The match consists of 40 overs, but it is basically played like two consecutive Twenty20 matches with accumulated figures.
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?