Twenty20 novelty factor will wear off quickly

Bermuda did not qualify for the Super 8's at the World Cup. They didn't even win a game. The Super 8 was made up of: Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Ireland and Bangladesh. Notably India and Pakistan missed out.

I rather enjoy T20 Cricket. I also enjoy Test Cricket. ODI's have at least in my opinion run there course. They brought a new element of excitment and professionalism to the game but it's time to move on. T20 Cricket is ODI's next evolutionary step. And its the perfect product to move Cricket into new markets. Though I do agree with T20 being primarily being a domestic league game. Say if Australia did in fact establish it's own IPL like competition it should include the current State teams plus Canberra and New Zealand's top 5 or 6 domestic sides. The only international element to T20 should be a annual Champions League and a four yearly WC. More endless internationals that have devalued ODI's to such a great degree.

Justin thats a pretty balanced approach. Even for Test matches the amenities for spectators in Australia are overpriced and not value for money. In India the amenities are woeful and the administrators are making an effort to upgrade stadiums. But for all their money the BCCI have been tardy in looking after the punters. Have you seen the long queues for the Members at the SCG? Some hardy sould line up at 4AM to ensure they get a vantage point. The mad scramble as veterans and aged pensioners get trampled in the rush. Test Spectators,the lifeblood of cricket,ought to be better looked after. There are obviously more members then there are seats. That is greed.

T20 is here and unfortunately there is going to be too much of it. Thats my main gripe looking at the future. 3 other countries want an IPL. How can we fit it in? To me the great thing about the IPL is that players from countries other than AUS can earn great money which should ensure they are available for their Test team. I would love to see tests continuing (with suspensions for slow over rates, varying pitches around the world and also 100 overs per day like the SS in AUS) and a drop in ODIs to accommodate T20.

Brian - What would your odds be if England and Australia played 10 x T20 matches. Surely 5/5, as it is very much like tossing a coin. It is blatantly obvious that the shorter the game the lesser factor skill and tactics become. Why not take it to the ultimate and have 66. Each team has six players, and each player bowls 1 ball each. T20 is a “quick fix” for fidgety people in the crowd to have a party. But it is NOT cricket. I agree with Vinay : “Let’s take their money”. BTW – I don’t regard Ashes series as the pinnacle of the game of cricket. All test cricket is the pinnacle of the game. The Ashes may have the most history; however it does not mean the best 2 teams are playing. Neither do you need the best 2 teams playing to have a great test match.

I concede there have been memroble ODI but lets face it, not many. Another game that could go in there is the 2007 T20 WC Final between India and Pakistan. My point was that the T20 is just as good as ODI. Cricket is a 5 day game played over two innings. If your going to modify it to suit tv, bring in more countries, have a World Cup etc etc etc. Well you might as well do it properly and embrace T20. I think its proven itself as a superiour product to ODI. The last 2 World Cups were boring not just because Australia dominated but because the game had become so boring and predictable. Teams just choke the opponent in the boring 15-40 over mark. T20 is of course shorter and more exciting whilst Test matches are played less frequently so the upset means more and you can always try and get away with a draw. Just to hypothise my point. I think Australia will win the Ashes. There are 5 tests and so as the better side I give them a 70% chance. If instead of 5 tests, say 15 ODI were being played in the next two months I would actually give Australia 90% because the game is so predictable that they will work out a methodical boring way to win. So given the last two WC, the ratings and crowds for T20 and the fact that there is only one pure form of cricket anyway why not turf ODI and embrace T20? Michael Bevan aside who would care?

The ACC Under 19 Cup has a Twenty/20 Format. Europe has teams from Italy and Denmark all playing both 50 overs and Twenty/20. Even Japan has a competition up and running. Country vs country is the preferred format for me. Twenty/20 also gives more exposure to the w omen's game. I was involved in a cricket club for 25 years and had a junior programme with six teams. The parents were loath to watch their kids for five hours. They ,on the other hand,were happy when we introduced a shorter format. The reality of modern living (that word reality again) dictates that time poor parents will opt for shorter formats of cricket and also soccer and baseball. There is a good article by Peter Roebuck in Cricinfo. Worth reading.

Brian, I think there has been more exciting games of ODIs than just the one you pointed out. What about 1995 semi final where Australia were gone for all money against the West Indies only to win by 4 runs?. There is also Wasim Akram's performance against England in the 1992 world cup final. Andy Bichel's performance in the 2003 pool game against England as well as Symonds innings against Pakistan at the same tournament. There has been plenty of memorable moments over the years. I will admit the last two world cups have been pretty dull as Australia has been so dominant. Let us hope the next is a little more competitive.

