9 June 2010

20-20-20-20-Cricket

Cricket Australia are discussing the introduction of a new format:
The match consists of 40 overs, but it is basically played like two consecutive Twenty20 matches with accumulated figures.
[source]

I hope they do not mean two T20 matches in a row with summed up scores, as the text implies, but a 40-40 over match played in 4 innings, in which the sides swap roles after having completed 20 overs each.

Sorry but I don't like this idea at all. It takes the cricket out of the medium-length format. You have to bat for 40 overs but can't settle in to build an innings as you get chased off the field after half of the time and need to bowl.

Also, what's the point of the toss?

I just saw an interesting comment below the above mentioned article:

Posted by Canvey26 on (June 09 2010, 11:26 AM GMT)

Its being trialed at 2nd XI level in England at the moment i went to see a game on Monday and i cant see it being well supported as it never really gets going, Teams are worried about losing too many wickets in their first innings i think it might work if the Wickets are reinstated for 2nd knock

Yup. But reinstating the wickets would be like what I hope the suggestion is not about: a two-match-mini T20 series with added up scores. Playing two T20s in a row defeats the purpose of the shortest format: enabling a large audience with little time and no interest in cricket to go home after 40 overs. But on the other hand, so would a 20-20-20-20 game in which each team only has ten wickets. And both suggested forms would kill 50 over-cricket, no doubt.

I like 50-over cricket and had hoped that Oz would keep carrying the flag. Grahhhhh.

Only last week Sutherland pondered a change of Australian T20 policies publicly, which didn't arouse me a great deal [read post here]. How many udders does the cow have? How long and how intensely can you milk it until it falls over dead?


Goddarnit.
Wes

10 comments:

Mudassar @ CricketVibe said...

Yea hate the idea. Whats wrong with 50 ov match? Just correct some non-sense rules and it will be all set.

half-tracker said...

A terrible idea that thankfully got laughed out of this country over the winter when it was suggested for the 40 over league. As you said Wes it completely defeats the object of 20/20 and would definitely be a backwards step.

Wes said...

Hey Maddy you live! Cool thing. You are asking "What's wrong with 50 overs", well obviously it seems to tire a lot of people who think that one day cricket must be kwik krikket. This is why stadiums in Australia are generally empty when the 50-over cup is played. So, this is what's wrong with it. And this again is the whole reason for Cricket Australia to think about changes.

Hantsman, the problem is 50 over cricket is a non-profit event currently, as it sits between the chairs. People perceive it as being neither this nor that, they do not understand that it is in fact this AND that. At least in my opinion. Everyone who I talked to says 50 over cricket is a beauty simply because it has these Test aspects about it. The short format audience The short format audience wants boom boom. Which is why I think that the argument T20 expansion will provide attention for Tests is completely retarded. Okay, naive. But on the edge of retarded.

I get verbal diarrhoea when discussing this topic. T20 and Tests are moving in opposite directions, thus Sutherland suggests teams completely separate from each other. I assumed 50 over cricket would mainly be played by Test players, plus the usual suspects. So that we could keep a Cricket World Cup. But how could one suspect that they are attempting to kill it in this undignified manner. The only way to practise for a World Cup will be ODIs then. I needn't elaborate on how international audience reacts to the announcement of "another 5 ODIs against Bangladesh".

BUT! I have no suggestion for how to make the FR Cup more profitable :( How is the CB40 doing?

Anonymous said...

Awful idea. I agree, Wes, if they have this half-arsed idea of two twenty matches with combined scores they can, quite frankly, fuck off.

I like 50 over and I could just about bear the idea of it going to 40 over as long as it was just one batting innings each.

Lou

half-tracker said...

The CB40 is going alright though the ECB have placed the 20/20 as the top priority, so like the Championship the 40 over league has been marginalised. Hampshire played their last CB40 match on May 30th, and our next one is July 25th, with the next match after that on August 8th. Attendances have been ok but only that. They got the scheduling wrong slightly, as Sunday matches don't finish until 7:30pm, and everyone wants their dinner. I'm sure it will pick up in the second half of the season but I distinctly remember Pro40 attendances (the previous 40 over league) nearing if not outdoing 20/20 attendances.

The ECB in particular seem in love with groups for their tournaments, though it worked with the old style 20/20. Hampshire had a poor start to the season so unless we pretty much win every CB40 match from now on we are out of that tournament. What incentive is there for the players? The Pro40 was 2 divisions of 9 with promotion and relegation, and that added a new dimension to the format. I think I've caught your verbal diarrhoea, Wes! I remember we used to have the 50 over knockout tournament for the first half of the season, then the Pro40/45 in the second half. Maybe a knockout tournament isn't the best option, as it makes revenue difficult to predict, but we had more variety.

So how to improve/change things domestically and internationally? Firstly on the international circuit we need a rigid tour programme. Obviously scrapping the Champions Trophy would be a start, as well as outlawing random tri-series between effectively second string sides. I would set up the tours like this: Each tour would consist of a three test series, then a 20/20, then a three ODI series. Each test nation is allowed a five test series, to maintain the Ashes, Ind-Pak etc. Each ODI nation is allowed to play in one ODI tournament a year, such as the Asia Cup. We would have the World Cup and World 20/20 the same.

I would cut down domestically on the number of 20/20s. The 4 day structures in place are fine in my view. One idea I had, which I'm not sure about is 2 day matches - it's effectively two innings each of 50 overs, with cumulative scores the same in 4 day games. It may be worth trying. Sorry for the long comment!

Wes said...

Hello Lou, thank you for the visit, Agreeing that it should max. be shortened to 40 overs but remain unchanged otherwise!

HT,
rude person that I am I've completely ignored your last sentence.
It is amazing to hear that the one-dayers actually work in England. But, English cricket mentality seems to be much more influenced by the expectation of having a enough time to read the newspaper, knit a sock or discuss... cakes, players' shoulders, and public transport. This might be the reason why English cricket fans do not headlessly run to every T20 match in reach (coughcoughsurreycoughcough) but in fact pick the longer format. I find this pretty surprising but the longer you think about it, the more it makes sense. Concerning the rigid tour programme this needs to be enforced onto all concerning countries by the ICC strictly. I would love if all countries had to deliver their international schedules to the ICC at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately this won't happen :(
I can't think anymore today, oh yes I agree with you in terms of the two-division system of the CC, having to bother with only half of the county clubs is great to get into it, and everything goes its comfy trot. Things are again pretty English here at the very bottom and thus heaps enjoyable. Commiserations on the loss against Glamorgan btw :P

half-tracker said...

Gargh, Glammy!! Stupid Welsh with their Welsh commentary.

Wes said...

Oh the comment was very good I thought? These two guys did very well imho, what was it you didn't like about it?

Lou said...

God almighty it is the four innings stuff.

I'll try not to be a reactionary old cow and slag the idea off all over the place, but I mean really...

Wes said...

Let's moo together then. And Punter the weasel does of course join the chorus. Thank frick the Muss has retained his senses. Is there anything not-good about him? *sigh**sneef*