Originally Posted by zman
On the contrary, 20 overs is plenty of time to formulate a strategy. It has it's own unique challenges that need to be overcome or circumnavigated for a team to succeed. T20 is not about hitting every ball out of the park. As a matter of fact, 180 runs can be scored by hitting only one four in each of the 20 overs as long as a single is scored of the other balls. On competitive surfaces we often see 150 posing serious challenges, which requires a boundary to be hit only once every two overs. Generally first 6 overs are typical power play overs, 7-15 middle overs that require consolidation, and 16-20 are slog overs. If first 6 overs go really well only then teams should keep hitting and delay consolidation. Depending on runs scored and wickets remaining, they must adjust their strategy. Teams that don't follow a strategy are typically the ones that don't succeed.
I agree fully. I was comparing the three formats. So just imagine, you have so eloquently described just how much strategy can be applied to T20. So 50 overs will provide a bit more room for flexing those. And thus therefore, test cricket becomes totally pointless. Little revenue, little entertainment, and now even the the whole "aura of strategy" defense doesn't hold much water, as ODI and T20 can provide the same thing.