The Twenty20 in Brisbane is the biggest attended Sports game ever at the Brisbane Cricket Ground

Twenty20's are action packed, exciting - they actually do not need gimmicks such as Power Plays and twelfth-men (although they do have them).

They successfully remove the quiet overs in the middle of the ODI's - which has been something the ICC have been trying to do. They are not as predictable as ODI's and a small score can quickly become very hard to chase. Even when you lose wickets you can still chase down a big score with a few big overs.

The public love them and you do not have to take a whole day off work to see them. Women, children and casual fans are more likely to attend them for a first game than a whole day of a Test.

The players seem to enjoy playing them. If we had more the players would not be as tired as if they played the same number of ODI's (meaning players will be fresher for Tests)

So why not scrap the whole 50 over game and concentrate on Twenty20's

It isn't the future. It's exciting, but each team should limit it to one home International per year. If we overdo it then it'll be crap. It isn't the future, it's just an alternative.

I wouldn't get rid of ODI's for it...

I am not going to bang on about scrapping one dayers in total.
However if 20/20 is going to be the game that turns people on, then cricket will be dead as I know it, it is not cricket when we have stuoid rules-like the stupid super sub rules in the 50 day game.

Real cricket is-WAS- a tradition, now it's becoming no more than a side show.

__________________
Ern

Personally I'm not a big fan of ODIs. As Ern suggests, there is real cricket. For me, that is test cricket. However, there always needs to be a way of attracting new faces to the game. Twenty20 is filling that role, and I think it's OK for that.

However, despite my personal views, I know that many people enjoy ODIs more than me. They are particularly popular with Asian fans, and we always get big crowds to the ODIs at Edgbaston when England are playing Pakistan or India. So the ODIs clearly still have a role to play, even if I'm not all that bothered about them myself.

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

I enjoy all forms of cricket, and certainly enjoy ODIs, including the middle 20 overs which can be the scene of the real battles in an innings - so many good innings become unstuck in these overs, or bad ones are rescued. I am in favour of keeping limited -overs cricket as more ODIs than Twenty20 games, which should be a short add-on in the international season. As for real cricket, for me tests will always be the most important and most involved - they can have everything of cricket in them, just remember Edgbaston 2005 and the rest of the Ashes. Forget the "greatest test" - that was the greatest series!

Twenty20 is the future in my opinon, they should replace the ODI's which are getting quite boring and annoying with the new rules. Lets face it Twenty20 is much more exciting.

ODI cricket was mainly started off because of its great money generating capability and bevcause it attracted new followers to the game, it was not seen as "real" cricket as it was only a scheme to generate money and new followers. But recently we have seen that Twenty20 generates even more money and it is bringing new followers to the game of cricket so it must replace the out of date ODI's.

There are many advantages of it compared to ODIs such as players have more rest because of the shorter format and this could reduce injuries to the fast bowlers. We have seen the how ODI cricket has improved Test cricket, so we may see Twenty20 cricket improve Test cricket as well.

P.S. I am not saying they are better than Test.

__________________
CC

Twenty20's and ODI's can live together easily. I read somewhere that the English Cricket board are making a proposal to have a Twenty20 Cricket World Cup to replace the ICC Knockout Trophy (or whatever it's called).

What I'd like to see is a format similar to the Super 12 Rugby, which has state teams from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

I agree that having an international tournament for Twenty20 would be good finacially and personally, it creates great levels of interest and is exciting throughout. I think back to a game in the last England Twenty20 tournament where there were only five overs per side and they scored 50+. Brilliant!

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

No, No, No, and No again to 20/20 taking over ODI's.

Twenty20 overkill last season domestically killed my appetite for it. It is right as it is now at international level, in moderation, a side show. One game a tour. I am happy with it is at the moment personally and would not be in favour of scrapping the 50 over format for it. They can both be played together.

I would not however object to replaceing the pretty dull exhibition that is the ICC Champions Throphy with a Twenty20 tournament, as the ICCCT is just a money spinner anyway.

That is as far as I would go though. One game a tour and a WC in place on the ICCCT.

In an ideal world personally I would massively reduce the number of one day games played as it just doesn't appeal to me, and knock the ICCCT on the head completely. I do however understand the revenue issue, but, Test match cricket is far superior to anything limited overs cricket can offer in my opinion.

well, ODI's are 50 overs, 1 day match, when its on TV, i tend to watch a bit of it, then come back at the end of each innings, its very exciting in the last 10 overs, but the rest of the match i lose interest. ODI's for me have become more interesting introducing the powerplays and super subs, why? because i am curious on the effect this has on the game, i want to see if there is a difference in bowling/batting strategy when powerplays are used, when supersubs are used, i want to see how effective they are.

twenty20's are more interesting yes, but i wouldn't make them replace 50 over matches. the cricket world cup would be boring if each match was total 40 overs...it would make twenty20 cricket less interesting to new viewers, for as far as they know, cricket has always been test and 20 overs...so they will find twenty20 cricket the same as 50 overs. i think twenty20 should have its own international tournment like the world cup, if the ICC can't fit it in the cricket calender, make it replace, ICC champions trophy, why should there be 2 50 over tournements?

so i think that that after the ICC Champions trophy in 2008, the ICC should change the tournement to a twenty20 stage, 12 teams, 3 groups maybe, super 6, semi-finals, then final.