T20's - A Gamble or a Game ??

Here we had a exciting and wonderful T20 World Cup. There was all the excitement and thrill in it, what was missing was predictability. A game is an event organized to decide who will be the winner, but there is always a sense of prediction on the basis of the team's overall strength, which accounts the players experience and their recent performances.

This T20 world cup has shown us there is no predictability in here and absolutely anything can happen. Who would have expected the World Champions Australia to be out of the mega event in the first round. What ever they are, they are indeed the world champions and that too three times in a row. They not at all deserved to be at this spot. And everyone knows how capable is the Indian team.

The unpredictability of the game makes it a perfect event for 'gamblers and bookies'. However the plus side would include more enthusiasm and adrenalin rushes for the crowds.

I firmly don't think these kinds of results would turn out in the 50 over ODI World Cup or a Test Match (which are the true forms of the game). I personally believe that when one team wins over another team in a T20 match, it does not always mean the winning team was better. T20's are just too fast (too short time) to justify the capabilities of any team.

According to me T20's should not be considered as cricket at the first place, its more like a gamble than a game. They need to call it by any other name but cricket. We neither want to replace it with nor we want to corrupt the 'true' game of Cricket.

I would like to know how many of you agree with my view.

0 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of t20.com - Home of Global Cricket! to add comments!

Join t20.com - Home of Global Cricket!

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Pratik Rath on July 13, 2009 at 12:33: The game being too fast .. hmm.. how is that a bad thing ?
This game has forced the bowler not to slack and have a few balls to size up the pitch or ball a few loosners whereas he has to be right on the money from Ball 1.. again not a bad thing.
Batsmen also similarly cannot take their merry time to get used to the pitch 1 or max two balls and you should be off !! and no time for 1 or 2's ? have you been watchin some other form of t20? any one will tell you if anything t20 has done has increased the importance of 1 & 2's. You have to run hard every ball. to convert 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. you no more can stroll like lets say the way Arjuna used to !!
this one you made me laugh!! wickets are not important ? what games have you been viewing ? wickets are so very important in t20 !! which team have you seen fight back after they loose 2-3 wickets in the first 4-5 overs. If a batting side looses thier opners and a couple more and are 4 down by the 8 th over its almost game over for them. i would any day take my opposing team be 60-4 in 6 overs than be 45-0 in 6.
I would agree making a batsmen beat the bat with swing and getting the edge to slip looks good. but lets be honest its at the end of the day ball beating the bat. It can happen in so many ways, thats the beauty of cricket. Batsmen going for a slog and bowler balls a slower ball or a slower bouncer and get him beaten and is caught in midwicket. Gives the bowler the same satisfaction of getting one over the batsmen. So i really didnt get your argument to be honest. All you said is how t20 is putting pressure on the player to fine tune his skills even more.

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Huzefa Akhter on July 9, 2009 at 10:54: The problem is T20's as it seems to me, are just too fast.
Even before a Bowler would feel the pitch and the situation to what and how he should bowl, he just run's out of the 4 overs allotted to him.
Batsmen have to keep their eye on just the boundry lines from the very first ball they face, there is no time for 1's and 2's (dot's are unforgivable).
Wickets have lost their importance as there are 11 batsman for just 20 overs.
The 'slip catches' strategy has completely gone (The one that I enjoy the most !).

and the list continues....

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Pratik Rath on July 8, 2009 at 14:45: Thanks for the reply. But again i would have to disagree with you when you say t20 might not be a strategic or tactic based game(this is the inference i got), but the truth is far from it. T20 is more about tactic and stratergy than any other form of the game. It needs a captain to be more proactive than reactive, like in other formats. T20 is more than just hitting the ball at random. No team can succeed if they only have big hitters who can clear the feild at will.
yes both are completely differnt forms of the game, but at the end of the day its still cricket be it 20 20 or test. Still only good players will make it. Just slam bangers will fail as they would have failed in any other format.

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Huzefa Akhter on July 7, 2009 at 15:53: Pratik I agree to your view regarding the 'trueness' of Cricket and I appreciate your feedback, but as Cricket became intended to be more of a commercial than a leisure game there was a need to restrict it to a notable 'play time'.
T20's are enjoyment to watch but cricket was known more to be a strategic and a tactic based game than just hitting the ball random.
All I ask is not to compare the two to come to a common viewpoint, they are simply different.

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Pratik Rath on June 28, 2009 at 17:19: Firstly i would like to say there is no such thing as the "true form" of the game. Test Matches when they first started were unlimited in the true sense. You could "truly" test your skills with no time bound on it. Then they made it 6 days to 5 days to now it being 450 over game equally spread over 5 days. To the new format of 60 over to 50 overs to 50 overs with 15 over fielding restriction to 20 over feilding restriction to now a 20 over a side match. So how can you say which on is the "true form" of the game. This is called the "evolution" of the game. One would argue why other sports dont evolve then? like the most famous of them all say soccer /football or chess. They are preety much the same. Well NO. Soccer didnt need to evolve in the rules per say, but its not the same soccer one used to play 50 years ago. The balls have changed the equipment has changed more goals more spectacular plays etc etc. Chess a time bound 5 min and other such inovations have been made in the game. Cricket as a sport is no different. In this game one cannot really change and do much about the playing skills or equipment, but can change the format to make it more exiting. Seriously just stop and think for a moment. Who is this game played for ? if your answer is the sportman then please go ahead play 10 day test or unbound time limit games as you please. But if this game is played for me "the viewer", not just mine but according to most T20 is what we want to watch. Dont classify your self as "purist" and say you like the 5 day format, then i can be purer than you and ask for a 10 day test match to test my skills even more !!! Dont say skill is not required in t20 when you compare it to test matches. Its not that the skill is not required but rather a different skill set is needed. test you need concentration t20 you need power hitting. So is power hitting not a skill ? This is my view point. :)

Delhi Daredevils Supporter Comment by Huzefa Akhter on June 23, 2009 at 15:11: Firstly I speak not for WC this year or last year or IPL, I speak for T20 format and India won in it last time.

Moreover there are unpreditions in 50 over ODI's but they count negligible to the over all matches played, which is not the case for the T20's.

When India defeated WI, it was not the best team, but it was second to the best (as they reached in the final).

Deccan Chargers Supporter Comment by Tariq Zaman on June 22, 2009 at 20:48: Huzefa if India would have win the T20 WC, I am sure your tone will be diffrent than this.T20 is a shorter version of a cricket game. Any cricket match either test,50 overs ODIs or 20-20,you have to have skill to win the match and play better cricket on the day.When India had win the 1983 world cup,what do you think India was the best team amoug all. The answer is big "NO" because west indies play badly rather than India play well.If you remember after the 1983 world how west indies tharashed India in ODIs and Test matches.