• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why is everyone so against 20/20?

FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
To boil things down as simply as possible, since Scaly has done the same:

People don't like 20/20 because it's a perversion of the game of cricket at a core level. Where other forms of cricket are based around a contest between bat and ball, tempered by minor rule infringements and conditions and skill alone, 20/20 removes that in favour of the sort of mindless slogging that entertains people who don't know or appreciate the sport. It removes the length of the game which tests the concentration and application of players to ensure that batsmen never have to stop slogging, and so that something which would appear exciting to those who don't understand the sport would be happening at all times. The kind of people who like 20/20 are usually the same sort of people that only watch ODIs when there's 70 needed off the last 10 overs of a match, and to whom test cricket as a whole is boring. They are also the same crowd who complain that bouncers are unfair because they are difficult for batsmen to hit, and that the most exciting ODIs are by default those with the largest scores.

20/20 is also terribly dull to people who actually apprecaite the subtleties of the sport because of these reasons. While seeing someone hit a six has its own appeal, it's really only worthwhile within the context of a fair contest, and 20/20 is boring compared to a proper game of cricket for the same reason the home run derby isn't the most exciting game of the baseball season. Anyone who wants to see a batsman build a long innings, have an exciting tussle with good bowling, some attacking captaincy and field placings by the fielding team, a bowler working to a plan over a spell, the value of wickets over mere economical bowling, or wicket preservation over mere rapid scoring (under any circumstances), or momentum shifts over the course of a single match need not bother with 20/20.

One can only conclude that the reason so many English and South African people on this forum are 20/20 fans is because they had the earliest exposure to the format, and English fans in particular see 20/20 as "their" form of the game, and any successful distribution of the format to other nations would be a victory for English cricket. Plus, of course, England are terrible at ODI cricket. Fans in Australia, New Zealand and the subcontinent tend to approach 20/20 from a more balanced perspective, having no particular bias as to its quality or lack thereof based on its invention, and have thus judged the format on its merits in the seasons where it has been played domestically and internationally in those nations. So obviously, there's far more fans from those countries than from England who don't like the format.

Hope that summed it up fairly.
 
Last edited:
chaminda_00

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
The thing that i don't get is when people say that Twenty20 isn't a contest between bat and bowl, then go onto to say ODIs is a real contest between bat and ball. I know in Australia most the matches have been played on roads, so the bowlers haven't had much chances. But in Sri Lanka alot of matches have been played in more bowler friendly pitches and its been shown there that you can have a contest between bat and bowl in Twenty20 Cricket. IMO the pitches are more to do with the lack of contest between bat and bowl, then the format itself.

I have no issue with people saying the games are too short and the best part of cricket is its longetivity(sp). But how can you honestly say that ODIs are any better in this regard. Its once in a blue moon you get innings like Jayawardene (in the Semi Final) where a batsmen actually build a innings, rather then just slogs/hits out from ball one. I've seen players like Brad Hodge play similar innings in Twenty20 matches.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
To boil things down as simply as possible, since Scaly has done the same:

People don't like 20/20 because it's a perversion of the game of cricket at a core level. Where other forms of cricket are based around a contest between bat and ball, tempered by minor rule infringements and conditions and skill alone, 20/20 removes that in favour of the sort of mindless slogging that entertains people who don't know or appreciate the sport. It removes the length of the game which tests the concentration and application of players to ensure that batsmen never have to stop slogging, and so that something which would appear exciting to those who don't understand the sport would be happening at all times. The kind of people who like 20/20 are usually the same sort of people that only watch ODIs when there's 70 needed off the last 10 overs of a match, and to whom test cricket as a whole is boring. They are also the same crowd who complain that bouncers are unfair because they are difficult for batsmen to hit, and that the most exciting ODIs are by default those with the largest scores.

20/20 is also terribly dull to people who actually apprecaite the subtleties of the sport because of these reasons. While seeing someone hit a six has its own appeal, it's really only worthwhile within the context of a fair contest, and 20/20 is boring compared to a proper game of cricket for the same reason the home run derby isn't the most exciting game of the baseball season. Anyone who wants to see a batsman build a long innings, have an exciting tussle with good bowling, some attacking captaincy and field placings by the fielding team, a bowler working to a plan over a spell, the value of wickets over mere economical bowling, or wicket preservation over mere rapid scoring (under any circumstances), or momentum shifts over the course of a single match need not bother with 20/20.

