20-20 is good

20-20 is good

Post by R » Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:22:41


I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:

1. Time: Amazing time-saver. There used to be a time i used to sit
through the onedayers but not anymore. Many of the games seem
monotonous to me except for some close games. I would rather prefer
a game which gets over in 3 to 4 hours. I would definitely go to the
stadium to watch it.

2. All-round ability: If there's one game thats going to promote
allround
ability in Cricket, thats going to be 20-20. Because of the quick
nature
of the game, you need players who can think well and produce magic
balls
to dismantle hard-hitting players. Taking wickets will assume more
importance
than simple monotonous run-restriction. Most batsmen should be able to
bowl
and most bowlers should be able to hit hard in this format.

Though it will degrade fielding abilities(because of so many
boundaries)
which assumed great importance in the early 90s with the rising
popularity
of the oneday game then, it will promote boundary saving abilities
better
than any other game. We can expect to see great dives to save
boundaries that will become more important. And anyway nowadays
fielding has become less
significant in the onedayers what with absolutely flat dead tracks
being produced unlike the 90s because the batsmen can expect to win
the game
more often even with a reqd. RR of over 7 in the middle of the game.

I don't think it should replace the oneday format, it should be
officially
introduced into a series (as  1 or 2 games in the 5 game oneday
series) in a year or so.

RJ

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by Will » Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:43:33


Quote:
>I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:

it will become boring because it will just be one big slog

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by dechuck » Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:09:56


Quote:



>>I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:

> it will become boring because it will just be one big slog

than we can make it more exciting by developing 15-15 cricket than when this
gets to slow for some peoples 10-10 cricket than 5-5 cricket etc etc

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by headkas » Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:51:11



Quote:





>>>I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:

>> it will become boring because it will just be one big slog

> than we can make it more exciting by developing 15-15 cricket than
> when this gets to slow for some peoples 10-10 cricket than 5-5 cricket
> etc etc

and 5 to a side, no wicket keeper and like back yard cricket if you edge it
behind you is automatically out.
 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by nishant.. » Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:42:10

http://cricket.deepthi.com/Twenty20-cricket-Twenty-20.html

Here we have two comments, one by Holding and another by Gavaskar.
One hates it, thinks it will destroy cricket and its stylish batting as
twenty20 needs slogging more than style!! Guess who said that?!

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by Larry de Silv » Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:03:03


Quote:
> I think 20-20 should be given a chance for the following reasons:

> 1. Time: Amazing time-saver. There used to be a time i used to sit
> through the onedayers but not anymore. Many of the games seem
> monotonous to me except for some close games. I would rather prefer
> a game which gets over in 3 to 4 hours. I would definitely go to the
> stadium to watch it.

> 2. All-round ability: If there's one game thats going to promote
> allround
> ability in Cricket, thats going to be 20-20. Because of the quick
> nature
> of the game, you need players who can think well and produce magic
> balls
> to dismantle hard-hitting players. Taking wickets will assume more
> importance
> than simple monotonous run-restriction. Most batsmen should be able to
> bowl
> and most bowlers should be able to hit hard in this format.

> Though it will degrade fielding abilities(because of so many
> boundaries)
> which assumed great importance in the early 90s with the rising
> popularity
> of the oneday game then, it will promote boundary saving abilities
> better
> than any other game. We can expect to see great dives to save
> boundaries that will become more important. And anyway nowadays
> fielding has become less
> significant in the onedayers what with absolutely flat dead tracks
> being produced unlike the 90s because the batsmen can expect to win
> the game
> more often even with a reqd. RR of over 7 in the middle of the game.

> I don't think it should replace the oneday format, it should be
> officially
> introduced into a series (as  1 or 2 games in the 5 game oneday
> series) in a year or so.

> RJ

Seriously, 22-20 is such a batsman's game, why the need for bowlers rolling
there arms just to be slogged around for four overs? Why not have a bowling
machine set on random speed and deliveries doing the dirty work?

Laz

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by headkas » Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:58:15


Quote:
> http://cricket.deepthi.com/Twenty20-cricket-Twenty-20.html

> Here we have two comments, one by Holding and another by Gavaskar.
> One hates it, thinks it will destroy cricket and its stylish batting as
> twenty20 needs slogging more than style!! Guess who said that?!

i agree with Holding.  
 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:45:06



<snip>

Quote:
> Seriously, 22-20 is such a batsman's game

<snip>

I rather fancy the sound of this new-fangled 22-20 thing.  What are the
rules?

Andrew

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by Aditya Basru » Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:39:37

Quote:



> <snip>

> > Seriously, 22-20 is such a batsman's game

> <snip>

> I rather fancy the sound of this new-fangled 22-20 thing.  What are
the
> rules?

22 players across both teams, 20 overs each.

Aditya

 
 
 

20-20 is good

Post by Larry de Silv » Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:11:40


Quote:




> > <snip>

> > > Seriously, 22-20 is such a batsman's game

> > <snip>

> > I rather fancy the sound of this new-fangled 22-20 thing.  What are
> the
> > rules?

> 22 players across both teams, 20 overs each.

Nearly right. But as I was thinking of a game between Australia and
Pakistan, I just merely added the two umpires who usually play for
Australia..........................:-)

Laz

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Aditya