Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bharat
You missed one point though .. the convenience for a cricket Fan to be able to watch a 20-20 against an ODI.
If you look at the current Champion's trophy a good game between SL-Eng is greeted by empty stands .But the 20-20 WC games in 2007 in SA were completely booked (even the ones not featuring India or SA) not because an average cricket fan prefers one format over the other but because he can go to work and come back to watch a game of cricket in the evening !
The same goes with the TV audiences ..an average Indian *can* (and will) watch a 20-20 game between Zim-BD but **will not be able to watch** a ODI game between Pak-India because he has to go to work !
|
i disagree heartily. either that or you have to say the BCCI is bullshitting when they claim BD will only get "meal allowance" when they play the HOME side in india - which is true btw. so a match between bd and any non-indian side will be even more poorly attended. the average indian fan will NOT watch a 20-20 match between bd-zim. and the average indian fan WILL still jam pack a stadium to watch a 50 over match between pak-ind. they've packed stadiums to watch ind-aus in 2006 or 2007, they will do so for pak-ind even more.
the only way in which south african fans would attend a 20-20 match between new zealand and sri lanka is if that was the only cricket match in the world. which clearly is not the case.
if you drew out 20-20 cricket into lengthy bilateral series, like current ODIs, you would see interest and attendence wane just like ODIs do. if all else is equal, you might as well keep the universally-regarded higher format - the ODI.
as for the current england-SL game, this game was not supposed to be close given englands near whitewash last week and SL's domination of recent months. its a neutral venue, and only became a good game once SL managed to post 213, people aren't going to pay full price tickets and travel all the way out to the ground to watch half of a "good game" against two sides they really don't care about.
same thing would happen if this was a 20-20. had SL posted 135 or whatever 213's twenty over equivalent is, people wouldn't come to watch just because england could possibly chase it down and win.
Quote:
This ODI -20-20 debate has nothing to do on which format is better but rather an indication of changing times.
Its changing times ..first the ODI now 20-20 a reflection of what the "Fan" can afford to spend time on .
|
its true times have changed. but times haven't recently changed. the 40 hour work weeks still existed in 1971 when the first ODI was played. this indicates that the fans themselves have changed. at least in the developed countries like england, australia, and new zealand, lifestyle of 1970s is not that different from today. of course now we have internet and cell phones, but that doesn't impact the ability to watch a cricket match, if anything it should make it easier (think online streaming).
Quote:
|
Personally I think without 20-20, cricket might die a slow death ..again not because a "fan" does not care for cricket but because he cant afford to spend an entire day watching cricket.
|
i agree, but its not that fans suddenly can't stop watching cricket all day in 2005, when they could afford to do it in 1995. fans perspective has changed. part of this has to do with them perceiving ODIs as boring. i still think ODIs are just as exciting (or boring) as they used to be. people haven't gotten any busier, they think they have because they've gotten bored by one day cricket. hopefully the new PP rules and such will infuse excitement back into it.
in the end the fact remains that t20 is the lesser form of cricket, and that most of its fans are indeed believers that t20 > ODI, and that these "revenue" issues are BS that seems believable on the surface. but in reality, once 5 and 7 game bilater 20-20 series are played, with a world cup every 2 or 4 years, we'll see that no one cares much about the neutral games, especially if its between minnows.