[Med Student]

Check out these articles:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/c...e-7855109.html

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/gauravka...do-it-now.html

http://www.sportskeeda.com/2012/06/1...-dead-not-yet/

KP and Graeme Swann, two prolific England cricketers, both have criticised the ODI format, the former retiring from limited overs cricket because he could not keep with the ODI and T20 schedule but also because the ECB wants cricketers to play in both forms.

Is the ODI format becoming outdated? Can cricketers really play all 3 forms and excell at all 3?

I see how all 3 formats can be tiring in the summer. Our A team cricketers would be spread too thinly over all 3 formats.

This is my view as a cricket fan from childhood: Test is long, boring to watch, but most can agree the strategy and endurance of the format over a number of days is what keeps fans so hooked onto the format. T20, popularised by the IPL mainly, has proven to be the most exciting and popular format to watch, really providing a game where wickets and sixes come euphorically frequently. ODIs seem to come in between, with the 50 over long innings seeming long and boring compared to T20, but not long enough to have the strategic and addictive Test interest aspect.

Discussion comparing all 3 forms please, both at international and county/club level.

[py0alb]

Cricket is a hugely exciting and diverse sport. You can have batsman attacking and bowlers defending, bowlers attacking and batsmen defending, sometimes even both attacking at once. You can see incredible tight finishes: can we get the runs in time? Can we get the wickets in time? The best finishes are the most organic ones where time is irrelevant, can we get the runs before they get the wickets? - and vice versa.

As someone who has played and watched cricket near religiously for over 20 years, and have probably played in 10+ different formats over the years, I can tell you that the best formats are the ones in which the game is allowed to flow naturally, and tight finishes come about spontaneously. Formats which allow for a variety of different phases of play and in which the optimum kind of "runs vs wickets" finishes arise frequently and the other two with roughly equal frequency.

It is these games that are the essence of cricket, provide the most excitement, subtlety and the best spectacle, and are most true to the original game as it was invented and played for hundreds of years.

ODI and T20 cricket are both quite poor formats, both severely limiting the type of cricket being played - restricting the excitement, and encouraging defensive bowling. although T20 does at least have the advantage of brevity.

I sometimes wonder if the people who claim that these formats are the most exciting have actually even played any other formats. I strongly suspect not.

If games going on too long is a problem, then don't criticise the format, criticise the flat pitches.

[robotpenguin]

@py0alb

By saying flat pitches, I presume you are suggesting pitches in the Sub Continent. These pitches are made to suit the conditions why the sub-continent teams play in. Rough patches develop as you get towards the end of the innings, and fast bowlers prefer to bowl in the first 10 overs with the new ball. This is why ODI's in Asia are batsmen dominated, because batting is the strength in Asia, not bowling. Therefore, they create flat pitches in order to be able to out-bat each other, rather in out-bowl each other.

In places such as Australia, South Africa and England, pitches are a lot greener and swing a lot more. There is not so much for spin bowlers. Spin bowlers are pivotal to all forms of cricket and especially in Asia where they are considered to be more important than the Pace bowlers. This is why pace bowling is of a much lower standard in Asia, because the pitches are not conducive to it. In the past two decades, the only world class bowlers to come for Asia have been Khan, Akram, Younis, Akhtar, Vaas and Malinga. Out of those three, only Akhtar and Malinga have been express pace due to their unique actions.

ODI's are more interesting than T20's in my view because they still require a lot more skill. Although you have that period in ODI's, from around overs 20 to 35 where nothing happens, this is where the skill comes to the fore. Rather than smashing the ball around in the first and last fifteen overs due to powerplays, players have to find that gaps and run quick singles, converting them to twos. In T20's, I see very little variation and skill portrayed in the fact that Kieron Pollard is considered to be a specialist emphasizes that. Bowlers like Malinga thrive because of a combination of deadly yorkers and poor shot selection. Malinga does not need to bowl anything but yorkers and slower-ball bouncers, because batsmen find them difficult to get used to and difficult to get away. In ODI's, we can see his weaknesses such as in the Triangular Series last year, between SL, Aus and IND. Kohli decimated him and picked him off. He had to bowl 10 overs, and got destroyed.

