Hi, i'm doing a media studies project at school on sport and the media and I made my title "How the mass media changed the game of cricket". So I'm wondering if some one here can help me by answering a few questions.

What do you think of twenty20 cricket?


Do you enjoy it more then "orginal cricket"?


Do think its an advertising frenzy at twenty20 games?


You can make your answers as long as you like and your help would be very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance
Rogan

You can judge 20-20 cricket best by the attitude of the players: they seem to treat it like a daft bit of ultra-competitive nonsense vaguely equivalent to a rather out of hand game of beach-cricket or something improvised by a bunch of demob happy students. Fun? Sure. Meaningful? It's pretty apparent from their hit-and-giggle frolics that not even they think it's meant to be!

I can't really disagree: harmless bit of fun that has absolutely nothing to do with a contest between bat and ball (and isn't aimed at those who care) and something the players (and seasoned followers) will hapilly trundle along with if the great and the good reckon there's something in it for the counties (funding, marketing opportunity, chance to recruit, etc).

So long as no-one takes it seriously I couldn't care less.. but then... many said that of the ODI format.. and now there are folk who actually care more about what goes on in pyjamas (and all the world cup stuff) than about cricket. If that pattern is repeated we could easily end up with an international 20-20 world cup and with one of the domestic competitions becoming 20-20... which would start to undermine the very triviality that gives it credibility now.

So long as it remains a peripheral near-irrelevence... it's fine :-)

Thank you very much Rachael, you really helping me out

anymore comments will be much appreciated =D

Rachael,
20/20 is rough cricket, with fielders flinging themselves all over the place, batsmen striving to get in to their crease, so how can it be fine?, when the cream of the Worlds players are involved in it, and are liable to pick up injuries.

20/20 is popular, so we should have 20/20 players, with a 20/20 captain, and their own coach.

Old hat maybe, but it still holds good.

__________________
Ern

Whilst the 20-20 game is considered just a bit of fun... it can be played as ODI cricket was supposed to be played... by players the paying punters know well and love to see. It's a format made for someone like Gough. It's also important, though, that the top Test players are involved: for someone like Freddie to rol up, send down 24 deliveries, stand at 2nd slip for an hour and a half... and maybe slog 25-30 deliveries in the manner he managed in the Tests at Edgbaston.

For a Test player it's not a significant risk: akin to a net session. Compared with the games of soccer the players take part in during training it's low risk. The fielding practice is useful, as is the "thinking on your feet" needed to get through the overs so quickly.

Unlike ODI cricket, 20-20 has few obvious negatives attached: it's not as if a few balls of hit and giggle slogging is going to shape the technique of youngsters in the same way that the pressure to play a 50 over innings at a run a ball might...

Not counting my opinion that the whole one day set up should be a seperate entity, removed from Test Tricket, there are other dangers with 20/20 cricket.

Some supporters would only watch one day stuff because there is more action, and to them made Test Cricket seem boring.

In 20/20 cricket some sides post amazingly high scores, 180 in 20 overs is not uncommon.

So are young people brought up on 20/20, going to think ordinary one day cricket is not as exciting, and will have no interest in Test Cricket whatsoever?.

Todays young 20/20 supporters, are tomorrows cricket supporters, a different breed that people who love Test Cricket, so that is a big reason to keep the worlds Test stars, in Test Cricket, and let the one day stuff, be a sport on it's own.

__________________
Ern

I love 20 Twenty cricket, it is the best thing that happened to domestic cricket.

Twenty20 cricket is a good entertainment value but to say it is cricket is wrong-'its just not crcket'. True cricket is test cricket. So i think Twenty20 should still be played in domestic leuage because the counties need to get some interest in and some income, so for domestic games its great but for International-its a no no.

Twenty20 is an excellent introduction to Cricket.

It may not have the depth of Test Cricket, but anything that gets selll out crowds to county games has to be good for the sport.

I think at first the players didn't take it seriously, but they do now.

Don't listen to the whingers on this board who moan about it, got to a game and enjoy the atmoshpere, the big crowds and the non-stop action.

Best thing to happen to Cricket in years, I wouldn't miss a game.

The occasional 20 Twenty International isn't a bad idea - I saw highlights of the Aus-NZ 2020 match this year and it was quite a lot of fun, and who can forget the Aus-England 2020 International (except the Australians I suppose)