ODI and T20 - Russell Crowe could not care less.

[RedFever]

That's the thing' date=' you think ODI and T20 are part of cricket or even a form of cricket. Those who have proper knowledge of the game know ODIs and T20 are not real cricket. They are something else. A joke to be honest, a joke for idiots who don't know what cricket actually is.[/quote'] OP seems to be a die hard russel crowe fan. Better off watching movies than cricket.

[fineleg]

Tests >> ODIs. Agreed. No need for yet another thread to prove that.

[HippoSucks]

It is ridiculous calling ODIs and T20s not real cricket. Surely many people find Test cricket the most "pure" form, but the other modes have their value.

[bones]

It is ridiculous calling ODIs and T20s not real cricket. Surely many people find Test cricket the most "pure" form' date=' but the other modes have their value.[/quote'] They have their value to people who don't know what cricket actually is. ODIs and T20 are not cricket, they are both slogfests. The term cricket should not be used before, after or at anytime when describing the joke games ODI and T20. I might have more time for the ODI slogfests if they allow bowlers to bowl more than 10 overs and if they allow more men on the boundary, but until then it is just an elongated version of T20.

[Detonator]

his own opinion :dontknow:

[Gambit]

OP is Pak fan and that explains timing of thread. :giggle:

[bones]

OP is Pak fan and that explains timing of thread. :giggle:

The timing of the thread isn't because of Pak or Eng being hammered it's because Russell Crowe said it in an interview over the weekend. You probably haven't read many of my cricket posts, but if you did you'd realise how I've always maintained the pinnacle of of this beautiful sport is winning a test series in Australia not winning a WC in either ODIs or T20s. The best team doesn't always win a World Cup. 1983, 1992, 1996, 1999 are all examples of the best team during that tournament not winning, just winning at the right time. Every single T20 WC is evidence that **** teams can win it. But always always always in a test series the result is proper. The best team will win.

[Sooda]

^ Ok, for what is is worth 90% of people here would agree as a test of skill, tests > shorter versions of the game.

[CoverDrive]

[MechEng]

Look, from long term perspective cricket is surviving today because of limited overs format. ODIs began in 1971, which was a clear indication that some section of crowds were losing interest in tests (otherwise what was the point of inventing ODIs?). Criticizing limited overs format is like criticizing computers and praising abacus. While tests are the pinnacle when it comes to the skills of a player, that doesn't justify mocking ODIs.

[HippoSucks]

They have their value to people who don't know what cricket actually is. ODIs and T20 are not cricket, they are both slogfests. The term cricket should not be used before, after or at anytime when describing the joke games ODI and T20. I might have more time for the ODI slogfests if they allow bowlers to bowl more than 10 overs and if they allow more men on the boundary, but until then it is just an elongated version of T20.

No, it is just a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with the cricket knowledge of a person. A cricket aficionado can just be interested in ODIs and despise Test cricket (although I assume most enjoy both). If ODIs are an elongated version of T20s, aren't Tests an elongated version of that too?

[gattaca]

No, it is just a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with the cricket knowledge of a person. A cricket aficionado can just be interested in ODIs and despise Test cricket (although I assume most enjoy both). If ODIs are an elongated version of T20s, aren't Tests an elongated version of that too?

Touche. Also what people forget is because of ODIs and T20Is, Tests have become more interesting because of the run rates in tests are increased after these formats and we are seeing more result oriented games imagine watching 5 days of cricket with out result in the past whole series was a draw it might be boring for people to watch these kind of borefests.

[AmreekanDesi]

tbf lot of aussie fans say they would give those WC wins for ashes wins without a heart beat

[HippoSucks]

Touche. Also what people forget is because of ODIs and T20Is' date=' Tests have become more interesting because of the run rates in tests are increased after these formats and we are seeing more result oriented games imagine watching 5 days of cricket with out result in the past whole series was a draw it might be boring for people to watch these kind of borefests.[/quote'] Yes, no matter what excuse you come up with, watching matches live that are 5 days long, have batsman scoring at 2 runs an over and end up in a draw will become boring. Nowadays with the limited overs format batsman are much more used to scoring swiftly. Of course it has its downsides like players being a little impatient, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the cricket itself. Also, I'm assuming the OP isn't watching the world cup because he thinks ODIs are a joke. What a shame, he's missing out on quite a bit (unless I'm assuming wrongly).

[Crookbond]

Never understood why people get such a high on d!ck measuring contest. Why is this need to prove one format is better than the other? Each format requires its own set of skills. Let's leave it at that and if you don't enjoy it, don't watch that format. I enjoy all three formats but neither one is better than the other. Everyone has their own personal preferences.