 20/20 competition.

The proof of the pudding will be the upcoming 20/20 WC - if it goes down a storm, so soon after a poor 50-over WC, it will be the beginning of the end of 50-over dominance. It can't come soon enough.

  • 40.
  • At 06:18 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • brian wrote:

2020 is fun but in no way superior to the 50 over game - which should be scrapped and replaced by the reinstatement of the 60 over game. There was never a problem filling grounds for the Gillette Cup. 50 or 60 overs allows both batsmen and bowlers a chance to show what they can do - 2020 is just a thrash, if you loose three wickets in the first few overs you may as well go home.
Don't judge the 50 over game on World Cups - judge it on the fantastic domestic games we've had over the years.
And a world cup for 2020 ? What a waste of time and money. I'll probably watch - but I won't feel I've seena satisfying game.

  • 41.
  • At 06:39 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Vijay wrote:

Isnt this the format which is played in every small club in India. Every university or small club match is 20/20 in India. Unless you are in the big league you dont have the quality to sustain the pressures and quality of a 50/50 or a 5 day test. So essentially this format doesn't bring out any quality in a player. This would be taking 2 steps backwards for a good player and then being judged among lesser talented players is a depreciation of talent. These guys who won can hardly find a place in the England team so that says the quality of players they are. It works well if you have game played for TV audience where games are broadcast in between advertisements like most games in US. The reason why football(soccer in US) didnt become popular because you cannot put an advert during playing time.

  • 42.
  • At 08:51 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Tony wrote:

Why always the negative comments on the build of Rob Key and Matt Walker.Surley we want the best cricketers These two were head and shoulders the best English cricketers on show on 20/20 final day.Of course we need 50 over cricket,Its the best full days entertainment there is.

  • 43.
  • At 09:28 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • chris towers wrote:

yes, the lesser players and teams shine in 20/20 and that is why it is an inferior format to the longer one day game and four and five day cricket. Anyone can win it virtually, well almost. But more to the point it is attracting the 'wrong'audience wiith violence, verbal abuse and yobishness. I like innovation generally, floodlight cricket is great and I don't mind coloured clothing ( but prefer whites) but this format is rather dull. Boundaries become meaningless as there are so many and it devalues the beautiful game.

  • 44.
  • At 09:51 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Chirag Patel wrote:

I agree that 20/20 cricket is more exciting than 50 overs, i myself am only 18 years of age and find myself excited with the fast slogging pace of 20 over cricket. For example when Kent needed 20 off 9 balls i found myself on the edge of my seat and my fist in my mouth. Now this is sheer thrilling cricket.

As for only Jon Lewis being selected in the 30 man squad for the ICC world 20/20 i feel that the selectors have made a harsh and rash decision. The likes of Rob Key who played a marvellous innings against Sussex and young talents such as Joe Denly and Luke Wright are being kept in the dark and the likes of Strauss and Bell are under achieving. Don't forget this is a 20 over world cup, quick scorers need to be selected and slow paced batsmen such as Bell and Prior need to be given a rest.

  • 45.
  • At 10:06 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Colin Stringer wrote:

I’ve good news for Oliver and some of the other posters to this blog 20/20 will definitely triumph over other shorter versions of the game. A ‘Doctor’ friend of mine and fellow Essex member has a time machine and brought back this newspaper clipping from 2012.

‘Essex White Sox won the 2012 Microsoft 20/20 Series last night with a 268-238 win over the Lancashire Lightning. The Chelmsford based franchise and Southern League champions took the seven game series 3-1. The Sox excellent post season form follows an impressive 21-6 regular season record.

Veteran Sox skipper Ronnie Irani (42) top scored with a 110 including a 10 run ‘out of the ground maximum’ from a huge hit over the off-side field. Irani has only recently returned to the game following bionic knee surgery and has been helped by the part time nature of 20/20 that has allowed him to balance playing with his burgeoning radio career. Irani, is batting 57.5 for the season and also attributed his longevity to the recent introduction of the designated runners and fielders rule. ‘Our runners (Marlon Devonish and Mark Lewis Francis) have been superb all season turning quick singles into twos and the designated fielders have allowed veterans like myself to carry on playing without worrying about our fielding’ said Irani.

