Now it is West Indies.Twenty20 Matches highly in favour of Teams batting second?

Question

It appears to be very predictable the way matches go.
Is it not a deterrant to the game itself.
The toss almost decides the winner.
I had hinted this in my earlier question. Not many agreed.

Bangladesh won with 2 overs to spare.

Anything below 200 while batting first is vulnerable even against recent members.

England can just pull off a victory.Still I think India will prefer to bat first.

Scotland and Zimbabwe(one out of two) alone have failed while chasing.

Answer 1

i think this just gives smaller teams a better chance. If you strategise corrctly there will be no problem batting first.


Well well well. England decided to bat first. Looks like we are going to test this theory now...

England 2 down already. Are we witnessing a miracle? I think teams batting first shouldn't concentrate so much on run scoring in the first few overs.

Answer 2

hasty conclusion, on the basis of a few matches.

while am answering this question, England has beaten zimbabwe over 150 runs batting first, the same zimbabwe that beat Australia chasing runs.

20-20 on the contrary is giving more teams a chance to get even with the best.

if u make proportional comparison between the number of wickets bowlers were gettin in ODI'S and what they are getting in 20-20 it seems they are getting more even with less no. of overs cos' the batsmen are taking more risks , not playing it safe.

Bowling is about getting wickets and it's happening more effectively so in 20-20 . A weak bowling side in ODI WILL BE A WEAK BOWLING SIDE IN 20-20 AS WELL.

Your only case for ODI can be that it gives you a slow built up thrill, which doesn't necessarily happen in 20-20 .

But then test matches are there exactly for that reason .

20-20 is unassumingly honest, while ODI'S DO THE SAME THING prolonging it thereby robbing cricket a chance to reach a more wider audience.

20-20 should be given more chances , it has the ability to take Cricket forward and globalize it.

Answer 3

Batting second is the best option for 20-20 cricket .Because of only 20 overs u want to survive on the ground one can go for kill so minnows also score down a big total.Batting first means u want set target atleast 200 ,then only u ve some chance .

Answer 4

i will trust you on that one. The group batting 2d can use it strategically coz they have a greater powerful concept of whilst to take it in accordance to the run chase, while the group batting first are limited to taking it purely whilst there are 2 batsmen set on the crease. And in the event that they do no longer, they're idiots. In my humble opinion, i think of they ought to get rid of powerplays and shop the fielding regulations for the completed 50 overs. That way you may get one greater 25 overs of unpredictability. The bowlers could get aggravated yet a minimum of it may take the monotony out of the interest.

Answer 5

Bangladesh won because they batted and bowled excellently. Not because they won the toss and batted second. It is all how the players bat and bowl.

Answer 6

no just not like that
which team players have the biggest bat will speak well in the end of the day.
that is the moral of this story.
the man with the ball in hands at the end is very rare.

Answer 7

even though bangladesh won the toss & elected to chase, they really played well & the toss wont decide much more, but only how they are playing is matters...

Answer 8

said to see west indies out of 20-20

Answer 9

I fully agree with you thatn the team battging second has the advantage.

Answer 10

not like that.The teams which had good strike rotating ability and good all-rounding ability can win even against any team