2007-09-21 21:09:15 · 17 answers · asked by Thamara 3 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Yes 20-20 is better than ODIs because it has new concepts like Bowl out which can overtake foot ball and hockey`s concepts like penalty,free kick so on.it would also bring the cricket to china and japan as they know football and hockey very well.
2007-09-21 21:26:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the word "better" depends on the type of fan.
For a fan who takes cricket as a mode of entertainment, 20-20 is better for him, as it gives the maximum entertainment with pure hard hitting.
But for a fan who takes cricket seriously, then Test cricket would be the best for him, 50 Over cricket the next best, and 20-20 would be at the last in his list.
50 Overs cricket needs class, temperament, etc. Pacing an innings is very cruicial in such games.
But, for entertainment, 20-20 is the best. It also allows smaller teams to participate and become something in cricket. 20-20 is all about timing and luck. Small teams would never be able to bat complete 50 overs against a big team, and even if they do, they have little chance to make a match out of it.
But in 20-20, these small teams can really give it a go against any big teams.
I would put my vote for 20-20, as I take cricket as an entertainment. Let more and more teams be a part of this, and let us see more teams in a world cup.
2007-09-24 06:02:57 · answer #2 · answered by Oceandeep 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well better I dont know but its definitely more exciting. 50 over cricket becomes stagnant from 20 to 45 overs in an innings. 20-20 also throws up more competitive matches which keeps us interested throughout the game. 20-20 is like fast food...where as 50 over is like good old ghar ka khana
2007-09-22 04:29:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. 20-20 is altogether a different ball game. 50 over cricket is the ultimate scale to judge a team's performance. We have witnessed teams like Australia losing to Zimbabwe in 20-20, but its seldom-in 50 hours.
20-20 game can be anybody’s game, but in 50 hours game the winner will be judged in all parts of game. Due to limited 20 hours, players didn’t get time to settle and play their game.
But for spectators – it’s a roller coaster trip. Wonderful, full of 4’s & 6’s, full of Shock and Awe.
2007-09-22 05:02:58 · answer #4 · answered by MoiZ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
20-20 has an exciting and aggressive flavor but 50 overs cricket will remain the beauty of cricket forever because only fours and sixes do not means cricket it has a complete recipe.
2007-09-22 04:25:53 · answer #5 · answered by Banda-E_kHuda 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ofcourse, yes 20-20 cricket is better than 50 over cricket
2007-09-22 08:31:06 · answer #6 · answered by Apsara 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
20-20 is just for fun for public but at the side of batsman it is very bad cuz the bating only for 4 & 6's in 20-20 but other hand 50 overs match shows the players Quality..
2007-09-22 05:31:20 · answer #7 · answered by DON 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
20-20 is better than the 50 over match. since it does not waste the time. and it is so interesting to watch.
2007-09-22 05:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by parsar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Twenty/20 is defenitely most exciting and entertaining as compared to 50 overs ODI as there is absolutely no dull moment in T20 cricket.
2007-09-22 10:36:25 · answer #9 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
20-20 cricket is very exiciting than 50-50 match because in 50-50 match they have more balls to play so they do so many dot balls but in 20-20 match they have less balls to play so they very aggressive. and it is very interesting and very exiciting. wee can see more 6's and 4's than 50-50 match
2007-09-23 05:57:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