50 over games are much more skill based, and are important to cricket
20 over games are entertainment

[Fooldimis]

Twenty20 is the cheap stuff,
ODI is the AOC and
Test is that 300 y/o bottle of red wine sitting in your cellar. Incredibly rich in history but rather tasteless. Except when you get periodic updates, just to make sure it's still there

[Med Student]

(Original post by py0alb)

As someone who has played and watched cricket near religiously for over 20 years, and have probably played in 10+ different formats over the years, I can tell you that the best formats are the ones in which the game is allowed to flow naturally, and tight finishes come about spontaneously. Formats which allow for a variety of different phases of play and in which the optimum kind of "runs vs wickets" finishes arise frequently and the other two with roughly equal frequency.

It is these games that are the essence of cricket, provide the most excitement, subtlety and the best spectacle, and are most true to the original game as it was invented and played for hundreds of years.

ODI and T20 cricket are both quite poor formats, both severely limiting the type of cricket being played - restricting the excitement, and encouraging defensive bowling. although T20 does at least have the advantage of brevity.

I sometimes wonder if the people who claim that these formats are the most exciting have actually even played any other formats. I strongly suspect not.

If games going on too long is a problem, then don't criticise the format, criticise the flat pitches.

From one cricket fan to another,

I totally agree with the idea of cricket being at its best in it's natural form of bowling v batting. But the question is, which format provides this style of cricket best.

I disagree with the idea of T20 being limiting. If anything, i found T20 to be far more exhilirating and providing of a very high risk form of batting and pressure bowling. The T20 format is part of the reason why IPL cricket is the most popular form of cricket. Test for me, with the long unlimited overs, means the game is slow paced and without the euphoric factor, but more of the strategic factor. ODIs are somewhere in between.

I think format is probably all important. If you were to see one format that best provides this naturalistic form of cricket you mention, which would it be?

[Med Student]

(Original post by robotpenguin)
@py0alb

ODI's are more interesting than T20's in my view because they still require a lot more skill. Although you have that period in ODI's, from around overs 20 to 35 where nothing happens, this is where the skill comes to the fore. Rather than smashing the ball around in the first and last fifteen overs due to powerplays, players have to find that gaps and run quick singles, converting them to twos. In T20's, I see very little variation and skill portrayed in the fact that Kieron Pollard is considered to be a specialist emphasizes that. Bowlers like Malinga thrive because of a combination of deadly yorkers and poor shot selection. Malinga does not need to bowl anything but yorkers and slower-ball bouncers, because batsmen find them difficult to get used to and difficult to get away. In ODI's, we can see his weaknesses such as in the Triangular Series last year, between SL, Aus and IND. Kohli decimated him and picked him off. He had to bowl 10 overs, and got destroyed.

50 over games are much more skill based, and are important to cricket
20 over games are entertainment

Interesting. Good point!

ODIs definitely, from your point, are important to cricket. I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are some who would say T20 is possibly equally, if not more skill based.

I'm saying this as an IPL fan. Steyn, Narine and Morkel have all excelled in 3 different forms of bowling. Gayle, Dhoni and Bravo have done credit to their batting positions in their clubs.

I would actually say, with the range of styles and play and the much greater focus on 'pressure cricket,' that T20 brings out the best of skilled cricket. There is a greater emphasis on taking wickets which greatly swing T20 games. On the reverse, the dots and sixes are what win T20 matches and those come up with increasing frequency and with it an increasing demand for skilled play and brave batting/bowling.

How about Test? There is absolutely no way Test will die out anytime soon. But certainly it lacks the entertainment factor that ODI and especially T20 fans thrive on. Is there a future for test. Let's not lie. Keeping up with Test progress is great, but watching it over long days and repetitously without immediate pressure on wins can be taxing and boring compared to the other two formats.

[Med Student]

(Original post by Fooldimis)
Twenty20 is the cheap stuff,
ODI is the AOC and
Test is that 300 y/o bottle of red wine sitting in your cellar. Incredibly rich in history but rather tasteless. Except when you get periodic updates, just to make sure it's still there

Very succinct. Though really, T20 is not the cheap stuff! Rather it is currently the most lucrative form of cricket, with players like KP being paid £2 million for something like 2 months worth of T20 cricket!

[py0alb]

(Original post by Med Student)
From one cricket fan to another,

I totally agree with the idea of cricket being at its best in it's natural form of bowling v batting. But the question is, which format provides this style of cricket best.

I disagree with the idea of T20 being limiting. If anything, i found T20 to be far more exhilirating and providing of a very high risk form of batting and pressure bowling. The T20 format is part of the reason why IPL cricket is the most popular form of cricket. Test for me, with the long unlimited overs, means the game is slow paced and without the euphoric factor, but more of the strategic factor. ODIs are somewhere in between.