One can only conclude that the reason so many English and South African people on this forum are 20/20 fans is because they had the earliest exposure to the format, and English fans in particular see 20/20 as "their" form of the game, and any successful distribution of the format to other nations would be a victory for English cricket. Plus, of course, England are terrible at ODI cricket. Fans in Australia, New Zealand and the subcontinent tend to approach 20/20 from a more balanced perspective, having no particular bias as to its quality or lack thereof based on its invention, and have thus judged the format on its merits in the seasons where it has been played domestically and internationally in those nations. So obviously, there's far more fans from those countries than from England who don't like the format.

Hope that summed it up fairly.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping::clapping:
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
The thing is Twenty20 is not taken seriously by a lot players across the world, its a format which was introduced to attract larger crowds and viewership across television.

Its a compact form of 50 over game and its most important aim is to provide non-stop entertainment.


So one should go for a Twenty20 game just to have a good time rather than taking it too seriously.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
pup11 said:
The thing is Twenty20 is not taken seriously by a lot players across the world, its a format which was introduced to attract larger crowds and viewership across television.

Its a compact form of 50 over game and its most important aim is to provide non-stop entertainment.


So one should go for a Twenty20 game just to have a good time rather than taking it too seriously.
Click to expand...
When I read this post I had flashbacks of the Marshall twins affros when we played our first 20/20 against Aussie.
 
LA ICE-E

LA ICE-E

State Captain
I like 20/20's it's pretty exciting but only problem is they try to make it "all bat" game with nothing in it for the bowlers. It would be good if they gave something for the bowlers too than it be quick sixes and wickets which is more fun than just sixes.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
FaaipDeOiad said:
To boil things down as simply as possible, since Scaly has done the same:

People don't like 20/20 because it's a perversion of the game of cricket at a core level. Where other forms of cricket are based around a contest between bat and ball, tempered by minor rule infringements and conditions and skill alone, 20/20 removes that in favour of the sort of mindless slogging that entertains people who don't know or appreciate the sport. It removes the length of the game which tests the concentration and application of players to ensure that batsmen never have to stop slogging, and so that something which would appear exciting to those who don't understand the sport would be happening at all times. The kind of people who like 20/20 are usually the same sort of people that only watch ODIs when there's 70 needed off the last 10 overs of a match, and to whom test cricket as a whole is boring. They are also the same crowd who complain that bouncers are unfair because they are difficult for batsmen to hit, and that the most exciting ODIs are by default those with the largest scores.

20/20 is also terribly dull to people who actually apprecaite the subtleties of the sport because of these reasons. While seeing someone hit a six has its own appeal, it's really only worthwhile within the context of a fair contest, and 20/20 is boring compared to a proper game of cricket for the same reason the home run derby isn't the most exciting game of the baseball season. Anyone who wants to see a batsman build a long innings, have an exciting tussle with good bowling, some attacking captaincy and field placings by the fielding team, a bowler working to a plan over a spell, the value of wickets over mere economical bowling, or wicket preservation over mere rapid scoring (under any circumstances), or momentum shifts over the course of a single match need not bother with 20/20.

One can only conclude that the reason so many English and South African people on this forum are 20/20 fans is because they had the earliest exposure to the format, and English fans in particular see 20/20 as "their" form of the game, and any successful distribution of the format to other nations would be a victory for English cricket. Plus, of course, England are terrible at ODI cricket. Fans in Australia, New Zealand and the subcontinent tend to approach 20/20 from a more balanced perspective, having no particular bias as to its quality or lack thereof based on its invention, and have thus judged the format on its merits in the seasons where it has been played domestically and internationally in those nations. So obviously, there's far more fans from those countries than from England who don't like the format.

