View Full Version : ODI Cricket or Twenty20

January 19, 2009, 05:58 AM
Which limited over format do you prefer ODI's or T20's? With the emergence of Twenty20 in the last few years the ODI format is under pressure. But the last couple games between South Africa and Australia as well as the Bangladesh games between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe (to me) has proven ODI's are here to stay.

January 19, 2009, 06:52 AM
I firmly believe that ODIs should be 40 overs and not 50 overs, then maybe it will be here to stay.

January 19, 2009, 11:09 AM
I like to see big shots so I prefer 20/20.Sometimes ODI too.

January 19, 2009, 11:33 AM
i think that they're both really different.

can't compare, but i'd rather have odi. less baseball like.

January 19, 2009, 12:33 PM
50 50 deinately

January 24, 2009, 01:15 PM
ODI (50 over game is more interesting).

T20 is sometime one way traffic.

January 24, 2009, 01:39 PM
I prefer redueced over cricket (preferably down to 37 overs :P )

January 24, 2009, 03:12 PM
T20 of course, but not over test cricket.

There should really be two kinds of cricket - twenty-overs-a-side and five-day affairs. The Fifty50 is a half measure and must go.

al Furqaan
January 24, 2009, 11:14 PM
its like choosing between slavery and liberty.

tough call, but i go with liberty, err ODIs every day of the week.

twenty-20s sound as fun as premature E problems.

January 31, 2009, 10:25 AM
I'd say 50 50 .

January 31, 2009, 11:38 AM
Tests are obviously the pinnacle, so I will leave that out of the argument.

I think for cricket lovers, ODI's are much more interesting. There is far more opportunity for a game to twist and turn, unlike Twenty20 where one bad over can change everything. With ODI's there is more tactics involved, more chance to build and establish partnerships and scores.

Like the 3rd ODI between Kenya and Zimbabwe today, the match shifted about 4 times... started out with Zim on top with Cremer taking buckets of wickets, then an 80 run partnership put Kenya in sight of 250+, before some good bowling at the death. But then Zim lost wickets when batting, putting Kenya in control, before an unexpected big innings from Utseya and the new wicket keeper Mutizwa sealed the game for Zim.

Also, ODI's can come down to the wire. Like the 1st ODI between Bangladesh and Zim when Ray Price guided Zim home at the death... that was a very exciting match!

Twenty20 is good to get cricket into new markets - young women, young children, USA, China, etc... demographics that don't really know much about ODI's and Tests. Because it is over quickly, new cricket fans won't get bored with it.

But for the major cricket countries, I think Twenty20's should be limited. I like ICC's idea of only 3 T20I's per season, it gives the masses some cheap and quick entertainment but the rest of the summer can still have good quality cricket. Between domestic competitions, 3 T20I's a year, IPL/ICL and ICC World Twenty20 I think there is enough Twenty20's. If it gets to the stage where there are more T20's than ODI's or Tests then we have gone too far.

We remember great ODI innings and great Tests... off the top of my head, Dean Jones in the heat vs India, Steve Waugh's 102 vs England, Gilchrists WC 149 against Sri Lanka, Brendan Taylor's last ball 6 vs Bangladesh.

T20's, not so much. Because they are over so quickly it is all a blur, you don't have enough time to take in each innings and each period of play. And you don't get those mini battles between batsman and bowler that you do in the longer formats.

So for the reasons I mentioned, ODIs over Twenty20's. Twenty20's are fun, but only in small doses.

January 31, 2009, 02:56 PM
test and 20-20. not really big fan of one day matches

January 31, 2009, 03:54 PM
All (Test, ODI & T20; Even Beach cricket is fun) every format has it's own flavour.

January 31, 2009, 06:47 PM
Yeah same, I prefer all kinds of cricket cause they all need different tactics to succeed. But Twenty20 should be played less (like 1-2 games per series) or then it would just ruin the game.