PDA

View Full Version : Your view on Twenty20 cricket


Miraz
July 9, 2007, 11:17 AM
With Twenty20 world championship within sight, I am opening this thread to find our our members vision about the newest version of the game.

Is it the commercial version of cricket and will ultimately ruin the game's purity or it's a timely innovation to spread cricket all over the world and prevent it from dying?

Share your thoughts and vote in the poll.

SS
July 9, 2007, 11:28 AM
All I know our players will play really good in Twenty20. They love picnic cricket and scoring 4's and 6's. Our players do not understand the concept of innovation, destination, harmness, preserving cricket purity, globalization.

ialbd
July 9, 2007, 11:31 AM
i see twenty20 trying to globalize the cricket, which is nothing bad (probably some mlb baseball players can join us for semo 20-20), as long as the original cricket (ODI, test) remains same. Its the new rules (free hit after a no-ball type sh**), and experimenting with ODIs to make it more 'interesting' that pisses me off. Why cant they just try all those new rules in 20-20....

Omio
July 9, 2007, 11:40 AM
I dont like 20/20,
Its going to kill oneday cricket.

rah
July 9, 2007, 12:10 PM
no 20 20 is the future some people say. it will get a larger mass of fan into da game.
people say it will do wonders for the test game but it will surely kill out the oneday game especially s the icc are experimenting wiv the odi game wiv innoaations from 2020 such as the free hit rule. but surely it will globalise the game.... but at what risk

Murad
July 9, 2007, 12:19 PM
20/20 is to murder the bowlers and give happiness to the batsmen

theres nothing for the bowlers..... bowlers will get thrashed and it will frustrate them.. this game is totally for the batsmen to hit 4's n 6's and entertain the audiences.... i don't see anything cool in this version of game.. i feel sorry for the bowlers...

Sohel
July 9, 2007, 01:13 PM
The only good thing about 20/20 "cricket"? We have better chances here than anywhere else.

mali007
July 9, 2007, 01:14 PM
It is for young physically fit players . You need '' MARKUTAY" batsman. Oldies like Dravid, Sachin and Ganguly are out of Indian team. So, BD selectors should emphasize on young blood for the upcoming twenty 20 WC.

Murad
July 9, 2007, 01:18 PM
It is for young physically fit players . You need '' MARKUTAY" batsman. Oldies like Dravid, Sachin and Ganguly are out of Indian team. So, BD selectors should emphasize on young blood for the upcoming twenty 20 WC.

we dont have old players.. we have all young players except Rafiq n Bashar..

Bashar is already out and he'll never be considered for 20/20 in his life.. so we don't have to follow india..

Sovik
July 9, 2007, 01:23 PM
could be the next big thing. but personally i don't like the idea. it will work better in USA, Ireland and other countries who think cricket is long boring game

Ahmed_B
July 9, 2007, 01:37 PM
One day cricket probably faced lots of criticisms in the beginning from the 'purists'. Anything new that comes in the sphere is never without controversy. As long as too much of 20/20 is not played for money-earning purpose, I believe it will do a lot to spread Cricket in the non-cricketing countries.

mali007
July 9, 2007, 01:55 PM
we dont have old players.. we have all young players except Rafiq n Bashar..

Bashar is already out and he'll never be considered for 20/20 in his life.. so we don't have to follow india..
Thats mean JO will be in the team !!!!

Sovik
July 9, 2007, 02:01 PM
Thats mean JO will be in the team !!!!

ha ha, was that a joke?

Murad
July 9, 2007, 02:05 PM
Thats mean JO will be in the team !!!!

man.. did u see the team of our first 20/20 match??? it will be similar to that..and this time ASh willl be included..

i didnt say that JO will be in the team.. hes in 50/50 team as we dont have another opener.. or as other openers are off form...

Ahmed_B
July 9, 2007, 02:20 PM
BTW... we can consider BD teams WC match against AUS (21 ovrs) as how we might do in 20/20 against good teams. :)

cricketboy
July 9, 2007, 02:59 PM
When 50 over matches came people must have said the same that "it is not real cricket" but now one day cricket is as important as test matches. So, 20-20 is a good addition with the other cricket but it should be limited and it shouldnt replace 50 overs cricket.

mali007
July 9, 2007, 03:08 PM
BTW... we can consider BD teams WC match against AUS (21 ovrs) as how we might do in 20/20 against good teams. :)
Good point. That might happen !!!!! Under Gail's leadership West Indies looks formidable ODI team and we are in the same group with SA and WI!!!

