- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
T20 is way popular than ODI bro , this is the reality
Great argument !! Well done
T20 is way popular than ODI bro , this is the reality
Playing ODI bilateral series are meaningless and it will not help to this sport for any good
yeah ODI have its own charm and completely agreed with that but we can make it bit more exciting with new rules such as more than 1 bouncer should be allowed like
where as t20 format better should be used for expansion of this game in new associate countries . it would be a nice idea to host annual t20 tournament like UK t20 league consisting england,ireland,netherland,scotland . this way , all these new teams would get opportunity to play at international level[DOUBLEPOST=1461678278][/DOUBLEPOST]
yeah in some domestic county matches , teams already playing with 40 overs format
and a better payoff become again a big necessity from game's overall perspective. then only youth would be getting hopeful about good careerI would say T20INTL is important especially when starting out it is a format that can get people involved quickly, obviously it doesn't have the nuances that best represent cricket! But its more likely to get a country or associate more involved at the beginning! I would call it like a marketing trailer for the main show!
The t20s leagues i dont think they will help much in spreading out, other than say give a good pay to talents both local and foreign !
Its just a case of people preferring one format over the other, in general indian fan ratings for world tournaments are always higher than IPL!
while the numbers dont fall between the league tournaments and international ones the viewer ship does change, the thing about these t20 leagues are they are more friendly to people who dont want to spend the whole day on the game, it has attracted woman, elderly, kids more than other formats! This is the same everywhere whether its BBL, natwest, CPL! There are a very core cricket purists that dont watch much of IPl or league cricket, there would be a core group that like the cricket in any format, and then a group that come for the ease of the format friendliness and a bit of local nature! The thing is knowing this format its pull will be able to carry them over to Intl t20 tournaments, again they are more likely to watch the teams with player they know rather than say an associate game! I would say they follow players more than tournaments!
I dont feel its detrimental as you are mostly getting eyes and cash who would have otherwise never actually stopped their life's for other formats of cricket!
just going to address this point a bit because I think that its incredibly ignorant about Associate cricket.
I dunno about the Netherlands; but in Ireland and Scotland Test cricket has the potential to be very successful - admittedly not as quickly as the shorter forms of the game would, but in the long run it could be more successful than either. Its not like Test cricket is the unknown here that it is in many other places, its covered more in the press than any other form of the game, mostly because that's what the English press care about and most Cricket fans in Ireland and Scotland generally follow English cricket to some extent. If you asked people to describe what their image of a cricket game was, it'd more resemble a Test Match than any limited overs form of the game. Also, here at least, League Cricket is mostly 50 over cricket; 20/20, at least where I am, is limited to Wednesday night games where the best players often can't play - its possibly different at a more elite level, but that's really only just developing in Scotland. If you were to abolish all that and replace in with T20 stuff; then you'd weaken Associate cricket because they'd all focus on the short form and that'd hurt the quality of four day Cricket making it less likely that smaller nations could compete at "Test" level.
From the perspective of the Associate cricket fan: I think that ODI cricket needs to be retained within a general restructuring of the way that Cricket works. There is an argument to the "too many useless bilateral ODIs!!!" thing; but firstly they wouldn't play them if it wasn't making someone money, and I'd also argue that the large amount of bilateral games with no real purpose is a wider problem across Cricket. The best bit about Associate cricket is that 99% of games are within the structure of the WCL, Intercontinental Cup or some other ICC or regional tournament - meaning that every game matters a lot because they could lead to you getting relegated a division or not getting promoted or something else: and because of the relatively lengthy timescales of the competition that can mean a significant amount: being less likely to get to the qualifying tournaments for the next World T20 or World Cup (although the latter has been gimped with the new 10 team format: it basically looks like its going to be the WCL Championship teams plus unless something shocking happens Zimbabwe and one of the West Indies, Bangladesh or Pakistan), losing support funding from the ICC or just general pride. You don't generally have that in the wider international game outside of the big Test series (the Ashes, India/Pakistan, possibly Australia/NZ recently because of both being very good recently, I can't think of any others at the moment) and major ICC tournaments - the closest that we had was the West Indies trying to win that ODI series to qualify for next years Champions Trophy but that was kinda ruined by Pakistan cancelling their ODI series against Zimbabwe, mostly because even if they'd won every game they'd have lost ranking points and frankly that's just dumb.