Elsewhere, London Counties closed on 250-6 to draw their final ‘Arkwright’s Corner Shop Test Trial’ Championship match against the Midlands.

  • 46.
  • At 10:33 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Andrew Webb wrote:

Scrap 50 Overs..reduce it 40 Overs...thats why we have the Natwest Pro40.
Why do we do so awful in ODI's?
Because we pace it out as a test, thats why and the players are the ones that have been used in the Test series.
We need county players for the ODI's along with some England Internationals instead of the same team for Tests and ODi's which gets boring after a while.

  • 47.
  • At 10:35 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Peter King wrote:

As a Sussex fan I thought 20/20 finals day produced fine entertainment, and Kent were wothy winners. Their outstanding fielding and superb team spirit carried them through the 2 matches. The hype surrounding Luke Wright almost deemed him to failure on the day.
I was disappointed to see Prior get selected in place of Hodd who has performed outstandingly well since Prior has been with the England team.Unfortunately the Sussex batting, especially the middle order all failed on the same day, mainly due to poor shot selection and Kent's fielding. Interesting to note that the performance of the 2 favourites, Lancashire & Sussex both fell below their expected standard on the day!

  • 48.
  • At 12:03 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Phil wrote:

Well I don't agree with getting rid of the 50 over game, but we do need to see more 20/20 played domestically and internationally.

  • 49.
  • At 12:42 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • shahid shah wrote:

Its time to get rid of test matches and 3 or 4 day first class matches. Because of test matches, tours are long as it took long time to finish. Then it makes scheduling too hectic for the players. The other problem with test cricket is the bad light. As it is played with red ball, therefore it can not be played in bad light and flood lights. Then we got meaningless 4 day county games in which we hardly see any spectators. Its time to make game exciting and also to help domestic county teams to earn more money, which can only be earned through t20.

  • 50.
  • At 01:45 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Sarbo Sen, Calcutta, India wrote:

I can't believe a day would come when I would find myself defending the 50-over limited overs game. But if the alternative is the 20-over version, I enlist in manning the barricades.

In this age of TV dollars, the game of cricket is in the same position as others sports in providing entertainment while preserving the necessary skills.

The 50-over game has led to a steep decline in bowling skills, everybody will agree. Today, one-day bowlers are like Christians fed to the lions in a Roman colliseum for the enjoyment of the proles. Imagine what the 20-over game would do to even the few really good bowlers still left.

Batsmen too have lost the skills of yesteryear. Will there ever be a Sobers or a Bradman dispatching tear-away quicks without the protection of body armour, restriction on the number of bouncers in an over and covered pitches? I doubt very much.

If Test cricket is too boring, make the necessary changes. I propose restricting each innings to 90 overs, doing away with draws (except ties, and that too when both runs scored AND wickets lost are equal) and doing away with the bouncer restriction. Retain field restrictions, power plays and other new-fangled innovations by all means.
And please, oh please, get on with starting the Test World Cup.

The problem with 20-over games is that it promotes a slam-bam-thank-you ma'am attitude. And like all addictions, a time will come when the TV industry will ask for more, like a 10-over game? God forbid. Man the barricades, every lover of the game!

  • 51.
  • At 02:08 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Sanjay Beharry wrote:

England has an excelent county format, but playing twenty20 in the international platform would be hard for them because of the naturally attacking and fast natured players the alot of the teams has. No doubt in the next ten years this format would be superior because its just simply thrilling and breath taking.

  • 52.
  • At 02:46 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

Move over commentators who think 20/20 is the future of one-day cricket!

  • 53.
  • At 05:12 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • sillypointer wrote:

Assemble a bunch of no-good hacks and slog away at every ball for 20 overs and call it a game of Cricket. What a joke? And to think this sport originated in your country....

  • 54.
  • At 07:24 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Chris D wrote:

I've always thought that two innings of Twenty20 would make for a fine full one-day format; a team stands a chance of making up in the second innings for their shortcomings in the first and the hosts would have three between-innings breaks in which to sell things.

Theoretically, as at least one competition used to play 60 overs (sometimes even 65!) per side in a single day, you could potentially get three innings per side in a day, which could be worth considering. If we're going to blaspheme against cricket's sacred cows then we may as well do it in style!