Tigers_eye
July 9, 2007, 03:08 PM
BTW... we can consider BD teams WC match against AUS (21 ovrs) as how we might do in 20/20 against good teams. :)
Yet we are ranked 2nd behind them. Feeling so proud, lol. :D

patriot
July 9, 2007, 03:09 PM
For those who feel sorry for the bowlers , please watch Bangladesh bat in a test match after watching a Twenty20.

Nafis_BD
July 9, 2007, 03:12 PM
i see twenty20 trying to globalize the cricket, which is nothing bad (probably some mlb baseball players can join us for semo 20-20), as long as the original cricket (ODI, test) remains same. Its the new rules (free hit after a no-ball type sh**), and experimenting with ODIs to make it more 'interesting' that pisses me off. Why cant they just try all those new rules in 20-20....

Absolutely what I think of Twenty20 cricket!!!

Nocturnal
July 9, 2007, 03:36 PM
twenty20 = gulli cricket :D

Fazal
July 9, 2007, 03:38 PM
One day ....(and that day is not too far) will be the most popular form of cricket by-passing ODI. And ofcourse it will be at the cost of ODI popularity. TEST's popularity will stay the same.

sandpiper
July 9, 2007, 03:50 PM
I also feel so. With the propagation of 20-20, the popularity of the current version of one day cricket will fall off for sure. Some ppl are lamenting for the bowler's cause as the 20-20 is apparantly a batsmen's game. But I think bowlers have a fair chance of taking wickets in this version as the whole match retains a slogging tempo. Their economy rate will be hampered though. 20-20 is more like a gamble, kind of muscle cricket, its neither that elegant gentleman's test cricket nor the pajama cricket. Grammatical cricket will find little application in 20-20.
But it would be able to attract spectators more often than any other version of cricket.

One day ....(and that day is not too far) will be the most popular form of cricket by-passing ODI. And ofcourse it will be at the cost of ODI popularity. TEST's popularity will stay the same.

Dhruvo
July 9, 2007, 04:01 PM
I also feel so. With the propagation of 20-20, the popularity of the current version of one day cricket will fall off for sure. Some ppl are lamenting for the bowler's cause as the 20-20 is apparantly a batsmen's game. But I think bowlers have a fair chance of taking wickets in this version as the whole match retains a slogging tempo. Their economy rate will be hampered though. 20-20 is more like a gamble, kind of muscle cricket, its neither that elegant gentleman's test cricket nor the pajama cricket. Grammatical cricket will find little application in 20-20.
But it would be able to attract spectators more often than any other version of cricket.

I do not agree,although you are right about the bowlers.

sandpiper
July 9, 2007, 04:08 PM
I didnt vote the fourth option, because I couldnt understand what Miraz bhai is trying to say as "purity of cricket". I doubt, some juntas in cricketing world also raised similar questions during early eighties, when Kary Paker's pajama cricket brought an huge commercial success. But it is clear that only limited overs cricket was successful to catch the attention of more nations. it was able to emulate that longer version. So I feel, there is no such thing as "pure". Everything will change with time.

cricketboy
July 9, 2007, 09:42 PM
I think most Bangladeshi players are more suited to this kind of cricket than any other. I have high hopes that players like Tamim, Aftab, Ashraful, Junaid, Mashrafe, Rafique, Razzak, Rasel will do well, and I want Bangladesh to lift the 20-20 world cup(or atleast go to the semis).;)

cricket_king
July 9, 2007, 09:49 PM
I am very much against 20/20. Not only is it killing one day cricket, it's also making cricket more and more of a bowlers game. Some people here think this is the best chance bangladesh have got to winning a whole tournament. There is simply no way our bowlers will stand any chance against quality opposition looking to tear us apart.

Face it - we haven't produced bowlers who can play under such pressure. Mashrafe is a perfect example. I won't even start on shahadat let alone rasel.
As for the batsman, only a select few will be able to do well in my opinion. Ashraful, aftab and tamim are all used to playing little cameos, and yes, if they click, we can win the match with those 3 alone. But if they don't, and up against quality opposition, we're done for.

