Posts
Loading ...I am still old fashioned about the 50 over game. I think the 20 hour variety will be so frnetic as to be ‘ Not cricket’. In the 50 over game, at least there is a semblance to ‘cricketing’ strategy, cricketing shots and so on. with the 20 over game, it will be only a specatacle, not cricket, I am afraid. This reminds me a bit of those ‘ Hong kong Super sixes’ kind of cricket.
What;s seriously wrong with a 50 over game, I would like to know.
If 20 overs is the future of the game, I for one, shudder at the future.
Sudheer
RIP 50-over ODIs?
By Will 3 years ago, mid-February Leave a comment on this post
I’ve read a lot of discussion and articles on 20/20 lately, some suggesting this be the end of the “traditional” 50 over ODI format. I can’t see this happening myself, but I’m sure the effects of the Twenty Twenty game will creep into ODIs and, eventually, Tests. We’ve already witnessed teams, led by Australia, score quite comfortably at 4/over in the past 3 or 4 years - is it too outlandish to suggest 3/over is sluggish, nowadays? - and I doubt this “average scoring” will increase much in the next 3.
- England were bowled out for 190 in the first ever ODI, hitting only seven boundaries in 39.4 overs - with each over comprising eight deliveries
- Australia won comfortably by five wickets, but their top scorer Ian Chappell took 103 balls to make 60
But…Twenty Twenty, for all its gimmicks and tackiness, does stretch players’ capabilities; they have to invent new shots, be more creative in shot-placements and the “drive” (pardon the pun) to hit boundaries is now even stronger. It is these “mentalities” that could creep into the other forms of cricket if 20/20 continues to be played. Having said all that, and if I’m still blogging in 5 years, I might well have to eat my hat as we watch England score 500 in a day v Australia on day 1 of an Ashes series 
Much debate on Twenty Twenty here. Perhaps my biggest fear or annoyance is how Twenty Twenty makes Cricket even more of a batsman’s game than ever before….
Tags: twentytwenty |
6 Responses to “RIP 50-over ODIs?”
February 21st, 2005 at 5.39 am
February 21st, 2005 at 10.58 am
I agree, Sudheer - and I cannot see the 20/20 ever replacing the 50 over game. It’s a problem not only for us traditionalists (I don’t even care about ODIs much - Test Cricket is where it’s at, for me) but for administrators who are desperately seeking new ways to make the game more popular. That is certainly our experience in England where Cricket is not our “main sport” - it pales in the shadow of Football and 20/20 has been an absolute revelation in terms of attendance numbers.
February 21st, 2005 at 11.56 pm
I agree - Test Cricket is what matters - everything else be it 50-over stuff and 20-over stuff needs to be used simply for monetary purposes and to introduce new people particularly kids to cricket before they can graduate to the highest level. Now ODI cricket was getting too boring and one-sided (in favor of batsmen, in favor of teams batting first, in favor of Australia) so maybe the 20-20 version will help to correct this problem
February 23rd, 2005 at 11.36 pm
I think 20/20’s greatest impact is going to be in domestic rather than international cricket manly because of economics. Tests and ODIs are gettig good attendances around the world, but in several countries, not least England, domestic crikcet isn’t getting good attendances and as we’ve seen wherever it’s been tried it gives counties/provinces/states a nice source of income.
I suspect at international level 20/20 is going to become a kind of warm-up event for one-day series, as it was last week in New Zealand and will be again for the Ashes. It’s a good way to get a series off the ground - good for telly, excites the crowds, lets the players see the opposition in action - but teams don’t have to take it too seriously because it won’t affect any world rankings.
Plus, I think we’re in an era when batsmen are becoming more dominant mainly because there appear to be fewer dominant bowlers around than there used to be, plus better protection for batsmen means they can’t be as intimidated as they used to be. I suspect, though, that bowlers will adapt back sometime in the future.
February 25th, 2005 at 11.39 am
Nick you’re right about it becoming a precursor to an international season - and I think it could be great fun, and bring the cricket season into the forefront of people’s minds (which, as you point out, is essential in Britain these days, with Football gaining year-round coverage). I think the West Indies are perhaps having similar cricket-attention-deficit-disorders(!) in that Basketball, and America’s influence in general, has creeped into their lives. Australia, India and Pakistan don’t have this problem (to the same extent) - cricket’s definately number 1 in Australia (correct me if I’m wrong)
I’m interested in your thoughts on the domination of batsmen: bowlers get a rough deal. I personally can’t imagine the day where they can adapt and level the tables.
February 26th, 2005 at 8.20 am
The only variation where the bowler is in his elements is the Test cricket.
Otherwise in all the limited over varieties, the bowler is to be much pitied. In the 20 over version, they need not even bother naming the bowlers or giving bowling statistics; they will be there just to feed the predators.
You need a game which gives equal opportunity to all.
By the way, what do you think of Gavaskar’s suggestion of having a flexible fielding restriction for 15 overs ina 50 over ODI, as per the discretion of the batting side, e.g., at the beginining of the innings, in the middle or at the end?
Sudheer Tambe
Comments
« Jonty supports Pietersen | Main | Waugh votes Australia. Lever votes England. »
