Extinction threat of ODIs and pointing the finger at Bangladesh for its demise - Page 2

bharat · #26 September 25, 2009, 11:49 PM

al Furqaan, I am not talking about the merits and de-merits of each formats ...I am merely stating what might (in my opinion) survive in the long run .

My example of Zim-Bd might be an extreme but the general theme still (I think) holds good . A not so ardent fan of cricket (say my mom !) has the patience to watch a 20-20 but not an ODI (fget Tests) ..20-20 could be a format to pull in a bigger fan base and even other non-cricketing nations and fans .

nahaz · #27 September 26, 2009, 01:58 AM

1. T-20s will be good for attracting new and otherwise busy cricket fans. Its great. But its popularity shouldn't imply that we reduce ODIs to a bare minimum, or that we actually have a crisis in ODI format. One-dayers can be tinkered with a bit, but too much tinkering will serve the purpose of redundancy of the format due to the resultant confusion. Only england will benefit there.

2. Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe & associates)has been implied in numerous articles recently as the one dragging down the quality of the game and hence should get less games. This is ridiculous, and should be vocally opposed by all fans and non-money-greedy administrators. Only real problem is we do not generate enough revenue for whoever's hosting us..but we certainly do give a lot back to the one-day format as well in terms of long-term potential and an illusion of spreading of the game.

bharat · #28 September 26, 2009, 01:18 PM

Its important to recognize that there are three formats of Cricket..trying to make one form like the other will spell doom ..

some of the stupidest suggestions have come from cricketing greats recently ...

1."Decide drawn tests based on first innings lead" ..stupid ..stupid suggestion really .The best tests have been those where one team likes to draw while the other tries to win !

2."Divide ODI's into 4 innings .." ..stupid.. What are u trying to here ?

..the list goes on .

My take is ..have a status quo and let demand (the fans) decide what they want

aklemalp · #29 September 26, 2009, 02:05 PM

what can we say about the ODI format,it's like a star,came out with a bang in 75' and continue from there where world cups were played from it ,and suddenly came another star and everything just went down for the odi,because everyone just neglected this format,and turned to t20 because it was making people more richer and it was drawing alot of crowds,one of the best cricket matches that i ever saw came from the ODI format,it was the greatest odi ever pplayed between sa and aus,aus 434 and sa just went and replied with 438,what do u called that for a match?there's no way that odi is going down,test cricket is the premier,followed by odi,then t20,look wat t20 has done to the likes of gayle and company,it made them into a greedy machine wanting more than they could ever asked for ,come on people please accept odi's

One World · #30 September 26, 2009, 03:19 PM

Terrible posts all around.
****Smashes a mosquito in disgust***

BANFAN · #31 September 27, 2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bharat
My take is ..have a status quo and let demand (the fans) decide what they want

That's it. Let the game go on as it is.

Cricket is trying to do too much of tampering with the game. You don't see any other sports trying to be too radical. Does, indian brains/think tanks (Since they have max influence on the game) have something to do with such impatient attidute?

One World · #32 September 27, 2009, 05:42 AM

All those strategists need to shut their mouth now as England managed a win over Lanka.
Do not forget the excitements of Aus-WI, Lanka-RSA, Ind-Pak matches either.

kalpurush · #33 September 27, 2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One World
All those strategists need to shut their mouth now as England managed a win over Lanka.
Do not forget the excitements of Aus-WI, Lanka-RSA, Ind-Pak matches either.

Now that the English has beaten the SA today and reached the Semi, ODI is here to stay.

Imteaz · #34 September 28, 2009, 11:49 PM

Need to have Vision.

zman · #35 September 29, 2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imteaz
Need to have Vision.

20-20 vision? Now we're talking...

nahaz · #36 September 29, 2009, 05:04 AM

There's a difference between liking the idea of T-20 and allowing T-20 and its financial benefits dictate the other two formats of the game. Its a format that would reward luck as much as skill until and unless teams figure out the exact skills required in the format. It may not be as exciting once teams have precise techniques in place. Who knows!

Let's just reduce the number of irrelevant ODIs but not try to scrap it alltogether or make it a format to experiment with endlessly. FOr Bangladesh's sake at least..

stuge · #37 September 29, 2009, 06:21 AM

50-50 isn't going anywhere till 2013,if I'm right .ICC has contracts with sponsors etc .regarding T20 cricket is concerned ,its fun filled game .

50-50 isn't boring ,but its a different game what we see from T20.T20 is more of bashing game lol

in b/w My first post after a year or so

Imteaz · #38 September 29, 2009, 07:04 AM

Welcome Back.

One World · #39 September 29, 2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zman
20-20 vision? Now we're talking...

It's not 20-20 vision they are talking about. It's the catch-22 vision.
Welcome back to rationality.

zman · #40 September 29, 2009, 07:40 PM

Opinions, by definition, are bound to be subjective, so with a view to substantiate my claim--even before I state it--I'm going to throw some stats out there...

