Is 20/20 better than ODIs ? A Poll

pskov said:

All this about 20/20 being a batsmen's game, well how so? .

Click to expand...

Didnt think it was so difficult.

Both 20/20 and the limited overs game ar batsmens games because you can win them without actually taking a single wicket as long as you score more runs. Thus all that matters in winning is FINALLY runs.

In test matches you CAN NOT win without getting twenty wickets(declarations excluded) even if you score 5000 runs . Thats why bowlers are a must and good bowling ALONE can win you test matches.

SJS said:

Didnt think it was so difficult.

Both 20/20 and the limited overs game ar batsmens games because you can win them without actually taking a single wicket as long as you score more runs. Thus all that matters in winning is FINALLY runs.

In test matches you CAN NOT win without getting twenty wickets(declarations excluded) even if you score 5000 runs . Thats why bowlers are a must and good bowling ALONE can win you test matches.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty worthless distinction. I could say that a team never loses in Test cricket if it scores more runs than the opposition but the same doesn't work with taking wickets, so Tests must be a batsman's game - meaningless but true.

A batsman's game should refer to the balance of the format, as to whether bowling or batting has more influence on the result. In that regard I consider (generally speaking) Test cricket to be a bowler's game, 50 over cricket to be a batter's game and Twenty20 is somewhere in between.

Scaly piscine said:

That's a pretty worthless distinction. I could say that a team never loses in Test cricket if it scores more runs than the opposition but the same doesn't work with taking wickets, so Tests must be a batsman's game - meaningless but true.

A batsman's game should refer to the balance of the format, as to whether bowling or batting has more influence on the result. In that regard I consider (generally speaking) Test cricket to be a bowler's game, 50 over cricket to be a batter's game and Twenty20 is somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

No argument

Goughy said:

What the hell is wrong with that? I dont understand what you mean. Its logical that England have had the format for longer and that there has been a change in attitude as people have become increasingly exposed. It makes sense that they have a more developed opinion of the sport.

I still dont know what I said wrong, did I commit the cardinal sin of saying something remotly positive regarding England? Apologies, will never happen again

Click to expand...

You continue to assume that people outside of england are ignorant about Twenty20 format and that is the main reason why they dont want Twenty20 to replace ODIs.

Whereas the fact is a lot of people have been following 20/20 over the internet and are concerned by the one-sided nature of this form of cricket. 170-200 is pretty normal in 20 overs.

Scaly piscine said:

That's a pretty worthless distinction. I could say that a team never loses in Test cricket if it scores more runs than the opposition but the same doesn't work with taking wickets, so Tests must be a batsman's game - meaningless but true.

A batsman's game should refer to the balance of the format, as to whether bowling or batting has more influence on the result. In that regard I consider (generally speaking) Test cricket to be a bowler's game, 50 over cricket to be a batter's game and Twenty20 is somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

And how exactly is a format in which bowlers get a maximum of 4 overs and have to take a wicket every 12 balls to bowl the opposition out balanced, then?

FaaipDeOiad said:

And how exactly is a format in which bowlers get a maximum of 4 overs and have to take a wicket every 12 balls to bowl the opposition out balanced, then?

Click to expand...

Happens a fair bit actually, but that's besides the point. My argument was bowling has about as much influence on the game as batting and I think this is borne out by teams with good bowling but awful batting doing just as badly as teams with good batting but awful bowling. You don't need to bowl a side out to really limit a teams score.

Edit: Whoa Langer 39* off 13 balls...

I can't really stand ODIs anymore, They are played far too often and are just boring.

Apart from a few exceptions/mismatches, the games all run the same course, and with it being 50 overs a side, the result is often sealed long beofre the final ball.

With 20/20 cricket, the match has a much greater chance of producing a last ball result and coupled with the big hitting, it makes for a more exciting match.

Scaly piscine said:

Fairly average ODI/Test players are usually good players in the respective domestic cricket competitions so they're obviously going to do well. If you're referring to Twenty20 internationally there haven't been enough games to say really.