  • 55.
  • At 08:29 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Shyam wrote:

No memorable matches since 1999??? I think you may mean in the world cup. I can think of at least 2 that were very memorable:
1. SA vs AUS at Jo'burg (400+ in both innings)
2. NatWest trophy final 2002, Ind vs Eng

At least a 50-over game has some strategic depth, even if it's not comparable to test cricket. I doubt if 20-20 can offer even that. Might as well start playing baseball!

  • 56.
  • At 08:52 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Dave Hale wrote:

I was expecting quite a few derogatory comments regarding this format of cricket and was right. For the average working man, the idea of a shortened format that can be watched after work (which the kids will be more likely to enjoy) is fantastic for the game.

Sadly cricket will suffer from the stuffy-brigade who still think limited overs format is sacrilige! The 50 over format is tired and IMO needing an over-haul, and I agree 20 over is the way forward.

I love seeing Edgbaston (as my local ground) full of paying spectators who are having fun, regardless of the tactics and lack of subtlety.

4/5 day cricket will always be real cricket (and for me the most enjoyable), but surely the players and clubs are being paid by the spectators to entertain and therefore twenty-20 has a role as that - entertainment.

But I suppose the club tie and panama hat members have more of a say than the thousands of families who regularly attend the twenty-20 games!

  • 57.
  • At 08:54 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • GP wrote:

Why is there an need to get rid of 50 Over Cricket??

Its just as entertaining as teams play for longer and therefore producing massive scores in short periods of time.

Next you'll be saying shorten tests!!!!!

  • 58.
  • At 09:27 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Rahul wrote:

The Aus v SA "400+" match is considered one of the most "memorable" and "exciting" match ever in ODI cricket...but T20 is dismissed as a sideshow which requires no tactical skills,a slogfest etc, etc. However, T20 requires the 3S "speed, skill and stamina" which are the cornerstome of any exciting sport (soccer, basketball). It requires agility (esp. fielding), bowling skills (we have bowlers who bowl maiden in T20), batting skills (if slogging was so easy then battting would not have been an art) and stamina(the energy levels to withstand the pressure and the tension )...Many cricket fans point out that a lot of international players dont consider it as a serious format, but consider it as a sideshow, etc, etc. I am sure 35 years back, when the ODI format was introduced, the cricket players of that generation would have made the same comment and the cricket fans would have loved seeing a boycott in action rather than the wham bang style of Viv Richards. But over a period of time, ODI found acceptance and Viv Richards became a legend...similarly once the T20 gets rolling and becomes competitive, it would carve a niche for itself and may possibly replace 50 over cricket all together. And in the end i would prefer watching more nations compete in cricket (even if it means T20)rather than just seeing 6-7 nations competing with each other, and just 1 nation dominate. "Survival of the fittest" is the mantra and for cricket to survive it needs to adapt to the ever changing times.

  • 59.
  • At 10:25 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Tim R wrote:

For me, twenty 20 is a poor form of cricket. I'm a young fan of the game and in no way can I see how this format is better than 50 over matches. 20 overs in so little. The skill of bowling cannot be seen in so few overs, whilst batsmen merely hit out. Cricket is all about skill and composure. Twenty20 is just a gimmick to sell cricket to more people. Smash, Bang, Wallop - an easier to digest form of the game that fills grounds up and down the country. But give me a full days cricket any day. The longer the better, but as a 1 day game, 50 overs wins all the way.

  • 60.
  • At 11:43 AM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Zohaib wrote:

"The last really memorable matches in 50-over cricket were probably the two matches between South Africa and Australia in the 1999 World Cup.'

I can think of numerous memorable matches in the past few years. The Pakistan v India ODI series in 2004 was exciting, especially the opening match at Karachi. and who can forget South Africa's record-winning run-chase against Australia? What about the 2002 Natwest series final between England and India?

I believe there is still room for 50-over cricket. Twenty20 cricket proves nothing, it's just smash, bang, wallop. there is no art in planning and constructing an innings as the aim is to smash your way out of every situation. Sure, there is some ingenuity and innovation in strokeplay, but it doesn't capture the imagination of a cricket fan.

