Twenty20 is ruining 'true' cricket

Dublin Dave a sincere welcome back . All the best for the New Year. I have missed your valuable information on European club rugby.and Heiniken Cup and Challenge Cup.

At the risk of being very presumptuous, the presumption being that all those posting heretofore are Australian, I am struck by the contrast in general attitudes towards changes in the games of cricket and those proposed for rugby. Generally speaking, Australians are in favour of the wretched ELVs in rugby and decry those who are opposed to them as backward thinking Olde Worlde anachronists nostalgic for the 1920s with its endless scrums and mauls and desperately afraid of any innovation that will knock them out of their stultified ways. When it comes to cricket, however, Australians show just those characteristics when defending the "true" game that goes on for five days and is a mystery to the uninitiated casual viewer. ODI and 20/20 are all very well, they say, but they're not REAL cricket. They can be tolerated as long as they leave the proper game alone and pose no threat to it. I would imagine that any notion to REPLACE the full version of the game with one of these stripped down alternatives would precipitate an uprising in Australia the like of which we have never seen. Fair play to ye lads. Don't let the bastards take your game away!!!

Historical inaccuracies aside, I rather fancy the ODI and Twenty20 versions will merge into a Thirty30. The trouble with Twenty20, as readers have correctly identified, is that everyone now expects a 6 every ball. The cult of instant gratification - supposedly dead with Blair, Howard and Bush gone - is well and truly alive in cricket. I was at the NSW-Vic 20-20 game at Homebush on Saturday night and saw a fairly turgid affair that ended up being decided on the last ball in dramatic fashion. The NSW batsmen played dreadful shots under pressure to score from the outset, and Dirk Nannes had 3-7 from 3 overs. The Blues hit the odd boundary (the pitch was as dead as at Bellerive today) but the crowd was generally disappointed at the lack of fireworks and 8-128 was considered about 30 runs too few. The Victorians had a lot more luck - and verve - and were cruising when two run outs changed everything. Now NSW were back in with a chance, but then a few 6s and the Vics were up again. This constant swapping of "momentary favourites" is what I feel is the true selling point of the game. In the end the Vics needed 16 off the last over - and after 6-2-2-2 were looking great until two more run outs meant NSW stole an unlikely win. The crowd was buzzing - but most fans would say overall they did not get what they went for. And don't forget it's $20 per adult, $10 per kid and $150 per bucket of chips. Some of the play was so mundane (singles to long on etc) that the Mexican wave even got a few laps - and the security guards threw back beach balls that strayed onto the field! Watching today's ODI on TV I was struck by how much a poor-quality pitch detracts from batting and bowling alike. It was one of the most dull one-dayers I have ever seen. South Africa refused to go after the runs and relied on the power play in overs 45-49 - and nearly got home. The dull middle overs encourage uneducated cricket 'fans' to get drunk, streak, throw beer cups, etc etc. They have been SOLD BY MARKETING TYPES that ODIS are the 'exciting form of the game'. Imagine being promised plenty of hot chicks at a party, only to show up and find they're all ugly. Sorry for the analogy but you'll et my point. As such, I cannot see the 50-over format continuing in any meaningful form five years from now. People know what to expect from Test cricket - it has been around for 131 years. People warmed to ODIs during WSC but changes had to be introduced once teams worked out how to milk the most from it (as did the advertisers). Twenty20 is now offering something even 'better' - and like addicts we flock to it thinking it will deliver an even bigger hit. Which it sometimes does. We will never have more than 8 decent Test match nations. It is unlikely we will ever have more than 8 decent ODI nations. But it is highly likely we could end up with 10-12 decent Twenty20 nations - that would add interest worldwide and shake up the old order. But everywhere, pitches need to offer plenty to the bowlers so we can see a true contest.

Paul Bugger America i say,why you would pour money down the dunny to impress a nation hooked on baseball i dont know,a complete waste of time,far better spending it in countries like New Zealand, West Indies etc to keep the game alive where it already has a following and a tradition The 50 over game tonight left the T20s for dead,we got to watch a guy who didnt hit a boundary but was a pleasure to watch in Duminy,id much rather watch that than guys throwing caution to the wind and riding there luck, T20,weeeee there goes another six,nothings exciting if its predictable

1) Kerry Packer did not invent limited overs cricket. The English did in the 60s. 2) The English also invented Twenty20. I am a huge fan of test cricket. People said that one day cricket would destroy test cricket, but it didn't. Just like people said that the video shop would destroy the cinema. The cinema has survived, even in the face of downloading movies, as it is the real thing. Downloading is killing the video shop though. My prediction is that Twenty20 will kill 50 over cricket. Good riddance to 50 over cricket I say, it's boring, with it's non attacking fields and numerous 1s and 2s. Sure Twenty20 is different but it is still cricket. Shaun Tait knocking AB De Villiers over on Sunday for hit wicket was enormously entertaining and proved that there is something in it for the bowler too. Twenty20 cricket will take the game to the world, allowing many non test playing nations to play at a professional level and will even break into the American market in the future. This is the revolution we need, so long as the game is not over managed by the ICC (Indian Cricket Council). Test cricket has already survived the test of time, and will continue to do so. 50 over cricket is on its way out. Twenty20 is here to rock the world. So sorry you can't enjoy it as well as test cricket.

Robin Williams once condemned Test cricket as 'baseball on valium.' I guess that makes Twenty20 cricket 'baseball on speed.' Like SevensRugby to the XV-aside game, Twenty20 cricket is not really a shortened version of the longer game. It is a cricket genre in its own right. It has a place in the cricket game by providing a contest that is over in 3 hours and therefore an event mums and dads can take their kids to. My guess is that Twenty20 cricket will develop specific players to meet the specific challenges of the game, again like SevensRugby. As long as there is not an over-dose of the game I think it is a welcome addition to the attractions cricket can offer. The advent of David Warner, cricket's latest cult figure, is an example of the interest the Twenty20 game can arouse.

I love my Test cricket, especially when the Ashes are on. ... Actually recently i have been finding the series against South Africa and India very entertaining. I belive twenty20 will introduce people to cricket, and as they gain an appreciation of the sport they will watch One day and then Test cricket. In the short rrun it will be bad for the game, but in the long run more and more countries and people will play the game. It will be great for cricket!!