By the way anyone else nauseated by the pointless back-slapping when someone just happens to agree with someone else so they say 'good post' regardless of whether it actually makes any decent points or not. Seems to be happening quite a lot lately.

Click to expand...

Good post

It is obvious that the reason us English like Twenty20 is because we're poo at ODIs. Obviously. But to be fair, it's pretty obvious that the only reason any of you non-English like ODIs is because we're better than you at Tests

IMO ODIs will not go away, I would not care if they did and I would not care if they stayed, but as somebody said earlier, why not just be happy with three formats. Twenty20 itnernationals thus far have just been warm-up games for the ODI series basically anyway, and the Twenty20 Cup in England is the summer break from First Class matches. What the NZ cricket board do is their business, but Twenty20 isn't ruining any other forms of Cricket, so just let it be

Well just witnessed a rather decent little 20/20 game between Essex & Sussex. Scores tied with 4 balls to go & Essex (chasing) get a little chokey; lose two wickets in successive balls meaning on the final ball Ronnie Irani needs 4 for his ton, Essex need one for the win & Yasir Arafat is on a hat-trick...

Big Ronnie calmly carves it to th on-side boundary for his ton. Top stuff.

That's not an argument for or against, btw. For me the argument basically boils down to whether you consider overs 15-40 to be worthwhile in ODIs. If you do, you'll prefer them to 20/20s; if not you'll take the shorter form. I'm not suggesting that they can't be totally crucially to the outcome of the game, but if they are it's usually because of what has gone before: be it quick wickets taken in the first few overs leading to the necessity of consolidation; or a chase of a huge total (like the Oz-SA run-fest mentioned earlier) meaning the foot has to remain on the pedal.

People criticise 20/20s as a batsman's game, it unquestionanbly is. So too are all one-dayers tho; as SJS correctly points out you don't (strictly speaking) have to take a solitary wicket to win one. However, the art of "bowling at the death" is recognised as a skill in ODs, what 20/20 does is effectively ask bowlers to spend their whole spell "at the death". Bowlers who go for fewer than six per over at the death in conventional OD stuff are rightly praised for it, to me it just seems churlish to criticise praise for economical 20/20 bowlers when they're effectively performing the same skill.

In the game I just watched Michael Yardy (part-time SLA) bowled a very decent spell of 4-0-21-0. Now if one thinks of that performance in conventional OD terms it doesn't look very flash at all, but if (say) Glenn McGrath sent down 4 overs at a bit over 5 per over with a team chasing over 9 per over I think he'd be (rightly) praised for it.

Ultimately it's purely personal choice, one format isn't inherently better than the other, but it seems to me that a lot of ODI fans are praising the format because it more closely resembles first-class cricket (no argument, it does, albeit not very much at all just more so than 20/20s), but that seems to be missing the point of the shortened game. 20/20s strengths & weaknesses are at least its own.

BoyBrumby said:

Well just witnessed a rather decent little 20/20 game between Essex & Sussex. Scores tied with 4 balls to go & Essex (chasing) get a little chokey; lose two wickets in successive balls meaning on the final ball Ronnie Irani needs 4 for his ton, Essex need one for the win & Yasir Arafat is on a hat-trick...

Big Ronnie calmly carves it to th on-side boundary for his ton. Top stuff.

That's not an argument for or against, btw. For me the argument basically boils down to whether you consider overs 15-40 to be worthwhile in ODIs. If you do, you'll prefer them to 20/20s; if not you'll take the shorter form. I'm not suggesting that they can't be totally crucially to the outcome of the game, but if they are it's usually because of what has gone before: be it quick wickets taken in the first few overs leading to the necessity of consolidation; or a chase of a huge total (like the Oz-SA run-fest mentioned earlier) meaning the foot has to remain on the pedal.