Tokyobreeze
July 9, 2007, 10:09 PM
Only few nations play cricket. Cricket should be spreaded more and more. Specially in the European countries and countries like Japan, China, Korea etc. People are not interested about cricket in these countries specially because it takes a lot of time to watch cricket, even the shorter versions (not to mention takes a lot of time to play it too - arranging leagues and so on are related). I personally think 20/20 is a good and timely innovation to spread the game through out the world.

One World
July 9, 2007, 11:12 PM
I think cricket is a culture rather than it is a timely game or anything. Very few nations were able to adopt that culture.

Anher
July 9, 2007, 11:31 PM
who understand cricket like the TEST most. When i started to watch cricket i only liked ODI. Test Cricket used to seem long, boring cricket to me. As i started to follwoing and understanding the cricket Test cricket took my most favourate place. I like the globalization of Cricket. ICC took a good attempt to attract nations in cricket . I want to see 30 teams competiting for Cricket WC like soccer. Hence 20-20 is brave idea to bring the peoples into cricket first. As they continue to understand cricket the taste of original Test cricket will remain same.

Surfer
July 10, 2007, 12:27 AM
Older people tell me that a similar debate had started when one-day cricket started. Some people thought that one-day cricket would kill test cricket. But we see now that what happened was for good.

T-20 will help the game grow. Not many countries are capable of or interested in playing a game for an entire day (forget five days). They will get a version that they can take up. So, T-20 has its own importance.

As far as commercialization is concerned, one should observe BCCI. BCCI didnt show any interest in T-20 till late and was the biggest opposer of a T-20 world cup. Shows that BCCI sees more money in one-day cricket than in T-20. One day cricket has 100 overs- more air time, more ads and hence more money. The sub continent viewers are ready to watch a 50 over matches leaving all work and hence at the end of the day, in the subcontinent, one-day cricket makes more money than T-20. If T-20 gets more popular in future, air time will reduce and even higher media rates would not sum up as much money as an India-Australia one-day match. So, commericialization is not exactly backing up T-20 as of now.

Personally, as a cricket fan, I dont like T-20. My most favorite form of the game remains test cricket. I also enjoy watching one-dayers. Even though I dont exactly hate it either, my view remains that its not good cricket.

Nocturnal
July 10, 2007, 12:51 AM
good post Surfer :)

Faisal
July 10, 2007, 01:17 AM
i like 20 20, its hype

Tintin
July 10, 2007, 01:35 AM
i see twenty20 trying to globalize the cricket, which is nothing bad (probably some mlb baseball players can join us for semo 20-20), as long as the original cricket (ODI, test) remains same. Its the new rules (free hit after a no-ball type sh**), and experimenting with ODIs to make it more 'interesting' that pisses me off. Why cant they just try all those new rules in 20-20....

I am a "purist" who prefer Tests to the shorter version but cricket needs to cater to all sorts of fans. As long as Test cricket is kept "pure", they can do whatever they want with the rest, if there are fans who like it. (I also think the "globalisation" is a bit of a joke, though).

nobody
July 10, 2007, 04:30 AM
this is not popularity contest. Globalization and all others are crap. So is 20/20. Success breed popularity. That is the fact. If USA /China/ Japan suddenly become a good cricketing nation then we do not need 20/20 or all those crap to popularize it. Otherswise 5/5 would not work.

Sohel
July 10, 2007, 04:43 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again-

"Test cricket for me has always been a layered novel that unfolds at its own pace and reveals the truth underneath, often about myself. An ODI is like a well knit short story with a beginning, a middle, and the end – and a 20/20 match is something akin to watching a crappy sitcom because there’s nothing better to veg-out to."

Spitfire_x86
July 10, 2007, 08:35 AM
20-20 should die. Footballization of cricket is intolerable.

Tigers_eye
July 10, 2007, 08:41 AM
The affect of ODI can only be seen now. 220 - 240 per day (90 overs) are long gone. Wickets also falls cause players wants to stroke more. There are more results than draws. If 20/20 gets a full fledgedly practice runs in the major domestic leagues, then five day test will be unnecessary. For certain within few years there will be a call for 4 day test. Sometimes, we can see the trend and guess the consequences.

Is that good and bad, I don't know. We can't survive 4 days anyway.