Vinay, 50-over ODI's provide exactly the same opportunities for the "outpost" nations. The World Cup has been expanded to 16 teams for this very purpose, and the 2007 edition featured Ireland and Bermuda qualifying for the Super 8 stage. The T20WC only has three "outpost" countries because Zimbabwe turned down their invitation, allowing Scotland's entry. I couldn't agree more that cricket should be played in more countries, but the 50 over game has the advantage of being long enough for these new countries to be able to learn strategies and tactics. And also, facilities in these countries aren't just built for 20 over cricket, they're there for all forms. I'm not against T20 cricket, for the record. Initially, I was sceptical, but having seen it and played it as well, it's a valid form of the game with certain skills required. My point has always and will always be that with the domestic comps getting bigger and richer, they've become the qasi-international game anyway. So let's cash in on these domestic leagues and do away with the international form, which in reality, serves little purpose. This is the reality too Vinay..

Lazza,agreed the T/20 cricket fan is like a transient migratory bird. Flitting from instant gratification to chundering. But if they want to give money to cricket that may just go to preserving the longer form I will take their money.

I'm all for the underdog winning at sport, heck that's one of the reasons I love Football so much but there is a crucial difference between Football and Cricket? There's only one form of Football that anyone cares about. If an underdog or lowly ranked team wins then all glory to them. If a lowly ranked Cricket team is completely hopeless at the Test level and ODI but somehow manages to win at T20, then what does that tell you? It tells me that the whole concept is just a lottery. It's not a very exciting lottery either, most games are one-sided and very rarely are they tight absorbing contests. One English journalist hit the nail on the head. If your team starts falling behind in T20 you have to start taking risks and become reckless with your batting. With only 20 overs you don't have any choice and the more you fall behind or wickets tumble the more risks you have to take until the team just crumbles in a heap. I don't think T20 is going to convert anyone to the game - it's just for Cricket fans who have become bored with the purer forms of the game.

With the exception of the 1999 WC semi between Australia and South Africa everything said about T20 being forgetable could also be applied to ODI. Thinking that the Ashes are the cornerstone of cricket even though they are played by just 2 nations, is exactly the kind of thinking that makes Aussie cricketers so hated. Only more absurd the notion that Lee was bowling half trackers in the T20 tournament because he wanted to preserve Test Cricket. Well done to Symonds too, his drinking has further preserved the purest form of the game.

Chris,I dont think Test Cricket can do without the income stream from the shorter format. Test Crowds are healthy only in England and Australia. Bradshaw,of the MCC, opined yesterday that Test Cricket is not in danger of dying but it needs the money from the Twenty/20's. Test crowds,unfortunately,in the sub continent,NZ and South Africa are paltry. Brett,the shorter form gives less skilled and emerging outposts like Afghanistan and Nepal a stage to play and improve. I subscribe to the view that cricket should be played in more countries. Australia,England and SouthAfrica all want their own version of the IPL for the funds it can generate. It is a fine line between cannabalising and optimising. The momentum I feel is irreversible. What is needed is a balance between preseving the primacy of Test Cricket and the proliferationof the shorter form. Brett, in a previous comment you said "this is the reality" and I know the context may have been different but such is the way th world turns.

David, I've been saying for some time now (even in an artcile) that there is little or no room for the international version of T20. This T20WC has been nothing more than filler in an already crowded calendar. Only three things have stood out for me in 5+years of T20Is: 1. The Aus and NZ teams donning the 1980's retro uniforms for the first ever T20I in Auckland, 2. India beating Pakistan in the T20WC final in a thriller (though I didn't actually watch the game), and 3. Australia's ridiculous uniform based on grey-coloured lycra Get rid of the International form, and let T20 be a mainly-domestic game with the Champs League and the IPL the pinnacle. After the way the IPL went in South Africa, I'd even suggest it should encourage more international players, and be played in different countries around the world every other year...

The idea that Australia may be trying to 'protect' test cricket is an interesting one and may have some truth to it. I agree entirely that Twenty20 at the international level at least, would not survive without the longer forms. I don't see how a batsmen's match winning 30-odd in a twenty20 final will stand the test of time against the 50-over achievements of Gilchrist and Symonds at past world cups. Also, would anyone care if Gilchrist walked in a Twenty20 final? I doubt it.