How many 20/20's and 50 overs should they play ?- options

[drifter]

Obviously with 20/20 here to stay and 50 overs a bit on the nose at the moment, and trying to avoid overkill
heres an idea
Play 3 x 20/20 against each visiting international team and 2 x 50 overs.
Each captain chooses 1 of the 50 over games to be their wildcard ( worth double points) They can choose the same game if they like, making them more meaningful.
The batting team gets the option to stop their innings after 25 overs and put the opposition in for 25. they make this call after the 25 overs.
the 2 formats are combined into 1 series.
each state would get 1 20/20 per season and a 1 dayer 2 out of every 3 seasons as there would be 4 games per season.

another option is you could combine each states 20/20 with a curtain raiser big bash game. Each state would play in 1 home and 1 away double header. This would free up some scheduling time.
there other games would be stand alone as it is now.
People like the contrast between test cricket- the slow burn discipline and tension with the frenetic pace of 20/20.
50 overs is caught in between but it requires a new set of skills altogether. there are too many of them and they have become meaningless.
This would give the Aussies 2x 3 test series, 6x 20/20 per season and 4 x 50 over games. An even test of all disciplines.
what are your , ideas, thoughts and opinions ?

[Hondo]

Honestly? Scrap the 50 over games altogether.

[smac]

Play 3 of each, IMO, for the next few seasons. Then increase T20 to 5 and one 50 over match - potentially play a double header T20 to reduce the number of cricket days on the international calendar as well.

[HH3]

I would rather scrap the 20/20...sure theres more big hits...but after a while it gets boring...

The three 6's from Cam White the other night was awesome...but if it was a 20/20 game i doubt id be that impressed because it happens too much. 20/20 reminds me of when i got too good on Cricket 07 and just smashed everything...got boring really quick.

I dont watch the IPL...partly because I cant stand the Indian commentary..and partly because of the 20/20 format...

I love Tests and I love One Dayers...dont see why anything needed to change...

[smac]

I love Tests and I love One Dayers...dont see why anything needed to change...

Because it doesn't pay the bills like it used to and because it doesn't generate excitement about cricket among the kids - if they find the game boring they stop playing, if they stop playing then the Australian team in ALL formats is crap and the game spins down the drain.

[HH3]

I love Tests and I love One Dayers...dont see why anything needed to change...

Because it doesn't pay the bills like it used to and because it doesn't generate excitement about cricket among the kids - if they find the game boring they stop playing, if they stop playing then the Australian team in ALL formats is crap and the game spins down the drain.

Who says kids are less interested in the longer formats than they used to be?...the Big Bash crowds were pretty small werent they? (excluding the final)

[smac]

I see kids screaming to play T20 everywhere I go, it is becoming the entry point to kids playing the game once they finish the in2CRICKET program.

[Hondo]

Exactly smac. It's good that our great game can evolve and, from that, attract the next generation of supporters like 50 over cricket did 30 years ago. A lot of these new fans will eventually learn to love the highest form of the game - test cricket.

Anyway, that's a whole other debate done many times before!

I don't mean to sound so harsh on the 50-50 game. Maybe there is a role for it but I see it as a declining one. They just seem increasingly pointless which is a shame really because I used to love watching them. I think the tactics of 50-50 got so perfected over the years that the sponteneity and excitement disappeared. 20-20 would never have taken off if 50-50 was doing the job.

[Hondo]

Who says kids are less interested in the longer formats than they used to be?...the Big Bash crowds were pretty small werent they? (excluding the final)

41000 at the MCG for a state match is unheard of! 1/1000 of that is the standard crowd for a Sheffield Shield match?

[rod_rooster]

Why exactly would the kids be any less likely to have an interest in cricket without 20/20 now than 20 or 30 years ago?

[spell_check]

Leave 20/20 to domestic cricket.

[Gozu]

Personally I don't mind international teams playing one or at worst two T20 games to either open or close a series but think the World T20 is overdoing things. That's coming up straight after the IPL season even though we already had one last year in England.

On the domestic front I hope they retain this current format of the Big Bash. Supposedly CA are shocked at how big the crowds have been and hopefully they don't get too greedy and add more games to it or go ahead with that domestic T20 revamp involving city based teams in two years time.

