I’ve read a lot of discussion and articles on 20/20 lately, some suggesting this be the end of the “traditional” 50 over ODI format. I can’t see this happening myself, but I’m sure the effects of the Twenty Twenty game will creep into ODIs and, eventually, Tests. We’ve already witnessed teams, led by Australia, score quite comfortably at 4/over in the past 3 or 4 years – is it too outlandish to suggest 3/over is sluggish, nowadays? – and I doubt this “average scoring” will increase much in the next 3.
- England were bowled out for 190 in the first ever ODI, hitting only seven boundaries in 39.4 overs – with each over comprising eight deliveries
- Australia won comfortably by five wickets, but their top scorer Ian Chappell took 103 balls to make 60
But…Twenty Twenty, for all its gimmicks and tackiness, does stretch players’ capabilities; they have to invent new shots, be more creative in shot-placements and the “drive” (pardon the pun) to hit boundaries is now even stronger. It is these “mentalities” that could creep into the other forms of cricket if 20/20 continues to be played. Having said all that, and if I’m still blogging in 5 years, I might well have to eat my hat as we watch England score 500 in a day v Australia on day 1 of an Ashes series
Much debate on Twenty Twenty here. Perhaps my biggest fear or annoyance is how Twenty Twenty makes Cricket even more of a batsman’s game than ever before….