It's just a nice way to waste a couple of hours after work, but not worthy of an international tournament as a World Cup.

It's all about Test cricket. But with regards to the cheap fun that ODI cricket supplied, I would rather have 20/20 take its place. 20/20 incorporates all the best bits of limited overs cricket, without the tedium.

20/20 is never boring. This is so true. 50 over cricket is regularly boring. I hate the whole slog and then nurdle for 30 overs before slogging at the end. Absolutely cannot stand it. So tedious.

Test cricket is the ultimate test and 50 overs was just supposed to be more fun. Let's not attach any serious value to 50 over cricket. It's a bit of fun, BUT where fun is concerned, 20/20 beats it hands down.

I wholeheartedly agree. There's no place for 50 over cricket anymore. The last two world cups have been diabolical and this 20/20 tournament will hopefully point limited over cricket in a fresh and exciting direction.

  • 62.
  • At 12:41 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Neal Higgins wrote:

Is a 20/20 specialist a batsman with good hand and eye coordination who just gets lucky for a few fleeting overs?

  • 63.
  • At 12:45 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • doug wrote:

20/20 is 50 over cricket without the boring rubbish between overs 15 and 45 that make the 50 over format so awful and predictable these days.

One day cricket MUST be played on good wickets with bags of runs. That's what the one day audience wants. It is pointless watching a side get about 180 of 50 overs. It's about entertainment and 50 over games are not entertaining any more apart from an odd rare thriller. As for the 40 over rubbish....what's all that about?

By the way I prefer the 4 and 5 day games but I like to be entertained as well. Has to be 20/20 I'm afraid.

  • 64.
  • At 12:52 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Simeon Ayling wrote:

Domestically, I'd say it was time to ditch the 50 over game, and play a lot more twenty20. There are two reasons for this:
a) it's more exciting. The additional 30 overs can often yields little more than 100 runs extra. Plus I like the fact that noballs and slow over rates will penalise the fielding team.
b) it's popular. You can go to a game after work and see an entire match with a result at the end of it. This is why the crowds flock to twenty20. Unfortunately, watching the 50 over format means taking a day off from work. Whatsmore, television companies won't pay much money to televise matches at empty cricket grounds.

I'd like to see the 4 day domestic game preserved and essentially funded by an expanded twenty20 competition (with its gate receipts and TV money). More cash in the game will attract better players and theoretically allow improvement at the grass roots level of the game.

  • 65.
  • At 01:05 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • mike wrote:

i agree with the hampshire fan. lets get back to having one division so we all get to see each of the different teams. being a warwickshire fan the highlight of this season are my trips to chester-le-street and scarborough but i did that last season aswell! (the less said about our current doomed plight the better - durham have given us a spanking 2 seasons running and i cannot see much improving at hove or scarborough!)

i have come around to not minding 2020 this season after 3 years when i started to find it tedious. the 1st season i saw a few middlesex games at smaller grounds in london including a home game at richmond which is actually south of the river in surrey and i went to the final that 1st year at trent bridge. for sheer novelty value it was quite a lot of fun.

but once the novelty wears off it got a bit formulaic and samey for a few years and i started to resent it but i gave it a chance this year.

my main gripe with it is that it cherry picks a 3 week period in june when kids should be given a chance to watch PROPER cricket and when grounds were usually more full anyway. this notion that 2020 fills stadiums is only true to an extent. obviously this wet year it backfired on them but people still went (more on that later)

my wish list is

lets have a 1 division championship with a play-off in september to decide the champions.

lets have one 40/50 over league and one 50 over knockout cup

lets have more 2020 games but perhaps on a once a week basis rather than at the height of early summer

or if people think 2020 can hold its own against other sports then surely it is a suitable format of the game to be played in march and october thus not spoiling the peoper cricket season.

sitting there for 2-3 hours in cooler weather would be okay and you can play through the showers without the game being ruined as we saw this year with many games.

  • 66.
  • At 01:15 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Julian wrote:

I am in total agreement!

Twenty20 is great fun, boundaries in, sixes being smashed, nerve ends jangling!

Test cricket is the ultimate in "proper" cricket. It can be just and tense and dramatic, with twists and turns over five days.

50 over games now seem to fall between two stools and are often dull. They are meant to produce a tight finish but rarely do.

