[zman]

What these threads have in common, I've noticed, is that they start off by defending the ODI format and then some how end up bashing T20. If you ask me I'd say currently I see no problem with all three formats co-existing peacefully by catering to the demand of three different types of audiences. The old adage "Excess of anything is bad" holds true for all formats. This is where I felt you hit the nail on the head...

Originally Posted by nahaz
The main problem in ODI cricket is not the quality of cricket, but rather the quantity. Did we really have to endure 7 boring one-day matches straight after a Test Series such as the Ashes? What is the purpose of all the 5 and 7 match series between India and Sri Lanka? Why do all big teams have to play 3 tests and 5 ODIs on a tour, and then have to repeat the same routine when the other team tours them in 4 months' time?

Originally Posted by nahaz
I, for one, couldn't say which team won the last IPL.

The fact that a skeptic like you even mention IPL, the domestic T20 event which is only two years old, as opposed to say the domestic English ODI tourney, which is supposed to be the crown jewel of all domestic ODI tournaments--I for instance don't know anything about--is barely discussed in any conversation is a testament to the growing popularity of the format.

With regard to defending the validity of T20, I've combined the following three paragraphs from my old posts which I feel are relevant to this thread as well...

T20 is to test cricket what hundred meter sprint is to marathon, and ODI can be compared to the five hundred meter race. If you really think you can win the hundred meter sprint without having real skills, try explaining that to Usain Bolt and the rest of the sports world. If quick scoring and hard hitting on a day in day out basis didn't require extra-ordinary skills, then Viv Richards must've been an average batsman who just got lucky every time he batted. If one thinks it's easy to score 160-170 runs in 20 overs against quality bowling attack, that's because they've never played competitive cricket.

If cricket is to remain confined within the boundaries of the nine test playing countries, and a few associates in limited capacity, then we should ban T20 and persist only with test cricket and ODI. If we believe cricket is destined to become a globalized sport spanning five continents and 100+ countries in the next 20 years then T20 is the way to go, period. Fifty years ago test cricket was played over 8/9/10 days until a result was acheived. Today how many would go to the stadium to watch a 10 day test match?

It's a sign of the times. Time has become more valuable and people have got less time to spare on leisure and entertainment after working 40 hours a week or may be even 60-70 hours, such as in my case. We represent a generation (X, Y, Z) that grew up with ODI and test cricket--these formats make sense to us. The new generation doesn't get it as much and it's clearly reflected in the falling demand. Expecting more of the same from the next generation is not fair either. Cricket will keep evolving in order to remain competitive against other sports that are growing in popularity. There's no point resisting this change, resistance will be futile. Just a year ago, I was in the "T20 is crap" camp. Then I realized, by opposing the inevitable I was just missing out on loads of fun and tons of excitment just because it seemed alien to me.