Should 50 over ODI be replaced completley by 20 20 matches?...?

Question

The cost of running a 50 Over ODI is higher than a 20 over ODI and it does not generate an equal response. Typically excluding world cup premise 20 ODI are almost at full capacity and 50 ODI rarely ever see this except in Asia or when the Ashes takes place.

Should 50 over ODI be elliminated to ensure better revenue can be generated and used effectively for the nations playing, the pitch itself, the players, the academies and for the inclusion of potential cricket fans?

Answer 1

I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO ENSURE THE GAME SURVIVES AND NATIONS BECOME STRONGER AND MORE BALANCED.

HOWEVER REMOVING 50 ODI COMPLETLEY WOULD NOT DO ANY GOOD AND COMPLETLEY BEING DEPENDANT ON 20 20 MATCHES WILL DAMAGE THE GAME AND EVENTUALLY CRICKET WILL BE BATTED OUT.

FIND A BALANCE, INCREASE INTEREST IN OTHER COUNTRIES I.E USA, FRANCE, SPAIN, CHINA. THE OLYMPIC AVENUE FOR CREATING INTERST IS ALWAYS VIABLE.

Answer 2

NO I dont think that will be a good idea
50 overs and 20 over matches are 2 completely different forms of game
Well the fact is all the countries are playing too much cricket these days and i think they should ease the schedules rather then amending the format of the game
once u have the 20/20 over side game, the players wont get to show their talent
cricket has always been a very long game and having a short games wont be a good idea
i think fans will loose interest in the 20 over game

Answer 3

20-20 is a different sort of game. But when a 50 over match lasts 7-8 hours. You could hold a 3 team round robin 20-20 over carnage in that time. The 20-20 in this Country has been very succesful indeed. Plus I think unlike 50 overs where there is always a lull in play. (The powerplays are a pointless exercise, as they are always taken at the start). There isn't really time to get settled.

Answer 4

No way! The 50-over version is the perfect form of international cricket you can get to watch or play.

Test cricket involves too much defense & it gets really boring - but it is very helpful for the top-level players, as it helps sharpen their batting, bowling and fielding skills.

On the other hand 20Twenty games are very exciting, but they really are all about attacking and scoring lots of runs quickly - the defensive aspects of the play which are responsible to strengthen and develop a team or player's skills for the long run, takes a beating.

The standard 50-over ODI cricket has a perfect balance of attacking and defensive gameplay, that makes cricket be the most enjoyable sport. It favors the teams which have the best attacking as well as defensive skills, which is about as perfect as you can get.

Answer 5

How old are you, katherine?

I think it is entirely a generational issue. For instance, I grew up as a kid watching one-day cricket & I found test cricket to be too boring. I enjoyed watching 20/Twenty cricket too - but in the end I always felt the ODI cricket is the most skillful and exciting form of cricket ever.

My dad was a cricket player for his college & he grew up watching/playing Test cricket & he likes test cricket the most - he tells me that one-day cricket is exciting, but is too shallow and skilless (just like I feel about 20/Twenty too...hehehehe). If I told him about 20/Twenty, he will burst out laughing and ask me whether that is cricket at all!!!

If the person grows up watching 20/Twenty cricket, he will like 20/Twenty the most & will say ODI cricket is very boring.

I think the opinions of people on this issue will clearly exemplify the "generation gap" that exists in society. From the responses I have read from most people, I feel that they like me grew up in the ODI era...lol!

Answer 6

I really think it should be swithed over to 20 20 over matches. Because the matches are way too long, which is why there are not many cricket fans. Also if its 20 20, the match becomes more interesting, as well.

Answer 7

Personally I say no.
Sure, there maybe better revenue for the shorter form game, however 50 overs is in my opinion as limited as you can get to encourage good cricketing skills, i.e. good Batsmanship and captaincy.
I find 20-20 cricket a bit like a one night stand... all wham-bam-thank you- mam, without too much skill, lets face it, most of us can close our eyes and swipe at the ball hoping for the best.
20-20 is for people who would rather swallow 15 pints in 5 hours and flash their arses to any willing spectator... which is fun, but just not cricket.

Answer 8

Hi just been very boring 2 days on the 5th and the 6th when the cricket was not on but could not stop me from going on http://www.action8cricket.com its like an addiction I was happy to see the replay action of the matches. There service for the world cup has been terrific be it the commentary or score or streaming they rank 10/10 for it. As mentioned in my earlier posts they have excellent customer support I’ll be always honored for the services they have delivered in this world cup.

Answer 9

Since Twenty/20 and OFI are seperate matches and have seperate tournaments organised in each category, there is no need to change the ODI to 20/20 overs.

Answer 10

No Please !! though you are right but i think this would kill this game !! why not keep this 20-20 side by side with normal ODIs? there are still millions of cricket fans who love 50 over matches !! and they want to enjoy it fully.......telling you the truth, i could never enjoy 20-20.......it feel is a trailer of original game !