Hope that summed it up fairly.
Click to expand...
:notworthy Afridi :notworthy
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
Reckon SP has me on ignore... He's almost never responds to anything I write. Great posting by Fuller...
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
FaaipDeOiad said:
To boil things down as simply as possible, since Scaly has done the same:

People don't like 20/20 because it's a perversion of the game of cricket at a core level. Where other forms of cricket are based around a contest between bat and ball, tempered by minor rule infringements and conditions and skill alone, 20/20 removes that in favour of the sort of mindless slogging that entertains people who don't know or appreciate the sport. It removes the length of the game which tests the concentration and application of players to ensure that batsmen never have to stop slogging, and so that something which would appear exciting to those who don't understand the sport would be happening at all times. The kind of people who like 20/20 are usually the same sort of people that only watch ODIs when there's 70 needed off the last 10 overs of a match, and to whom test cricket as a whole is boring. They are also the same crowd who complain that bouncers are unfair because they are difficult for batsmen to hit, and that the most exciting ODIs are by default those with the largest scores.

20/20 is also terribly dull to people who actually apprecaite the subtleties of the sport because of these reasons. While seeing someone hit a six has its own appeal, it's really only worthwhile within the context of a fair contest, and 20/20 is boring compared to a proper game of cricket for the same reason the home run derby isn't the most exciting game of the baseball season. Anyone who wants to see a batsman build a long innings, have an exciting tussle with good bowling, some attacking captaincy and field placings by the fielding team, a bowler working to a plan over a spell, the value of wickets over mere economical bowling, or wicket preservation over mere rapid scoring (under any circumstances), or momentum shifts over the course of a single match need not bother with 20/20.

One can only conclude that the reason so many English and South African people on this forum are 20/20 fans is because they had the earliest exposure to the format, and English fans in particular see 20/20 as "their" form of the game, and any successful distribution of the format to other nations would be a victory for English cricket. Plus, of course, England are terrible at ODI cricket. Fans in Australia, New Zealand and the subcontinent tend to approach 20/20 from a more balanced perspective, having no particular bias as to its quality or lack thereof based on its invention, and have thus judged the format on its merits in the seasons where it has been played domestically and internationally in those nations. So obviously, there's far more fans from those countries than from England who don't like the format.

Hope that summed it up fairly.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, but do have to take slight issue with the bit I highlighted. It's true we did initiate the format, but equally we also devised the longer-form & the original one-day game back in 1963. I don't see that the global domination of 20/20 would be any more of a victory for us than anyone from any other country playing any form of the sport. I don't think anyone has even made that argument apart from a few chippy kiwi-mutterings about how Max Cricket got shafted.

I think I've also mentioned before that we're proving ourselves to be no less dire at 20/20 internationally (1 win in 4) than we are at ODIs, so that doesn't really hold water either.

I personally think the reason some people prefer ODIs to 20/20 (aside from the other arguments you've outlined so well) is simply the length of time the format has been played. The very fact that ODIs are still being played over 35 years after the first one has granted them legitimacy that 20/20 (not 4 years since the first match) does not yet have. Very few posters on here could remember a time when ODIs weren't an addendum to any test tour now & this has possibly obscured the fact the fact that the one-day format is every bit as much a bastardized version of cricket as 20/20 is. One-day cricket has now acquired its own culture & language (pinch-hitting, bowling at the death) and is embedded in the cricketing psyche.

I'm only guessing, but I don't think it's too much of a leap to imagine that cricket fans 35 years ago were as equally divided on the introduction of one-day games to the international arena as we are now to 20/20 getting its head. We can be a conservative lot, us cricket fans, so it's a wonder the shorter form took hold as it has because the arguments for the longer game against ODIs as a lot more compelling than the arguments for ODIs over 20/20 (IMHO obviously). As yer interweb-thingy didn't exist to any meaningful degree back then some contemporary journalism might be illuminating on this point.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
chaminda_00 said:
I can't find vaild reason why '79, '87 and '96 World Cups were of poor quality.
Click to expand...
Well one person has argued the case for '87 and '96, but I can't believe anyone would for '79, it was truly awful according to near enough everything I've ever heard of it (which, revealingly, is not-a-lot).
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
Excellent post, but do have to take slight issue with the bit I highlighted.
Click to expand...
I don't think Fuller was actually being 100% serious about that - just trying to imitate the patronising nature of EX*ahem*You-Know-Who's sentiments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top