tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post1518403853755151271..comments2023-12-06T11:17:40.386+05:30Comments on Ruminations of a Cricket Stalker: 20-20-20-20?Neeran Karnikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14610515539028731113noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-77604274554325890152010-06-17T14:18:21.914+05:302010-06-17T14:18:21.914+05:30@Sushrut: As I mentioned in an earlier comment ab...@Sushrut: As I mentioned in an earlier comment above, I think one reason to have this format is because there isn't enough ad inventory (time) in a 3-hour T20. To extract as much as possible out of the sponsors and advertisers, the board(s) would want a full day of TV coverage. Also, the split-innings format will make some innovations possible and bring more tactics into the game, instead of just slam-bang all the way. Something worth trying out, as Australia are now going to do. See my latest post on this blog...Neeran Karnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610515539028731113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-16634996455334423052010-06-17T13:55:30.981+05:302010-06-17T13:55:30.981+05:30Having said that, I will also prefer to have a 4-d...Having said that, I will also prefer to have a 4-day test match now. Speed of cricket has increased so much that having a 5th day feels like waste.Sushruthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05968696159522684792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-85732385945753474602010-06-17T13:50:00.702+05:302010-06-17T13:50:00.702+05:30Why you need such game format at all? why not just...Why you need such game format at all? why not just have T20 games instead? Having 2 T25 games within one is hardly beneficial to the quality of the cricket being played.Sushruthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05968696159522684792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-33914370036532896532009-09-29T10:28:51.575+05:302009-09-29T10:28:51.575+05:30@Suraj: I agree, the only reasons to have both T20...@Suraj: I agree, the only reasons to have both T20 and 4x20 versions would be commercial. As I mentioned, T20 isn't as commercially attractive in two-country format because of reduced airtime (and thus ad time). So two-team series could be held in the 4x20 (should we just call it '420'?) format, while multi-team tournaments or leagues could be T20. Either way, the nature of the game is similar, and very different from first-class cricket, thus allowing them to target two clearly separate market segments. That third, in-between, confused viewer segment that wants both slam-bang and a bit of traditional skills will migrate over time to one of the two sides!Neeran Karnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610515539028731113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-35482554633890406362009-09-26T01:34:25.262+05:302009-09-26T01:34:25.262+05:30Suraj writes - Neeran, but then why not scrap eith...Suraj writes - Neeran, but then why not scrap either the 20-20 version or the 50-50 version completely and have only a 20-20 or 20-20-20-20 version. I cannot see what having a 20-20 and 20-20-20-20 version is going to accomplish. As you say if one wants to only see slam-bang cricket they can have one version. The discussion is about whether a third version (what used to be the second version) is important. So I still feel that have two innings of 20-20 is like having a longer version of 20-20 and in principle the cricket, the strategy etc does not change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-78899320199922312322009-09-21T12:44:25.877+05:302009-09-21T12:44:25.877+05:30@Abhi: Thanks.
@Suraj: Matt Hayden said something...@Abhi: Thanks.<br /><br />@Suraj: Matt Hayden said something similar about the middle overs being a test of cricketing skill. My thought is, if you want to see some grafting, you're going to have to depend on Test (and first-class) cricket. The one-day version is purely for the slam-bang audience that draws the advertising dollars. There's no room in the cricket calendar for a third, compromise version that combines some slam-bang with some grafting... Just not enough days in the year! Look at the scheduling problems that IPL is causing already.Neeran Karnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610515539028731113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-14314710117416877522009-09-20T20:22:05.084+05:302009-09-20T20:22:05.084+05:30chhan nani,
Your views and view points should be ...chhan nani,<br /><br />Your views and view points should be noted...send this to the BCCI ...I am sure they will take a leaf from your blog...abhijit shilotrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08523478402658646790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5992411315480760223.post-37306918813162898502009-09-19T21:40:47.874+05:302009-09-19T21:40:47.874+05:30Suraj Muley:
My only problem with this concept Nee...Suraj Muley:<br />My only problem with this concept Neeran is that there is no grafting of innings in a 20-20 game like there is between the 20th and 40th overs in a 50 over game. So doing a 20-20 game is changing the concept from a 50 over mind set to a 20 over mind set (even though there are two innings). The only solution would be to have a 20 over two inning game but have an incentive to preserve wickets. So a 70 for 3 in 20 overs should be better than a 70 for 5. If they can do that I agree with all the other points you have made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com