20-20 and womens cricket

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by flat tyr » Wed, 25 May 2005 10:16:51


Dont know if this has been mentioned before.  20-20 is a great format
to get some action but may leave some cricket fans wanting more ie
those that like sitting through a whole one day match.  An idea would
be to put a womens 20-20 match straight after the mens match for those
cricket fans.  Plus we may get another popular womens sport to watch
out of it, like womens tennis.  Any comments ?
 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 25 May 2005 11:10:00


Quote:
> Dont know if this has been mentioned before.  20-20 is a great format
> to get some action but may leave some cricket fans wanting more ie
> those that like sitting through a whole one day match.  An idea would
> be to put a womens 20-20 match straight after the mens match for those
> cricket fans.  Plus we may get another popular womens sport to watch
> out of it, like womens tennis.  Any comments ?

Sounds like you need a two-innings 20-20 match (a 20-20-20-20 match).
Martin Crowe's Cricket Max was played over two innings (10 overs per
innings).

Andrew

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Colin Kynoc » Wed, 25 May 2005 11:28:30

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:10:00 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"

Ratchaser decided to post the following:

Quote:



>> Dont know if this has been mentioned before.  20-20 is a great format
>> to get some action but may leave some cricket fans wanting more ie
>> those that like sitting through a whole one day match.  An idea would
>> be to put a womens 20-20 match straight after the mens match for those
>> cricket fans.  Plus we may get another popular womens sport to watch
>> out of it, like womens tennis.  Any comments ?

>Sounds like you need a two-innings 20-20 match (a 20-20-20-20 match).
>Martin Crowe's Cricket Max was played over two innings (10 overs per
>innings).

We have gone from having only Test cricket.

then One Day Internationals were introduced.

Now International 20-20.

Next development in the progression is the two captains going out to
toss a coin to decide who wins the game, no play will be necessary.

Note: in this final format of the game any captain late to the toss
forfeits.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 25 May 2005 12:59:02


Quote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:10:00 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"

> Ratchaser decided to post the following:



> >> Dont know if this has been mentioned before.  20-20 is a great format
> >> to get some action but may leave some cricket fans wanting more ie
> >> those that like sitting through a whole one day match.  An idea would
> >> be to put a womens 20-20 match straight after the mens match for those
> >> cricket fans.  Plus we may get another popular womens sport to watch
> >> out of it, like womens tennis.  Any comments ?

> >Sounds like you need a two-innings 20-20 match (a 20-20-20-20 match).
> >Martin Crowe's Cricket Max was played over two innings (10 overs per
> >innings).

> We have gone from having only Test cricket.

> then One Day Internationals were introduced.

> Now International 20-20.

> Next development in the progression is the two captains going out to
> toss a coin to decide who wins the game, no play will be necessary.

> Note: in this final format of the game any captain late to the toss
> forfeits.

No, you're jumping the gun.  First we would need a format where each innings
consists of a single ball.

Andrew [looking forward to the nil-all draw]

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by TomInQ » Thu, 26 May 2005 18:18:15

Quote:
>From a spectator's perspective, I think you will find more people

willing to watch a 4 hour match 20-20 than an 8 hour ODI match, let
alone 5 days worth. I mean, who has time to watch cricket all day for 5
days, or even 8 hours in 1 day? I do prefer the ODI to the test series,
but I also think the 20-20 is too short. From a player's perspective,
20 overs is enough in the desert heat of Kuwait!

Funny comment on the coin toss.

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 26 May 2005 20:15:01


enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the
following:

Quote:
>>From a spectator's perspective, I think you will find more people
>willing to watch a 4 hour match 20-20 than an 8 hour ODI match,

I don't.

I think most people wouldn't be bothered to go and see a 40% ODI, and
prefer to make a day of it and go see a full ODI.

Quote:
> let alone 5 days worth.

Amazing then the attendances at Test matches particularly in countries
like Australia.

Quote:
> I mean, who has time to watch cricket all day for 5
>days, or even 8 hours in 1 day?

10,000's of people.

Quote:
> I do prefer the ODI to the test series,

I'm guessing you are of the Nintendo generation.

Quote:
>but I also think the 20-20 is too short. From a player's perspective,
>20 overs is enough in the desert heat of Kuwait!

>Funny comment on the coin toss.

A real game of cricket between two countries is scheduled over five
days.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Dave Taylo » Thu, 26 May 2005 20:25:18

I agree that in general (i.e. the mens' game) test cricket and ODIs are
still the best form of the game (I prefer ODIs but that's a matter of
preference, based basically on how much time you have (being at uni, not
much)).

The point being made was that womens' cricket needs a boost. 10000s of
people might go and watch the men play for 5 days, but the attendance at
womens' cricket is terrible. By putting Twenty20 games for women in
after the men, people will become used to watching the women and
hopefully will be encouraged to go and watch full ODIs and, eventually,
tests.

