Less is More? - World A-Team Cricket Forum

Wanderer · #1 (**permalink**) 14-06-2007, 12:37 PM

Will Twenty/20 games be the end of ODI cricket? Ricky Ponting has his doubts… http://cricket.indiatimes.com/News/N...ow/2121127.cms

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ponting

Now a days not much international Twenty20 is being played. But I think in future Twenty20 will take the place of few one-dayers. Back in Australia it is popular and has been attracting different players and audience

Fact is, Twenty/20 cricket is here to stay, as it brings in revenue and a new audience as Ponting also admits. What one perhaps need to ask is whether long ODI series’ are really necessary.

For instance, take a look at some of the ODI fixtures for this year:

West Indies in Great Britian: 6 ODI’s (3 against England, 3 in Ireland)

England vs India: 7 ODIS’s

England vs Sri Lanka: 5 ODI’s

India vs Australia: 7 ODI’s

India vs Pakistan: 5 ODI’s

And inbetween all of that there is the Twenty/20 World Cup in SA. The first round games finish 15 September and the final is on the 24th. This means England and India will have to fly to South Africa immediately after their 7th ODI as they have only 5 days before they play their first Twenty/20 game in SA.

Should England make it to the final, they head off to fly to Sri Lanka straight away for 5 ODI’s and 3 tests, before they return home just before the 25th of December.

Question: Why play more than 3 ODI’ s in a series? Then there’s enough time to play 1 or 2 Twenty/20’s and everyone is happy. Right? Or is a 3 ODI series too short to gauge the strength of the 2 sides playing?

Occasional Fan · 14-06-2007, 06:53 PM in reply to Wanderer's post "Less is More?"

You don't give me an appropriate answer, Wanderer. From where I sit, Twenty20 is an amateur game: sure, it's the one that everyone plays except the pros, and it has always been that way, but sacrificing any longer form of the game to make way for Twenty20 is wrong, IMO. That's not to say Twenty20 has no place: clearly it attracts new followers to the game, and that is good - but it's all about balance. Should we sacrifice ODIs to make way for Twenty20? No. Are there too many ODIs in some series? Yes, especially those involving India and Pakistan - England have seven against India this year, which is just potty in a country that you can walk along in a week.

Long ODI series might be defensible in India on the basis that they give many more people a chance to see international cricket than even five tests would. In England, we should never need more than 3 ODIs to deal with that issue. I would cut the England v India ODI series to three games willingly if it gives us one more test; cutting them for Twenty20 - no way. Same principle can be extrapolated to all other pairings.

Quagmire

I would rather watch Damien Martyn make a ton than Adam Gilchrist, does that explain what I mean. ODI cricket has enough slogging yet alone 20/20 which is not cricket. It’s a money making scheme

Rachael · 11:04 PM

Surely prefering the batting of Damien Martyn to the batting of Adam Gilchrist nothing more than evidence that you are more than 9 years old: suggesting the latter is preferable would be about as intelligible (from someone claiming to love the game) as suggesting (whilst implying one is capable of making the judgement) that Mozart's elevator music should be valued above Beethoven's late quartets!

Wanderer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

You don't give me an appropriate answer, Wanderer.

Right! I should have added "Other - explain" to the poll...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OF

I would cut the England v India ODI series to three games willingly if it gives us one more test

I agree. But like you say, its all about balance. And right now, with 5 and 7 ODI series, there just does not seem to be a great deal of balance imo. 3 tests, 7 ODI's and 2 Twenty/20 games. Not to mention the travelling and warm-up games. A series like that can take a toll on the players. Mentally and physically.

Wanderer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quagmire

ODI cricket has enough slogging yet alone 20/20 which is not cricket. It’s a money making scheme

Precislely. You should see the empty stadiums around SA for first class games... Yet, check out the following : "Twenty20 tickets selling like hotcakes"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supercricket

An amazing 22 200 tickets had been sold by 5pm on Thursday, on the first day of ticket sales, for the inaugural ICC Twenty20 World Cup South Africa. At lunch time, nine thousand tickets had already been snapped up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supercricket

This brings the total number of tickets sold to date, including preferential bookings, to 45 000.

And THAT, is the bottom line I'm afraid. (so, okay, the tickets are dirt cheap anyhow)

Django

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I would rather watch Damien Martyn make a ton than Adam Gilchrist, does that explain what I mean. ODI cricket has enough slogging yet alone 20/20 which is not cricket. It’s a money making scheme

I agree with the statement on 20/20.

Nostromo

I'd vote for anything that drops that 20/20 c**p that calls itself cricket.

Mr Hutt

Less i swhat cricket needs to save itself from going into the category of "my god its always on"

View Poll Results: Are more than 3 ODI's in a series needed?
3 ODI's are enough in a series - Then there's enough time to play 20/20's	7	70.00%
5 or more ODI's to see which team is really the better - drop the 20/20's	3	30.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode