[Archived] 20/20

[Flopsy]

or what he did to the Aussies.

Or Hayden's knock last night.

Nekoy, I agree with you, I think Test Cricket is by far the superior game, I love it. But for pure entertainment/enjoyment I think 20/20 has it in spades.

Its about bravery, bravery for the batsman to throw his bat at it, but also bravery of the bowler to use his head and be clever. The best bowlers in domestic 20/20 are the spinenrs and slower bowlers, because they mean that the batsmen have to do all the work them selves.

I saw Murili bowl at Edgbaston in the quarters, and his first 3 overs were 3overs, 0maidens, 9 runs, 3 wickets. The guy was awesome.

50 over cricket by contrast is usually dull.

[broadsword]

L:ancs v Essex in the Natwest a few years back ... now that was a decent game!

Apparently Yuvraj missed a game because of tennis elbow ... I can believe it!

[neekoy]

50 over cricket by contrast is usually dull.

50 over cricket is just supposed to be a shortened version of the long game, not a new game altogether.

There has to be something said for the batsman V bowler battle, this can only been seen at it's best when both have longer to go at each other then 5 overs.

[Sydney Rovers]

Baseball'as got to be one of teh most tedious games going.

Got to agree, when I was in New York a few years ago I went out to Yankees game with some fellow Aussie and all we did was talk about cricket as the game was so dull.

[Flopsy]

20/20.....hmmmm it's not for the purists judging from the remarks on this thread but I think those who dismiss 20/20 are missing the point. To answer the question, "Does anyone care?" No, I don't care what the outcome is, but then I don't really care about the outcome of any sporting event outside of Ewood Park. Parochial? Moi?

My youngest enjoys playing and watching cricket, and Tom, the middle one loves to watch any live sport. When 20 / 20 was introduced I decided I really should take the youngest to watch Lancashire, I've dragged him to EP for 10 years so now we should watch his favourite sport. To cut a long story short, since watching the first 20 / 20 match at Old Trafford we have taken out two memberships, watched the majority of 20 / 20 games played at OT, been to some Pro 40, seen Lancashire in the C&G final, watched England / Australia at OT plus a couple of other tests. Bought shirts, mini bats, autograph books, beer, tea, coffee, chips etc. We go with some friends usually, this makes 5 people who never went to watch live cricket who now attend regularly.

Is 20 / 20 good entertainment and successful in attracting new fans to the game? 100% Yes. This is the point of 20 /20 and it works.

Is 20 / 20 real cricket? Probably not. Do I understand real cricket? If you think telling a woman about offside is tricky try telling non-cricket people about "silly mid-off", "deep extra cover", "fine legs" (are we talking men or women), "third man" (is this a spy thriller?). The mythology of cricket needed to be exploded if it was to attract a new audience. Basically it was / is a very boring game for the uncommitted and unless someone introduced you to the finer detail almost impossible to follow. The comparison with baseball stands up in a different way than was intended by the poster. To people like me baseball and cricket are basically the same - man throws ball at man with bat, man with bat hits ball and runs. For anyone unfamiliar with the game's nuances this is what it boils down to.

I still don't know what happens at deep square leg but I enjoy a day at Old Trafford and spend money while I'm there.

I'd suggest that you have a look at Armball to Zooter, written by Lawrence Booth an AtoZ of Cricketing terms. Rather good.

Arm-ball to Zooter

[Timmy]

I'm a big fan of test cricket, but I have loved the T20 world cup.

It's amazing that England where more T20 cricket is played than anywhere else failed badly, but Pakistan and India, who have up to know shunned this form of the game ended up in the final.

Well done to India-the outstanding team

After the fiasco of the 50 over world cup back in the spring, it has repaired some of the damage (well done to the ICC-I did'nt expect to be saying that). Here are a few things the ICC should take note that have come out of the T20 world cup

1. Keep it short by playing more than 1 game a day. No more 7 week world cup (Rugby world cup take note-this is far to long as well)

2. Set prices so that locals can afford it. U may pay top price to see eng vs aus but zim vs kenya?

3. Keep minnows to a few. Nodody likes dud games

4. Keep all matches in one country (I know this is diffrent in the west indies, but whats the point of playing matches in kenya or zim like in 2003 world cup and all that trouble it caused)

[Eddie]

1. Keep it short by playing more than 1 game a day. No more 7 week world cup (Rugby world cup take note-this is far to long as well)

The rugby world cup doesn't really have a choice. You can't really expect players to play international tests twice in the space of only a few days. They need time off between games.

[blue phil]

May I be the first to congratulate India on their victory over Pakistan - just a pity it wasn't on a bit later in the day ; sounded a great game

[Timmy]

The rugby world cup doesn't really have a choice. You can't really expect players to play international tests twice in the space of only a few days. They need time off between games.

Agreed but the rugby world cup goes on for 6 weeks with about 20 teams in it, whilst the footie world cup is over in 4 weeks with more teams in it, can rugby players only play once a week?

[Eddie]

Yes. The physical impact of the game means that players need more time to recover. Reducing the number of teams in the tournament would mean that none of the smaller nations would have a chance. The format has to stay as it is.