I think format is probably all important. If you were to see one format that best provides this naturalistic form of cricket you mention, which would it be?

T20 is ok, in that it tends to artificially reproduce the "attacking batsman, defensive bowling" portion of the game reasonably accurately. As a mini game, its reasonably equivalent to a penalty shootout or a game of crazy golf. Anyone who thinks its remotely comparable in interest to a full length cricket match simply doesn't understand cricket.

An equally interesting, yet comparable "mini-game" would be the "survive as long as you can" game, which my cricket club occasionally plays for a laugh. Its about as fun as a 20 over slogathon.

ODIs somehow manage to invent a new style of cricket that is virtually unrecognisable from the traditional form - that where both bowlers and batsmen simultaneously go on the defensive. This is a truly remarkable achievement - to make such a naturally exciting and variable game so incredibly boring and formulaic.

The best length of game is the one in which the overs restriction is more nominal than a defining characteristic of the game. Ideally, the overs restriction should be on the total overs, not the overs of one innings.

[Med Student]

(Original post by py0alb)
T20 is ok, in that it tends to artificially reproduce the "attacking batsman, defensive bowling" portion of the game reasonably accurately. As a mini game, its reasonably equivalent to a penalty shootout or a game of crazy golf. Anyone who thinks its remotely comparable in interest to a full length cricket match simply doesn't understand cricket.

An equally interesting, yet comparable "mini-game" would be the "survive as long as you can" game, which my cricket club occasionally plays for a laugh. Its about as fun as a 20 over slogathon.

ODIs somehow manage to invent a new style of cricket that is virtually unrecognisable from the traditional form - that where both bowlers and batsmen simultaneously go on the defensive. This is a truly remarkable achievement - to make such a naturally exciting and variable game so incredibly boring and formulaic.

The best length of game is the one in which the overs restriction is more nominal than a defining characteristic of the game. Ideally, the overs restriction should be on the total overs, not the overs of one innings.

Totally agree with you. V. good points.

Although you make a point that i agree on regarding T20, i personally feel a great thrill factor with T20.

It really grits down to the question of whether sport should be judged on its ability to thrill and entertain, doesn't it. T20 strategically is not contributive to the game, but for me is the most exciting form of cricket especially with IPL and all. Players like Muralitharan have called for the format to be developed.

In regards to limited over cricket, what would you say is the ideal no. of overs for any game.

50 overs seems too long as some people have commented in this thread, in that by over 20 - 30, the game really becomes a drag sometimes. But T20 seems to be too limited, as some people have commented in this thread, to provide all thrill but not enough pure cricket.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Med Student)
Totally agree with you. V. good points.

Although you make a point that i agree on regarding T20, i personally feel a great thrill factor with T20.

It really grits down to the question of whether sport should be judged on its ability to thrill and entertain, doesn't it. T20 strategically is not contributive to the game, but for me is the most exciting form of cricket especially with IPL and all. Players like Muralitharan have called for the format to be developed.

In regards to limited over cricket, what would you say is the ideal no. of overs for any game.

50 overs seems too long as some people have commented in this thread, in that by over 20 - 30, the game really becomes a drag sometimes. But T20 seems to be too limited, as some people have commented in this thread, to provide all thrill but not enough pure cricket.

Do you know what would actually be the best short format? A one innings declaration game on a sporting pitch with something in it for everyone. You could limit it to 120 overs if you like, or otherwise use the traditional 20 overs after 6:30pm.

The team batting first's best strategy is to attack with the bat, rack up a big score in 40-50 overs, and then have 60 overs to bowl the opposition out with attacking fields.

The team bowling first's best strategy is to set aggressive fields, attack with the ball, knock the opposition over cheaply, and then cruise to victory.

Both teams spend the majority of the game attacking - but not just attacking with the bat like in T20, attacking with the ball as well.

You would get the whole gamut of cricketing phases: batsmen on the offensive, trying to survive against the seamers, desperately trying to hang on against the spinners with fielders around the bat, bowlers desperately trying to stem the flow of runs, or going for the kill. All that variety and excitement that makes cricket the great sport it is. It would make T20 seem about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Of course, no-one would ever go for this because for some reason we have this bizarre aversion to accepting a draw as a valid sporting result that we have caught of the yanks.

[martin jol]

test cricket is king, always has been, hopefully always will be.

i think 40 over cricket is the way forward to revitalise ODIs, particularly the dreary 20-40 over period.