Abolish 50 over ODIs and just have Tests and Twenty20!

  • 67.
  • At 01:29 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • arealcricketfan wrote:

"It is time to get rid of 50-over cricket, says Oliver Brett "

Thank goodness no-one listens to Oliver Brett, eh?

Twenty/20 cricket will probably go on for a very long time because it is short and sweet. The longer games, like 50 and 40 overs are being shoved down everybody's throats at every turn. We are saturated with it around the world and people are getting fed up with the longer game.

  • 69.
  • At 03:11 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Gavin wrote:

What a load of rubbish. 20-20 doesn't really test abilities, anyone can be a match winner.

50 over cricket is much more favourable to players with real ability.

  • 70.
  • At 03:46 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Whoarethoseguys wrote:

Oliver Brett is way off... the most memorable one day games were back in 1999?! What about that game in Mar 2006 where where Australia broke the then one day world record to set South Africa 435 to win having lost only 4 wickets, and then S.A. actually went and scored them - all very dull I'm sure.

Yes, the recent world cup was frankly a bit rubbish but it seems to me that maybe the world cups are actually the problem here. One day world cups are way too long and overly endowed with frankly pretty poor teams (England included) and I don't see that twenty20 world cups are likely to be much better bearing in mind their almost total reliance on luck.
India have got the right idea. A 'short' series of one day games is far superior to three months of world cup tedium playing teams who just aren't up to it.

Twenty20 does nothing to make any player better as far as I can see, so why don't we just allow the bowlers to throw the ball rather bowling. This would undoubtedly liven the game up and make it more difficult to play and therefore presumably make them even better batmen - or maybe they could stand on one leg while batting.

Twenty20 may be very popular but then so too are shell suits and turkey twizlers. Mmmm yummy.

  • 71.
  • At 03:51 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Sarbo Sen, Calcutta, India wrote:

To Rahul

Viv Richards became a legend not because of his big-hitting in ODIs but for his big-hitting in Tests, which was an eye-opener for other cricketers of his era.

In fact, ODIs threatened to up-end him. Consider his play in the 1983 World Cup final against India. It was his reckless hitting which robbed the Windies of a hat-trick of World Cups.

  • 72.
  • At 04:19 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • wis wrote:

Having seen the England squad today it is interesting that none of the Kent team are included. Surely Rob Key is not too old at 28? How about Joe Denly rather than Luke Wright? Lots of Sussex bias from Mr Moores we think...

  • 73.
  • At 06:42 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Mike Pratten wrote:

In the same way that test cricket is played mostly in the mind of the player, the same is true of Twenty20, but requiring a very different mindset. Yet the ECB continue to select players from the Test squad rather than selecting a specialist Twenty20 squad. When will the ECB realise that the two forms are completely seperate. Even Pro40 and 50 over games do not require the speed and complexity of shot selection and bowling deliveries, necessary for success in the Twenty20 game. Gone is the requirement for metronomic arm actions, or the wait and pounce approach to the "bad ball". Twenty20 cricket requires that the both the batting and fielding sides must make things happen in a highly charged environment, but resist the urge to panic.

  • 74.
  • At 09:23 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • kenny ord wrote:

I think within 10-20 years, Test matches and 50-over games will be no more and will be replaced by series of 20/20 matches. Get rid of the boring stuff in 'whites' - no one watches this form of the game apart from the English and Aussies. We want adrenalin!

Twenty-twenty is a more efficient package for the purpose it was designed for, as compared to ODI's.

If we were to travel back in time to that day in Australia with our memories erased, could we have comprehended that a time-filler for the day would prove to be the germ of this gargantuan industry cricket is? Not many of us would.

Like they didn't all those years ago except for a handful of far-sighted people. The first ODI was designed to please yesterday, which it did, just as 20-20 is designed to stimulate tomorrow. And that tomorrow has arrived.

Skylab has been long junked and the same fate awaits another creation of that era - ODI's have expended their pioneering energy.