People criticise 20/20s as a batsman's game, it unquestionanbly is. So too are all one-dayers tho; as SJS correctly points out you don't (strictly speaking) have to take a solitary wicket to win one. However, the art of "bowling at the death" is recognised as a skill in ODs, what 20/20 does is effectively ask bowlers to spend their whole spell "at the death". Bowlers who go for fewer than six per over at the death in conventional OD stuff are rightly praised for it, to me it just seems churlish to criticise praise for economical 20/20 bowlers when they're effectively performing the same skill.

In the game I just watched Michael Yardy (part-time SLA) bowled a very decent spell of 4-0-21-0. Now if one thinks of that performance in conventional OD terms it doesn't look very flash at all, but if (say) Glenn McGrath sent down 4 overs at a bit over 5 per over with a team chasing over 9 per over I think he'd be (rightly) praised for it.

Ultimately it's purely personal choice, one format isn't inherently better than the other, but it seems to me that a lot of ODI fans are praising the format because it more closely resembles first-class cricket (no argument, it does, albeit not very much at all just more so than 20/20s), but that seems to be missing the point of the shortened game. 20/20s strengths & weaknesses are at least its own.

Click to expand...

Take a look at Langer and Cam' White's batting stats and tell me it's a batsman's game. Somerset have won 2 games out of 8 and only won tonight because of a tight penultimate over from Willoughby.

Scaly piscine said:

Take a look at Langer and Cam' White's batting stats and tell me it's a batsman's game. Somerset have won 2 games out of 8 and only won tonight because of a tight penultimate over from Willoughby.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that good bowling isn't crucial to success in the format, but I don't think any form of the game where the average score per over is (I'd guess) about 8 runs could serioulsy be said to be a bowlers' game.

BoyBrumby said:

I'm not saying that good bowling isn't crucial to success in the format, but I don't think any form of the game where the average score per over is (I'd guess) about 8 runs could serioulsy be said to be a bowlers' game.

Click to expand...

Similarly most bowlers would average under 20 (per wicket)... so I guess that would make it a bowler's game.

Scaly piscine said:

Similarly most bowlers would average under 20 (per wicket)... so I guess that would make it a bowler's game.

Click to expand...

Fair point actually, hadn't even thought about it. Although, without wishing to sound like Richard, taking wickets isn't necessary to win, is it?

Mind you I doubt any team ever has tho....

Both games are obviously inferior to tests but there have been some great one day matches, the one day format is essentialy a good one even if they play too many of them. A one day came can be pretty dull but it can also be a great specatle. 20twenty i dont really enjoy, it is a pretty limited game and its lenght means a lot of the greatness is cricket that is in tests and even in one dayer is lost.

Try and tell a bowler that Twenty20 is a bowler's game...

Scaly piscine said:

Similarly most bowlers would average under 20 (per wicket)... so I guess that would make it a bowler's game.

Click to expand...

Not really, as the wickets have no real bearing on the match, and bowlers simply don't bowl to take wickets in 20/20, they bowl to attempt not to concede runs. In an actual bowler's format, one mistake from the batsman and one wicket can turn a match, and a couple of them almost certainly will, if it is at all close. That's what makes it a bowler's format - bowlers have an ability to change the game by bowling well (taking wickets). Even in ODIs, an opening spell of, say, 2 wickets for any bowler is likely to have a big impact on the game for some time afterwards, as teams will generally slow the run rate in an attempt to avoid a major collapse, and will realise that if they lose another they could be in big trouble. In 20/20, 2 wickets in the opening over simply doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that one or two capable batsmen have been replaced, as the chances of being bowled out any significant time before the end of your innings are close to nil.

Basically, in 20/20 it's generally better to score at 8-10 an over and lose a wicket every 10 balls than score at 3-5 an over and not lose any. I think most people who don't enjoy 20/20 object to that as much as any other individual aspect of the game, because it is so divorced from the basic principles of cricket as to scarcely be the same game.