These are the ODI World cup finals results since 1999:

1999 World Cup Finals-- Australia won by 8 wickets (with 179 balls remaining)
Pak 132 all out
Aus 133/2 (20.1 overs)

2003 World Cup Finals-- Australia won by 125 runs
Aus 359/2
Ind 234 all out (39.2 overs)

2007 World Cup Finals-- Aus won by 53 runs (D/L method)
Aus 281/4 (38 overs)
Sri 215/8 (36 overs)

The numbers speak for themselves. It's safe to say it's been quite a while since we've had a decent competitive ODI grand finale. I'm not saying we haven't had competitive ODI matches in the meantime, such as the famous Aus vs. SA match, but realistically these high quality matches have been few and far between.

Now I can understand, to those spectators who love cricket unconditionally, and have great regards for the aesthetics of the sport, they could care less about whether the contest is a close one or not, and not get bored of watching the stronger team beat up the weaker ones by a huge margin on a daily basis as long as they're playing by the old school rules.

For those who don't have the convenience of aplenty free time, and yet seek the quick thrill of cricket that embody a greater level of excitement and uncertainty--where an underdog has better odds of beating the favorite on any given day--ODI clearly wasn't cutting it and that's why T20 was born. It's also apparent this audience is much larger than it's counterpart and it's reflected in the demand and the growing disparity of income between T20 and other formats. It shouldn't be misunderstood that T20 players deserve what they earn as long as their paycheck is commensurate with the demand and I can't imagine teams paying their players such high salaries if they're not making enough for themselves. And this pay structure should not be compared to Test and ODI payscales as most would agree those formats are played because of their aesthetic values, not for the sake of money making. So please don't quibble about T20 players making more money than others.

Following are the results from the past two T20 world cup finals.

2007 World Cup Finals-- India won by 5 runs
India 157/5
Pakistan 152 all out (19.3 overs)

2009 World T20 Finals-- Pakistan won by 8 wickets
Srilanka 138 all out
Pakistan 139 (18.4 overs)

I'm not gonna bother going into details regarding the 2007 finals as anybody who's seen the match would agree it was one of the most exciting matches ever played. Funny thing, I didn't watch the game live cuz back then I was a T20 basher...

. With respect to the more recent final, I'll say although Pakistan won the match by 8 wickets, one should not overlook the fact that they had only 8 balls to spare in the end and couple of good overs for Srilanka could've easily turned the tide in their favor. Besides, Srilanka was the clear cut favorite to win the title going into the finals and Pakistan's win itself was an upset as most pundits had written them off even before the match had begun.

As I stated in several of my earlier posts, my purpose is not to bash ODI--as I don't care whether it's abolished or not, I'll be watching them once in a while as long as they exist--but rather to shed light on the new reality of T20 and it's ascendancy.

al Furqaan · #41 October 5, 2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bharat
al Furqaan, I am not talking about the merits and de-merits of each formats ...I am merely stating what might (in my opinion) survive in the long run .

My example of Zim-Bd might be an extreme but the general theme still (I think) holds good . A not so ardent fan of cricket (say my mom !) has the patience to watch a 20-20 but not an ODI (fget Tests) ..20-20 could be a format to pull in a bigger fan base and even other non-cricketing nations and fans .

from the AUS-NZ champions trophy final cricinfo user comments during the commentary:

Quote:

Jason: "What we are witnessing here is a classic text book example of how a team should pace its chase when the chips are down. I would rate this match as the best match of the tournament only because its exactly what the text books contain. Can you see the difference in quality between this and T20s? Can ya?"

Sam MCarthy: " I agree with the comments about ODI's against 20-20's. Cricket is a game with subtleties and opportunities to rise and fall within an innings. That's why it's played out over many days - ODI's magnify these subtleties without obliterating them.

i fully agree with sam and jason. t20 doesn't have these elements. cricket should not merely be about bowling yorkers (no matter how good) and smashing boundaries. of course 75% of fans don't have the stomach for matches longer than a couple of hours, but why should the cricket community sacrifice tradition and a beautiful sport for the wishy-washy fans. these same fans are probably the ones to jump ship if their team is losing.

cricket is about bowling bouncers as well as yorkers, its about playing the new ball and old, its about stealing singles and using the soft hand as well as hitting monster sixes, its about playing a long patient innings and maybe a cameo when needed. twenty20 cricket cannot offer any of those things. if it can't, is it even cricket anymore?

the fake fans should not be holding the game as hostage even if they are in the overwhelming majority. if you like t20 cricket, go and watch baseball or soccer. cricket is not the NFL or the NBA, maybe cricket is not destined to make big bucks or generate intense fan loyalties in faraway places.

i am a born and raised american of bangladeshi parentage. if i can come to learn and love test cricket, anyone can, and the fake fans like your mum should find a different hobby.

i am all for using t20 cricket to expand cricket in places like the US, Europe, and China...but that is the only use for that format, and mind you if successful, that would be a great thing. introduce people to cricket via t20, and then slowly they can learn that Test cricket is the real deal, and ODIs are the shorter format.

twenty20s should simply be the marijuana that acts as a gateway to crack addiction.