I'd personally like to see more regular regional tournaments that use the ODI format; you have the Asia Cup, you could organise something in Europe with England, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands and some of the next level Associate teams (Denmark and the Channel Islands), there are lots of African WCL teams, Australasia would be hard, but could also include PNG and Vanuatu, and the Americas would probably be the weakest division, but maybe a four-team thing with Canada, the USA (if they ever get their act together) and Bermuda might work. I'd argue that the triangular or quadrangular tournament is also something that would be good: you'd involve more teams, games that actually have a bit of meaning, and if you included Associate teams then you could give them the games that they really need without "hurting" the bigger nations. Add into this more open ICC competitions - a sixteen team ODI World Cup, a 20 or 24 team World T20 and perhaps something also for Test cricket - with open qualification systems (and also an abolition of the idea of "status") and I think that you begin to get something that would allow Cricket to flourish and expand without throwing away one of the more interesting forms of the game. That will take a lot of time to get to though; and until then I think that ditching ODIs entirely would do a lot more to harm the game than help it grow.
I'm a Scottish fan of Cricket who would have been consider a "new fan" ten years ago - I got into the game not because of T20 stuff but because of the 2005 Ashes. Its inaccurate to suggest that T20 is the only way of growing the game in developing markets: while T20 will be the main form of the game that gets fan traction, at the grassroots level you're always better developing both T20 and a longer form of the game: most likely 50 over Cricket.
but Dont you think ODI format need to get revamped out at least if scraping out not a nice idea?This is a totally different argument. Yes, ODI bilateral series can be meaningless and there is a major demand for revamping the ODI scheduling to make them more relevant. Doesn't mean that ODI should be scrapped and is not relevant anymore (as I pointed out with my other arguments about the cricket world cup 2015)
trolling me ?Great argument !! Well done
I respect Shane Warne a great deal but his views are sometimes over the top
trolling me ?![]()
play a t20 Series with test matches much better idea.odi only for world cup or icc tournament[DOUBLEPOST=1461783622][/DOUBLEPOST]Been saying this forever, going as far back before Graeme Swann made his comments at least 4 years ago, ODIs have well beyond ran their course and do nothing other than clog up the schedule. Play 2 T20s a day, free up more days for Tests.
lolWhat do you think?
so you are not in favour of billaterial test series but a championship format you want,awesome idea without doubtWell, I respect Shane Warne a great deal but his views are sometimes over the top. Personally, I love the ODI format. I feel it has the best of both worlds and it has it's place but the bilateral series just has to go. It has no relevance at all. But that opinion makes the entire cricketing structure look a little bizarre. Personally, I'd follow the current format for cricket.
TESTS
A proper test championship where each country plays the other thrice, once at home, once away and once neutral over a period of two years with 10 points for a win and 5 for a draw. An additional 2 points for any innings defeat or victory over 250 runs. After the two years culminating a test champion team, that defends the title next year onwards. I think 10 tests a year for a side isn't too alarming on the schedule.
ODI'S
An 8 team Champion's trophy held annually in one country for a two month period. No groups, nothing, each team plays the other once and the one with most points wins the darn thing. No semis, no finals.
T20 International
I feel T20I's are popcorn cricket. Franchise cricket more than fills the appetite. Have a world cup every four years in the T20 format with all the associates. It should be an elaborate World Cup. No need for champion's trophy in the year of the WC. Each team plays another once. So, you're talking 12-13 games a side. Top four qualify. IPL style eliminator and qualifier followed by the Finals. A world cup should jangle nerves and not just come and go. It should be a carnival and at the same time a massive achievement.
t20 Is not a miss or hit game.it requires certain type of skills .if it would have been the fact,then why dd lost match today? look at how pk and bravo bowled well in death oversBeen following this thread since its creation, thought of posting but didn't.
To be honest, on my own perspective I enjoy the ODI format the most. Players just don't go on slogging and a miss hit and you're gone. Nor like a test where both the batsmen and bowlers just keep on playing and batsmen struggle for boundaries and bowlers for wickets. Though that's the real tolerance and calmness of a player. But as a spectator you can't keep on watching a test match ball by ball.
Comparing T20s and ODIs; Suppose you're 30-4 in seven/eight overs, you can build a game if your temperament and tolerance level is high in an ODI. But for the same in a T20, you come hit and go, if you don't people start calling you Misbah for the innings you're trying to settle. And though you settle the innings you can't go and post a match-winning total
That's what I have to say.