Anyway, to suggest that it is a bowler's format is so absurd it's actually quite difficult to imagine that you are serious about it. It does however bring to mind a Jason Gillespie quote from when he first signed for Yorkshire, when he said, "It (20/20) doesn't interest me. It brings new fans to the game and obviously it's quite popular, but for guys like me who can't bat or field there's really not much point, and I won't be playing it". Mind you, I believe he has actually been playing it, but the fact that he said publically that he didn't want to says a lot about how bowlers view the format.

steds said:

I give up. You don't seem to understand that Twenty20 games aren't the senseless slogging of every single ball, devout of any orthodox cricket or any strategy behind winning the game other than "swing the ****ing bat," and you aren't coming round any time soon. This is why Cricket Chat is so ****. Everyone has their own views and ideas, but everyone thinks their views and ideas are right. And they'll die to defend their "correct" views. There hasn't been a bigger pile of jizz than that last sentence of yours since Warnies last threesome, so give it a rest, will you.

Click to expand...

Ease up, and answer me this. How many match-winning knocks do you see in 20/20 cricket that are similar to that of Michael Bevan's in Jan 1 1996?

My argument is that people in this thread are arguing that 20/20 should be replaced by ODIs, which is beyond ludicrous. Mind you that doesn't mean it WON'T, because that may be the way cricket is heading, but we're arguing that it shouldn't be replaced. There's a hell of a lot of people saying cricket should have two formats, tests and 20/20, and some people don't want to lose ODI cricket, something they still enjoy. That's not rigid, that's just not wanting to lose a form of cricket some people love, and have grown up on.

BoyBrumby said:

However, the art of "bowling at the death" is recognised as a skill in ODs, what 20/20 does is effectively ask bowlers to spend their whole spell "at the death". Bowlers who go for fewer than six per over at the death in conventional OD stuff are rightly praised for it, to me it just seems churlish to criticise praise for economical 20/20 bowlers when they're effectively performing the same skill.

In the game I just watched Michael Yardy (part-time SLA) bowled a very decent spell of 4-0-21-0. Now if one thinks of that performance in conventional OD terms it doesn't look very flash at all, but if (say) Glenn McGrath sent down 4 overs at a bit over 5 per over with a team chasing over 9 per over I think he'd be (rightly) praised for it.

Click to expand...

But fundamentally, wickets are the most important and basic aspect of cricket. The batsman tries to hit the ball and get runs, the bowler tries to get the batsman out. Whilst wickets are not 100% necessary in ODIs, the opening bowlers still try and get wickets and attack with slips and gullies and catching fielders. By a bowler ripping out a Tendulkar or a Gilchrist early (say 1st over), it goes a long way to winning the game because there are 49 overs that they will not bat for. That's a long time.

In 20/20s, the depth of a batting team is less important because there are only 20 overs, and hence wickets are less desirable. Maybe bowling economically is a big part of the game, but for that to be the ultimate aim of all bowlers is fairly unexciting. In ODIs that is stil not the case as the opening bowlers are always looking to remove the opening batsman, not looking to make sure they don't hit a 4, with the wicket being a secondary thought.

FaaipDeOiad said:

Not really, as the wickets have no real bearing on the match, and bowlers simply don't bowl to take wickets in 20/20, they bowl to attempt not to concede runs. In an actual bowler's format, one mistake from the batsman and one wicket can turn a match, and a couple of them almost certainly will, if it is at all close. That's what makes it a bowler's format - bowlers have an ability to change the game by bowling well (taking wickets). Even in ODIs, an opening spell of, say, 2 wickets for any bowler is likely to have a big impact on the game for some time afterwards, as teams will generally slow the run rate in an attempt to avoid a major collapse, and will realise that if they lose another they could be in big trouble. In 20/20, 2 wickets in the opening over simply doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that one or two capable batsmen have been replaced, as the chances of being bowled out any significant time before the end of your innings are close to nil.

Click to expand...

I think I'll commit some pointless back-slapping, well said. Particularly this point.