Yes people want to watch more T20, they enjoy IPL, Cricket has become a business than a sport. IPL, the biggest brand of the Century has changed the views and eventually change the game. Some people thought about two innings for 20-20 in each game will give more thrill.
This is a great idea. Cricket should not only be entertainment for idle spectators, but players should be given a chance to make up to their mistakes. Two innings would be great for this, and, would also create new interesting strategies of playing the game, as well.Teams need the opportunity to "come back" in a game.
It's always hard to figure out how these proposed variations would actually work out if put into practice, but with that said, what would you think of a variation to the 20-20 format where one side bats for ten overs, the other team bats for twenty, and then the first team resumes where they left off and bats the last ten overs? Could also be done in ODIs, I suppose. Might lead to some interesting strategy. The team batting second would have the advantage of batting continuously, but the team with the split innings would perhaps be more in control of the flow of the game... an idea.
To shake it up just a little... How about your batting order has to be Reversed in the second innings? So your number 6 or 7 won't get two balls to swing wildly at.. you'll need to gamble with your openers (long time at crease, but little chance in second innings), and your bowlers would either need to go out swinging at the top of the order, or get put in the middle and hopefully hidden. The tactical implications are mind-boggling. Also, bowlers get 8 overs in the match, but you can use them at any time over the two innings - all 8 in one innings if you like.
But i believe those are poor ideas. These inventing formats will please both public and businessmen, but it is not going to happen.A test cricket fan will never be satisfied watching a "split innings odi", as it lacks so many things that test match provide. Test cricket may die but there will never be an alternate for it.
A major problem of four innings ODIs is what would happen in one-sided matches. If after the first two innings one side has a significant lead then in all likelihood the last two innings are going to be a procession, and the 4th innings could become a joke in many cases. This is not the case in the longer form of the game, which swings far more in any case always has the prospect of the side batting last hanging on for a draw. This does not and cannot happen in ODI. A single innings approach over two or three days using a modified Test/ODI format may survive until that too become unsustainable. Many fans just don't have the luxury to spend five days watching a single game.
The biggest thrill of the T20 is that no one can predict the end result.
But just because tomato is a fruit you can't add it in a fruit salad.
This is a great idea. Cricket should not only be entertainment for idle spectators, but players should be given a chance to make up to their mistakes. Two innings would be great for this, and, would also create new interesting strategies of playing the game, as well.Teams need the opportunity to "come back" in a game.
It's always hard to figure out how these proposed variations would actually work out if put into practice, but with that said, what would you think of a variation to the 20-20 format where one side bats for ten overs, the other team bats for twenty, and then the first team resumes where they left off and bats the last ten overs? Could also be done in ODIs, I suppose. Might lead to some interesting strategy. The team batting second would have the advantage of batting continuously, but the team with the split innings would perhaps be more in control of the flow of the game... an idea.
To shake it up just a little... How about your batting order has to be Reversed in the second innings? So your number 6 or 7 won't get two balls to swing wildly at.. you'll need to gamble with your openers (long time at crease, but little chance in second innings), and your bowlers would either need to go out swinging at the top of the order, or get put in the middle and hopefully hidden. The tactical implications are mind-boggling. Also, bowlers get 8 overs in the match, but you can use them at any time over the two innings - all 8 in one innings if you like.
But i believe those are poor ideas. These inventing formats will please both public and businessmen, but it is not going to happen.A test cricket fan will never be satisfied watching a "split innings odi", as it lacks so many things that test match provide. Test cricket may die but there will never be an alternate for it.
A major problem of four innings ODIs is what would happen in one-sided matches. If after the first two innings one side has a significant lead then in all likelihood the last two innings are going to be a procession, and the 4th innings could become a joke in many cases. This is not the case in the longer form of the game, which swings far more in any case always has the prospect of the side batting last hanging on for a draw. This does not and cannot happen in ODI. A single innings approach over two or three days using a modified Test/ODI format may survive until that too become unsustainable. Many fans just don't have the luxury to spend five days watching a single game.
The biggest thrill of the T20 is that no one can predict the end result.
But just because tomato is a fruit you can't add it in a fruit salad.