Reluctantly I have to agree. Depsite considering myself to be a cricket traditionalist I found the recent 50 overs series against the West Indies to be incredibly boring throughout most of it. Unless the rules are changed to make it more interesting - Powerplays are clearly not the answer - then it will surely have to make way for Twenty 20. What rule changes? Well maybe we could look at limiting the number of fielders on one side of the wicket? Whatever happens we have to be aware that for most modern day batsman a run every ball at the very least is easily achievable, helps to produce a score in excess of 5 runs per over but is just plain boring to watch these days when we are used to watching every other ball crash to or over the boundary. If the powers that be want to save 50 over cricket, they have to act now to make it less boring.

  • 77.
  • At 04:46 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • VN wrote:

Just because England arent any good at ODIs, they have now invented a new format!!

I20-20 hmm, I think there is already something called baseball. Probably you got the names mixed up...

  • 78.
  • At 09:31 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Andy Milner wrote:

I haven't read through all the comments, but are you suggesting then that the future is a test in one day. A two innings a side 20/20 match. With the prices charged in this country to watch the England team play anything I would want a full day for my money. I was lucky enough to be at the England v Australia 20/20 at The Rose Bowl, but the other game was just there to get you buying beer earlier.

A concept of recovering a poor position after the first innings, introducing subs for the second half, could be a purists nightmare and a TV mans dream, but there has to be room in the game for all tastes surely. I love watching, playing and helping to organising all forms of cricket from on the beach through to tests, obviously my involvement in tests is limited to watching.

I don't like cricket no, I LOVE IT.

  • 79.
  • At 10:19 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Jennifer Reed wrote:

50 over cricket and in particular the World Cup has suffered since Australia became so dominant. The last World Cup was too long and all for nought.. a farcical end to a farcical competition. It felt somewhat like going through the motions, the only highlight being Ireland going through to the Super Eights. The best matches of it being, in my opinion, England's matches against Sri Lanka and the West Indies; the latter of which was a dead rubber anyway...

Twenty20 has overtaken the longer form of the one day certainly with the public. One day cricket does provide some exciting run chases and Twenty20 is a an accelerated form of this. I still think there is a place for the 50 over form of the game but I fail to see the merit in the neither here nor there pro40 tournament we have as part of our domestic season. Either make it 50 overs or introduce another Twenty20 competition. The Pro40 is good for nothing. Personally I'd go for more Twenty20 cricket; it's fun and fast and allows for different players to excel. It's the future..

  • 80.
  • At 11:49 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Andy G wrote:

I have thought long and hard about 20/20 and the state of English Domestic cricket in general. I think the 20/20 format is good for the game in a controlled dose, don't over egg the pudding. As for scrapping 50 over ODI's ? That is a ridiculous suggestion.
I for one would scrap the Pro40 League, how can you play 40 overs when International ODI's are 50 ? it just doesn't make sense. I would have a single one day 50 knockout tournament instead of a league format. Also I would merge some of the domestic teams, there are just too many. Derbys/Notts, Worcs/Gloucs, Leics/Northants, Middlesex/Essex, so we have something along the lines of what the South African domestic teams did a few years ago.

  • 81.
  • At 12:42 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • James Brittain wrote:

Twenty20 cricket is far more entertaining then watching people just defend it out in a Test match. You see better shots, good bowling and your not just sitting there waiting for something to happen.

In this form, any team can win, the Aussies just seem to cream everyone in 50-overs and test matches, but I think we'll see a different side win the World Twenty20 Championships.

  • 82.
  • At 01:44 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Ashley James wrote:

I do not agree for the scraping of the 50 over format of the game.Probably what can happen is to divide the one day series equally between the two formats of the game.

  • 83.
  • At 03:18 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • andrew robinson wrote:

Personally, I would like to see all one-day matches scrapped and a return to pure First-Class and Test cricket only. I know people say that more spectators attend one-day matches, but if First Class cricket was the only form of the game available then it would prove to be just as popular. The various one-day formats cheat people of seeing cricket as it was meant to be played.

If 20/20 cricket is OK, then why not play the football world cup as a 5-a-side game? Obviously this would neer happen, so if football is sacred, why are people always allowed to tinker with the formats/rules of cricket?