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Mike Holman » Thu, 26 May 2005 20:49:14

Quote:

> The point being made was that womens' cricket needs a boost. 10000s of
> people might go and watch the men play for 5 days, but the attendance at
> womens' cricket is terrible. By putting Twenty20 games for women in
> after the men, people will become used to watching the women and
> hopefully will be encouraged to go and watch full ODIs and, eventually,
> tests.

My, my, but you're optimistic, and you also have a funny idea about the
scheduling of support acts.

Imagine: you've just watched Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff
belting the Indian bowlers all round the park, with an equally
rumbustious reply from Sehwag and Agarkar.

Now you want to bring on the women, whose obvious lack of power will
graphically demonstrate how much less exciting women's cricket is as a
hit-and-giggle spectacle, and you expect that seeing this will
*encourage* people to go and see longer women's games?

The lack of brute strength tends to make women's tennis more
interesting than men's tennis, but with cricket it's the other way
around. Placing the two forms next to each other like that will only
make this uncomfortable fact more obvious.

Cheers,

Mike

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by flat tyr » Fri, 27 May 2005 03:16:31

Well I see some people hate the idea of 20-20.  Some like it.  I like
a good slogfest which is pretty much the last ten overs of a one day
game.  20-20 should extend that.  Personally I dont like too many
variations of a sport, but maybe it could be limited to 3 - less of
test matches (subtle -good for radio), same amount of one day matches
(good compromise), and say four 20-20 matches a year (for some real
e***ment - remember current future generation is the "now"
generation).  About the womens game.  I think womens tennis has almost
reached the power game level of mens tennis, but they still do things
differently.  The reduced power perhaps leading to a bit more
subtlety.  And anyway it would be a choice - those not interested
would turn off after the mens game.   It probably has a good chance
more of succeeding as a television sport than netball because men (and
women) already like cricket (in cricket playing countries).

________________________________________________________________
psuedonym based on little known comic book hero/vandal who could
flatten tires even while being flat tired himself.

_________________________________________________________________
On 25 May 2005 04:49:14 -0700, "Mike Holmans"

Quote:


>> The point being made was that womens' cricket needs a boost. 10000s of
>> people might go and watch the men play for 5 days, but the attendance at
>> womens' cricket is terrible. By putting Twenty20 games for women in
>> after the men, people will become used to watching the women and
>> hopefully will be encouraged to go and watch full ODIs and, eventually,
>> tests.

>My, my, but you're optimistic, and you also have a funny idea about the
>scheduling of support acts.

>Imagine: you've just watched Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff
>belting the Indian bowlers all round the park, with an equally
>rumbustious reply from Sehwag and Agarkar.

>Now you want to bring on the women, whose obvious lack of power will
>graphically demonstrate how much less exciting women's cricket is as a
>hit-and-giggle spectacle, and you expect that seeing this will
>*encourage* people to go and see longer women's games?

>The lack of brute strength tends to make women's tennis more
>interesting than men's tennis, but with cricket it's the other way
>around. Placing the two forms next to each other like that will only
>make this uncomfortable fact more obvious.

>Cheers,

>Mike

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Dave Taylo » Fri, 27 May 2005 03:27:38

Quote:

> Well I see some people hate the idea of 20-20.  Some like it.  I like
> a good slogfest which is pretty much the last ten overs of a one day
> game.  20-20 should extend that.  Personally I dont like too many
> variations of a sport, but maybe it could be limited to 3 - less of
> test matches (subtle -good for radio), same amount of one day matches
> (good compromise), and say four 20-20 matches a year (for some real
> e***ment - remember current future generation is the "now"
> generation).  About the womens game.  I think womens tennis has almost
> reached the power game level of mens tennis, but they still do things
> differently.  The reduced power perhaps leading to a bit more
> subtlety.  And anyway it would be a choice - those not interested
> would turn off after the mens game.   It probably has a good chance
> more of succeeding as a television sport than netball because men (and
> women) already like cricket (in cricket playing countries).

Hey! What's wrong with men playing netball?!

I definitely agree. Mens' cricket will inevitably be more popular, but
watching womens' games introduces variety (even if they don't have the
slogging strength of the men).

 
 
 

20-20 and womens cricket

Post by Colin Kynoc » Fri, 27 May 2005 07:53:25


enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the
following:

Quote:
>Well I see some people hate the idea of 20-20.  Some like it.  I like
>a good slogfest which is pretty much the last ten overs of a one day
>game.  20-20 should extend that.  Personally I dont like too many
>variations of a sport, but maybe it could be limited to 3 - less of
>test matches (subtle -good for radio), same amount of one day matches
>(good compromise), and say four 20-20 matches a year (for some real
>e***ment - remember current future generation is the "now"
>generation).

Try more Test matches, a few less ODO's and one token 20-20

<snip>

Colin Kynoch