[gadj1976]

Keep 20/20 for Domestic level.

Therefore 3 ODI's each vs Paki's and Windies is more that sufficient.

People got/are bored by the amount of ODI's that mean nothing (ie, this series) and therefore it should be scaled back IMO.

[Hondo]

Why exactly would the kids be any less likely to have an interest in cricket without 20/20 now than 20 or 30 years ago?

You think all the kids going to domestic T20 were already going to test matches 3 years ago? Or ODI's? Some would have been, yes. (full marks to those parents that can keep young children at the cricket for an entire 50 over game)

But if you think that no new child has been drawn to cricket thanks to T20 then I think you are in denial. Smac told us about his recent experiences with kids and cricket.

Would it bother you if kids were being drawn to the game because of T20?

[MightyEagles]

Keep 20/20 for Domestic level.

Therefore 3 ODI's each vs Paki's and Windies is more that sufficient.

People got/are bored by the amount of ODI's that mean nothing (ie, this series) and therefore it should be scaled back IMO.

That's why they got rid of the non Australian games/triaglar series, due to the fact that there wasn't as many people at the games as they found it boring with Australia not playing.

[whufc]

Just a thought, Scrap the ODI use that extra time in the calender to create a Test Match World Cup.

Introduce a 20/20 tri series. Each ground would hold one 'meet' which would involve a double header of 20/20 games.

Brisbane- win/pak
win/aus

Hobart- pak/win
pak/win

Adelaide- aus/pak
aus/win

Perth - win/pak
win/aus

Sydney- pak/win
pak/aus

Melbourne- aus/win
aus/pak

Each team would play 8 games with the champion being the team top at the end of the series, therefore each game would have just as much importance as a final. The Australian game would always be the later game therefore the two neutrals would still have a crod in attendance and not octs the CA much. Most grounds would sell out and would only take 6 days of cricket to run.

[Hondo]

Just a thought, Scrap the ODI use that extra time in the calender to create a Test Match World Cup.

A what?

How on earth are you going to schedule a test match world cup, and why?

That's the beauty of test cricket - each match and series on it's own has enough prestige that you don't need to round robin 10 teams. That would take months and no-one's gonna go to watch!

[smac]

Why exactly would the kids be any less likely to have an interest in cricket without 20/20 now than 20 or 30 years ago?

Because there are many more options open to kids now than there were then. The rise of so many minority sports, the introduction of xbox/playstation just to name a couple. There is also the factor of parents encouraging kids to participate in sports that don't take up an entire day or weekend. If you can take your kid to footy in winter and it takes a few hours out of your day then they will start to look for options that take them the same time in winter -T20 offers this.

[Rik E Boy]

Would it bother you if kids were being drawn to the game because of T20?

No, but if those kids grow into young players that can't do more than slog for five or six overs then game is in even worse condition as if teeball wasn't invented. If the generation of players can adapt to the longer form of the game then I believe that teeball can be of benefit to the game. However, the same thing that has killed the 50 over Goose will eventaully kill the Teeball Turkey. What next ten-ten games?

It's here to stay...until people get sick of it. Let's just hope that the real game of cricket itself survives this flirtation with hit and giggle. Strangely, I find myself enjoying 50 over cricket again for the first time in many years.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

Why exactly would the kids be any less likely to have an interest in cricket without 20/20 now than 20 or 30 years ago?

Because there are many more options open to kids now than there were then. The rise of so many minority sports, the introduction of xbox/playstation just to name a couple. There is also the factor of parents encouraging kids to participate in sports that don't take up an entire day or weekend. If you can take your kid to footy in winter and it takes a few hours out of your day then they will start to look for options that take them the same time in winter -T20 offers this.

How many 'minority sports' have truly emerged in the last twenty years? Also, a kid that is full on into X Box and Playstation won't want to give up a couple of hours either. As for Cricket, it does take longer than say Saturday afternoon footy but not by much. My son plays Cricket and Football and the cricket doesn't take that much extra (the big problem for us is the bloody away games!). A lot of kids in the Cricket side back up from juniors anyway and play seniors in the lower grade as well.

No, what you are really talking about is swaying those who aren't really into it. For me that says that teeball is never about the kids, but the coin.

regards,

REB