  • 84.
  • At 05:38 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • TKS wrote:

Here's a funny thought, if the 20-20 cricket is entertaining and lasts for lil over/less than 3 hrs why do people still call it 1 Day !!!! cricket... :P

  • 85.
  • At 06:50 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Varoon wrote:

I personally don't like the way 20/20 is given such recognition...because like many have mentioned before me, it doesn't test any team's skills, but rather just provide entertainment for the crowds !!

There is a sure need to make 50 over match entertaining by probably:

(a) making it 40 over match - wouldn't mind if they increase the # of balls/over to 7

(b) decrease the # of total teams who are still not ready to compete against teams like Australia, India or any other dominant team - you can easily create a diff. league for them.

(c) use 20/20 (mini-series) as series opener for test series only - making it for 50 over match will make 50 over match dull for the critics !!!

  • 86.
  • At 08:06 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Last memorable 50 over matches in 1999? Eh?

What about SA v Australia in Jo'burg 2006 and England v India at Lord's in 2002? Even the last two World Cup finals were memorable due to Ponting and Gilchrist innings which could not have been played in T20.

Has there been a single memorable T20 match? Good fun, good for kids and lager louts and generating revenue, instantly forgettable.

(ps Forty40 for me any day)

  • 87.
  • At 08:15 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Last memorable 50 over matches in 1999? Eh?

What about SA v Australia in Jo'burg 2006 and England v India at Lord's in 2002? Even the last two World Cup finals were memorable due to Ponting and Gilchrist innings which could not have been played in T20.

Has there been a single memorable T20 match? Good fun, good for kids and lager louts and generating revenue, instantly forgettable.

(ps Forty40 for me any day)

  • 88.
  • At 09:48 PM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • michael turnnidge wrote:

Sir, As someone who lives in Canada and force fed on baseball, basketball and North American football, I can assure you any form of cricket, even French cricket or on the sand at Bognor, is acceptable.
Sincerely, Mike

  • 89.
  • At 01:20 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Errrm mate. Last memorable 50 over match in 1999? Have you been living in a hole. Hows about the game where South Africa chased 434 down just over a year ago. That is the best match ever. Getting rid of 50 over cricket is nonsense and you're clearly just trying to make a name for yourself by saying controversial and stupid things. Please write about something that isn't ridiculous next time.

  • 90.
  • At 01:20 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Prashant wrote:

No. Absolutely not. Twenty20 cricket will destroy the techniques of players who might have test ambitions, thereby rendering them unable to play the real game. Put simply, twenty20 is just not cricket. At least the 50 over format has some of the spirit of the game--the heady climaxes and anticlimaxes and anticlimaxes that one is exposed to over time.

  • 91.
  • At 08:51 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • James wrote:

Twenty20 is superior to 50over for the following reasons:
-You can turn up and watch 1-2 hour game on a work night
-Your kids won't get board.
-It dosnt take up too much time to watch on TV
-It is fast and exciting

it is inferior because:
-Rain can see out most of the short game
-less tactical, just big hitting.
-yorkshire didn't pass the quarters

  • 92.
  • At 10:42 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Stumpy wrote:

Most agree that the 50 over game has had an impact on test cricket. If you remove the 50 over game altogether, you'll only have influence from T20 cricket. That cannot be good for test cricket.

Test cricket is the highest pinnacle of the game and should be protected and nurtured. 50 over cricket provides the nourishment that test cricket needs and T20 could provide the protection in the form of money for the coffers.

The problem is that too much of the 50 over game is played and the Pro 40 league is a joke. You don't play one day league cricket at international level, so why play it domestically? We should scrap the pro 40 league and make the Friends Provident trophy longer. Introduce Quarter finals. It should also finish half way through the domestic season. The T20 should then be the main focus for cup competition. There is also scope to make this a longer tournament if required.

The current set-up is messy and difficult to follow. The FP trophy semi finals took place at the end of June, yet the final is midway through August. I'd forgotten all about it.

  • 93.
  • At 11:58 AM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

The major problem with cricket is the fact that TV places unrealistic demands.

There are too many Test Matches - 5 per UK season against just one country.

There are too many ODIs - 5 per UK season against just one country should be the norm. They are only boring because of over exposure on TV. If there were fewer, we would look forward to them with eager anticipation.

Mark my words, in a few years time people will start sayong 20/20 cricket is boring - because of over exposure on TV.

