The Future of Cricket

[m_vaughan]

Which form of the game will represent it in the future?

I would say Twenty20 Internationals to replace the 50 Over ODIs, but Test Matches to stay as it is (or get reduced to maybe 2 tests per tour)

 

[gold639]

Well,I think odi's are going to stay.

 

[squiz]

Yeah, don't think 20/20 will replace ODI's

Also i dont understand the question

 

[msamina]

I think all existing forms of cricket are here to stay. I believe 20/20 internationals were meant to increase the interest of cricket in people who feel that cricket is a very long game (e.g., USA - even one day is too long for them)

 

[m_vaughan]

I think all existing forms of cricket are here to stay. I believe 20/20 internationals were meant to increase the interest of cricket in people who feel that cricket is a very long game (e.g., USA - even one day is too long for them)

Yeah thats a fair enough comment. Even the shorter form of the game lasts almost seven hours, during which you could have two formula one races, and 4 football matches.

And its not just the USA...very few countries play Cricket.(Less than 4% of the entire sporting population)

 

[sachinisgod]

agree with msamina but perhaps the last option super max and all will take some time to seep in internationally...

test cricket is the best form of cricket and will continue and perhaps long tours are not that boring either...but ODI represent the form of cricket that will bring in all the cash...World cup, CT, VB, Natwest and all...

 

[andrew_nixon]

I don't see why Twenty20 can't exist along with ODIs. After all, it is perfectly possible to play a 3 match Twenty20 series could be played in just one day.

 

[sohum]

Hmm I believe Test Cricket is gaining momentum again. If the ICC seriously wants to infuse interest in non-cricket followers, they either have to take up 20-20 cricket seriously or develop some other form of exciting cricket. Non-cricket watchers will never follow test cricket because it is simply too long. Another problem is that the pace of test cricket is far too slow to ensure excitement, unless quick-scoring practices like Australia and India (to a certain degree) have taken up are taken up globally.

Perhaps they could have some sort of 20-20 test match where each side gets 20 overs an innings and it'll just be an all out smashfest. Americans and other countries will be able to identify with it because it will be similar to baseball. The only problem will be that advantage gaining tools such as the declaration and follow-on will be non-existent.

 

[fardin]

i believe 20/20 should not be interdouce to internationla cricket' the reason' some of the best player's are meant to play slowley example youhana'inzimam'lara'dravid'kaif' and many more' there carrer will be destroyed because they are not attacking player's they get them selfs in before playing big shots'

 

[sohum]

Well firstly Twenty20 wouldn't completely replace Test Cricket. And that is the same thing that was being said about ODI cricket--the pace of scoring runs would be too much on the classical players. I have two fightbacks to this one--it only gets better for the public to watch, and I say that we drive the game of cricket. And secondly, it is a common misconception that you need to be a swashbuckling batsman to fare well in ODI or Twenty20 cricket. The most important part of the shorter versions of the game is to ensure that you are constantly scoring runs.

It is in fact the singles and twos that get the momentum going and can really help your cause. You can get 300 runs in 50 overs without scoring a single boundary. That is why players like Dravid, Youhana, Lara, Inzamam and Kaif are such prolific one day players. They will only thrive in Twenty20 cricket, especially after the initial fielding restrictions are off.

 

[fardin]

yeah that is what i am saying' leave it the way it is' dont even try to touch' i dont even give hack about people who thinks that cricket is a boring sport a long sport should i say and it have to be replaced by shorter version' i totally disagree' after what happen to murli i dont want any other quality players to be ruined'

 

[sohum]

I don't think you are replacing it with a completely new version, but just trying out different marketing strategies to popularize it more. Perhaps people do not want this but there are at least a few guys at ICC who would be happy to fatten up their pockets (even more).

One must admit that it is one of the few sports that India is good at, at the moment, so it should not be ch anged.

 

[m_vaughan]

Well if Twenty20 can generate more popularity and money for the ICC, then I think it will care a damn for the so-called "classical" players. Like I said, Test Cricket to stay, but maybe ODIs being modified to 20 overs a side. (In other words Twenty20).

 

[angryangy]

twenty20 test cricket is ridiculous. It will never happen.

 

[sohum]

Yes, but the ICC should not rush things. I think they should basically begin introducing it at some tours--perhaps taking a few big cricket boards like England, Australia, India and Pakistan to incorporate it into their tours first. In fact, I think the perfect Twenty20 encounters would be those involving the teams above.

Apart from this, I definitely think there will by Twenty20 specialist players, so it is no use replacing the original game of Test cricket completely. The ODI players will probably be more well-suited towards Twenty20. However, the ICC must not rush into anything. The cricket boards of Sri Lanka and Pakistan have just began holding domestic Twenty20 competitions. This should be developed before really rushing into an international game. This will especially be helpful in a country like India where most of the cricket played is 3-day cricket.