[robotpenguin]

(Original post by Med Student)
Interesting. Good point!

ODIs definitely, from your point, are important to cricket. I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are some who would say T20 is possibly equally, if not more skill based.

I'm saying this as an IPL fan. Steyn, Narine and Morkel have all excelled in 3 different forms of bowling. Gayle, Dhoni and Bravo have done credit to their batting positions in their clubs.

I would actually say, with the range of styles and play and the much greater focus on 'pressure cricket,' that T20 brings out the best of skilled cricket. There is a greater emphasis on taking wickets which greatly swing T20 games. On the reverse, the dots and sixes are what win T20 matches and those come up with increasing frequency and with it an increasing demand for skilled play and brave batting/bowling.

How about Test? There is absolutely no way Test will die out anytime soon. But certainly it lacks the entertainment factor that ODI and especially T20 fans thrive on. Is there a future for test. Let's not lie. Keeping up with Test progress is great, but watching it over long days and repetitously without immediate pressure on wins can be taxing and boring compared to the other two formats.

You make some good points but I have to disagree with one. Unless I have misunderstood you, you believe Narine has excelled in all 3 forms of cricket (i.e. T20, ODI and Tests). I have to disagree with you there because he has played only one test in which he did not perform. He is clearly more suited to the shorter form of the game because his technique is to bowl tight lines, giving away little and building up pressure. In T20's and to an extent ODI's, this is effective but in Tests its different. World class player such as Pietersen, can pick him of and get used to his 'mystery spin'. Especially as the ball comes out of the front of the hand, it is a lot easier for a batsmen to pick him whereas someone like Ajmal who hides the bowl has the surprise factor.

[Med Student]

(Original post by robotpenguin)
You make some good points but I have to disagree with one. Unless I have misunderstood you, you believe Narine has excelled in all 3 forms of cricket (i.e. T20, ODI and Tests). I have to disagree with you there because he has played only one test in which he did not perform. He is clearly more suited to the shorter form of the game because his technique is to bowl tight lines, giving away little and building up pressure. In T20's and to an extent ODI's, this is effective but in Tests its different. World class player such as Pietersen, can pick him of and get used to his 'mystery spin'. Especially as the ball comes out of the front of the hand, it is a lot easier for a batsmen to pick him whereas someone like Ajmal who hides the bowl has the surprise factor.

You're right. I made my previous comments having not seen the scoresheet. He starred in the recent ODI series and latter part of the test series, both against England. I don't think he took any wickets at all. It was a disappointment for us here as we were big fans of Narine at KKR. Let's see if he makes an impact in the next ODI.

[shyamshah]

I personally prefer Tests to the other two forms of the game, although I prefer ODIs to T20's. Test matches are the pinnacle of cricket. All of the legends have performed greatly in Test matches. The idea of playing 5 days of consistent cricket is very tough as many teams have proven recently and a batsmen's technique is questioned against the swinging ball.

I personally prefer ODIs than T20's because a player is questioned about there strategy in an innings, whereas in T20 it is pretty much all attack. Although for ODIs I believe that they have got to have some rules in place between the 20-35th overs because that is a period of play which people may find boring.

[Straight up G]

(Original post by shyamshah)
Although for ODIs I believe that they have got to have some rules in place between the 20-35th overs because that is a period of play which people may find boring.

Only if the bowling team is rubbish. If they aren't, then it can lead to either an excellent tactical battle, see Pakistan vs Sri Lanka in the world cup, or a batting collapse, see Pakistan vs any team, in 75% of the matches we play.

[killa78]

Pietersen is a waste though.

The only reason he retired was to try and get a reaction from the ECB to change their rules for him.
I'm glad they told him to jog on.

And Swann only criticised after he lost his number one bowling spot to Ajmal lol

T20 does not require as much skill as ODIs and Test matches.
It's silly to get rid of one

[shyamshah]

(Original post by Straight up G)
Only if the bowling team is rubbish. If they aren't, then it can lead to either an excellent tactical battle, see Pakistan vs Sri Lanka in the world cup, or a batting collapse, see Pakistan vs any team, in 75% of the matches we play.

But normally that is the period when the batting team rebuild an innings after losing a few wickets or just get themself set for a launch at the end. Obviously this doesn't happen all the time, and sometimes this is the most important time in the innings. Like the ODI England vs WI when WI collapsed, then Bravo and Pollard rebuilt the innings getting about 3 or 4 an over.