Whatever next a 10/10 or a 5/5 competition? Heaven forbid.

  • 94.
  • At 02:25 PM on 08 Aug 2007,
  • highoctanevimto wrote:

50 over cricket is gone, it was used in exactly the same way 20/20 is being used. 50 over cricket was used to try and make the game more exciting. I recently went to a ODI against the windies and I did have to book a day off work and I was bored bored bored. This format of the game is attractive, exciting and really is edge of your seat stuff. Test cricket will never get old it is by far the best format of the game. The way 50 over cricket sacrifices tests aswell is aporling, the mundane period after the pwerplays and before the slog at the end is just dead cricket. 20/20 is perfect because you can make time to watch it, bring on 20/20!

  • 95.
  • At 10:59 PM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • Chris, England wrote:

I must disagree, Twenty20 is not the way forward. Certainly English cricket needs it, the money this format brings in is unbelievable compared to other forms, especially those Counties who do not get International Cricket would struggle to survive in modern cricket without The Twenty20 Cup, with teams like Leicestershire focusing their whole season on Twenty20, as they know it brings in the money.

Along with this money comes trouble though, grounds are now starting to attract the 'wrong' crowd, and Twenty20 encourages the whole drinking culture which seems to be overtaking cricket. I think the Barmy Army and those rowdy ones in the Western Terrace are fantastic and create a great atmosphere in 50 over or Test Cricket, as they are primarily attracted to cricket and enjoy a drink while they are there.

Twenty20 seems to be bringing in a new band of supporters, who see four hours at the cricket similar to a visit to the local pub. They care not about the cricket or the welfare of players and other spectators, but just want to have a laugh at the cricket. The amount of taunting and abuse players must put up with from these new supporters and also from younger supporters who see it as the norm is unbearable.

I cannot decide if it is the image the sport has portrayed for itself or if the image is now taking over the sport. Either way Twenty20 is both a great pioneering spectacle helping cricket to move forward by rejuvenating interest & increasing revenues, and also dragging the game down to a frankly predictable and boring spectacle made even worse by the abusive and unfunny antics of the crowd.

On a secondary note, Twenty20 is extremely predictable, with 6 overs of fielding restrictions, bowled by seam bowlers, who are smashed around, giving a score of around 50-60 for 2 ro 3 wickets after 6 overs. Then the field goes out and the spinners come on, the runs dry up, the rate goes down to around 6 an over and some wickets are lost. The seamers return for the last few overs, during which the run rate accelerates. This repeats itself in the second innings, with the team with better spinners usually winning.

I genuinely think the Twenty20 experience depends on where you go and when you go there. At Finals day i had a fantastic experience and a great day out, with a fantastic atmosphere, but at less high profile domestic games i have not been able to get away fast enough. As a young cricket lover, i can't decide if Twenty20 will save or destroy cricket...only time will tell.

Im sure many people will agree, i love it, but i also hate it.

  • 96.
  • At 08:19 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • Joseph wrote:

India didn't rest their best batsmen or anything, they backed out of it, apparently to give the young guns a chance.

  • 97.
  • At 09:36 AM on 12 Aug 2007,
  • Matthew Jenkins wrote:

While the Twenty20 is a great spectacle, especially for younger fans, 50 overs definately remains the form of the limited overs game with more skill involved. Both have their merits, so why can't they co-exist? If anything, the 50 overs competition should be extended to replace the Pro 40 competition, if one tournament has to go.

  • 98.
  • At 10:28 PM on 13 Aug 2007,
  • Edward Trafford wrote:

The longer the game the more likely the better team is to win - bring back 60 over ODIs and stop wasting time with the mickey mouse form of the game that is the Twenty20

  • 99.
  • At 08:34 AM on 15 Aug 2007,
  • Ashley Cowdrey wrote:

20Twenty will have a big place in the future of cricket - no doubt in my mind.
The 20Twenty domestic cup has proved to be huge and pulled much needed revenue and interest into the game.
It's very exciting and appeals to young kids, families and occasional cricket fans much more than 50 overs.
If the popularity (and financial appeal) of 20 overs continues to rise, clubs are going to focus more on success in the 20 over cup than the pro-40 ect. This is bound to guide the focus of our clubs.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.