Zeeshan · #42 October 5, 2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
from the AUS-NZ champions trophy final cricinfo user comments during the commentary:

i fully agree with sam and jason. t20 doesn't have these elements. cricket should not merely be about bowling yorkers (no matter how good) and smashing boundaries. of course 75% of fans don't have the stomach for matches longer than a couple of hours, but why should the cricket community sacrifice tradition and a beautiful sport for the wishy-washy fans. these same fans are probably the ones to jump ship if their team is losing.

cricket is about bowling bouncers as well as yorkers, its about playing the new ball and old, its about stealing singles and using the soft hand as well as hitting monster sixes, its about playing a long patient innings and maybe a cameo when needed. twenty20 cricket cannot offer any of those things. if it can't, is it even cricket anymore?

the fake fans should not be holding the game as hostage even if they are in the overwhelming majority. if you like t20 cricket, go and watch baseball or soccer. cricket is not the NFL or the NBA, maybe cricket is not destined to make big bucks or generate intense fan loyalties in faraway places.

i am a born and raised american of bangladeshi parentage. if i can come to learn and love test cricket, anyone can, and the fake fans like your mum should find a different hobby.

i am all for using t20 cricket to expand cricket in places like the US, Europe, and China...but that is the only use for that format, and mind you if successful, that would be a great thing. introduce people to cricket via t20, and then slowly they can learn that Test cricket is the real deal, and ODIs are the shorter format.

twenty20s should simply be the marijuana that acts as a gateway to crack addiction.

Top post! ...Except for the last line. I have smoked marijuana in the past for a stretch of 4 years yet never ever I had the urge to do cocaine. The fact that marijuana is a getaway drug is a worse myth than the Lochness monster.

One World · #43 October 6, 2009, 10:23 AM

Basked in the glory of winning the ICCCT the winning captain vindicates ODI as his stance is unquestioned over the 50 over format.

Quote:

"There's been a lot of talk about that since the 20-over game has become as popular as it has," Ponting said. "There's plenty of space for both 20-over cricket and 50-over cricket to fit in alongside the Test game. The Test game is the form of the game I enjoy the most, but 50-over cricket, with tournaments like this, will certainly hold its own.

"I was worried at the time when 20-over cricket became as popular as it did that we might start playing a few less 50-over games, but I think tournaments like this can only help the game.

"I've really enjoyed the tournament and I think the fans around South Africa have enjoyed the tournament, so it's got some endorsement from me, and even a low-scoring game like today can probably be one of the more entertaining games that you can watch and be involved in as a player."

Link

Raynman · #44 October 6, 2009, 12:37 PM

All the ICCCT did was validate that the bi lateral series concept needs to die. All three formats have their fanbase and deserve to exist ONLY if the matches mean something.

World cups and any significant multi national meaningful tournaments (CT, Asia Cup etc.) in ANY format will generate interest.

Instead of looking to ridicule or praise one form over another, the first step should be to dismantle the bi lateral FTP and rebuild the international schedule with a more balanced, fair and meaningul approach.

Raynman · #45 October 6, 2009, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=al Furqaan;987287]from the AUS-NZ champions trophy final cricinfo user comments during the commentary:

the fake fans should not be holding the game as hostage even if they are in the overwhelming majority. if you like t20 cricket, go and watch baseball or soccer. cricket is not the NFL or the NBA, maybe cricket is not destined to make big bucks or generate intense fan loyalties in faraway places.

QUOTE]

Who gets to decide who is a real fan and who is a fake fan?

What happens when the money goes and the players follow. Look at the WI and how the youth are now moving to other sports (basketball, baseball) because thats where the money is.

One World · #46 October 6, 2009, 03:49 PM

The "show me the money" attitude is not applicable to Sports, if that was UAE would have been a reckoning force. All these money hype has been introduced recently by the overwhelming IPL/ICL saga and the net effect is degraded quality.

Code:

 
Poll 
What has the Champions Trophy 2009 done for the 50-over game?

Results



 Revived the format's appeal 

55.42% 1901
Driven another nail in its coffin 

9.94% 341
Nothing - the tournament was a blur 

34.64% 1188
Total votes: 3430

This is the poll currently active in cricinfo. The real fans!

Raynman · #47 October 6, 2009, 05:02 PM

Degraded quality?

isn't that the same term most 'cricket enthusaists' use to describe Bangladesh's entry into test level?

Murad · #48 October 6, 2009, 05:04 PM

Nothing - the tournament was a blur 34.64% 1188

I think most of these voters are Indians.

zman · #49 October 7, 2009, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One World
The "show me the money" attitude is not applicable to Sports,

Want to refute...on second thought, I'm not even gonna bother

zman · #50 October 7, 2009, 01:15 PM

I find this post very objective and unbiased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raynman
All the ICCCT did was validate that the bi lateral series concept needs to die. All three formats have their fanbase and deserve to exist ONLY if the matches mean something.

World cups and any significant multi national meaningful tournaments (CT, Asia Cup etc.) in ANY format will generate interest.

Instead of looking to ridicule or praise one form over another, the first step should be to dismantle the bi lateral FTP and rebuild the international schedule with a more balanced, fair and meaningul approach.