cricket

wat u all think is test cricket really diminishing???
wat will happen to ODI's later if there is quick format like 20-20??
is the idea of SACHINTENDULAR gud enuf of spliting the ODI innings in 2 ...???
do reply...

i think test is important
becose this is real cricket

if cricket short format come then its not effect to the ODI cricket becouse the genuion of cricket in the people blood and they watch cricket any format come and want more or more cricket

I think its true that test cricket is dimnishing under the lights and glamour of T20 cricket. T20 cricket has become a great sucess all across the world. The shorter version of cricket(T20) is getting popular day by due to its speed and money. Even non cricket playing nations like United States, China etc are also adopting it and the recently proposed champions league by BCCI and other boards has also posed threat to popularity of football as a business point of view its a very good for corporates but
I think real cricket should also remain and the true spice and enjoyment of cricket is in test and one day cricket(50 over). Test cricket is the platform which test the players skills and patience very deeply whereas one day provide players with use of mind games and strategies in 50 over format because game keeps on changing.

Test cricket and one dayers should not be removed other vise cricket will become a game of anyone because hitting can be done by any normal cricketer but real skills are judged only on the basis of test and one day cricket.

s it is, 20-20 is like fast food which is not healthy for budding cricketers,test cricket is true test of guts

All version of cricket is good.............................................. ......I love cricket

Test cricket might diminish if not given enough attention and proper impetus.
More and more new players are playing for T-20 (ipl) and seem to be satisfied with that

Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...Well..i dont think so...

I disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagreeI disagree

Originally Posted by neha.bms

wat u all think is test cricket really diminishing???
wat will happen to ODI's later if there is quick format like 20-20??
is the idea of SACHINTENDULAR gud enuf of spliting the ODI innings in 2 ...???
do reply...

Certainly 20-20 has turned more exciting than 50-50. People want to enjoy more n more at every moment,i.e, enjoying on each and every ball of match. 20-20 thus saves time for them.
People's perception generally to a 50-50 game now is watching or knowing score @ frequent intervals of the match rather than seeing it whole day.
Moreover, if we observe most people like to see the match in the later part of the innings (i.e. during last 5-10 overs) which are more exciting.
20-20 is a short span excitement game with each side playing aggressively in entire innings and agitating the killing/aggressive spirit in cricket lovers.

50-50 can be turned more exciting either by changing certain rules which can add excitement for cricket lovers.
Sachin's idea can also work well provided they try to implement it. However, I wonder if there was some other person instead of Sachin, media or any other person would have grilled that person for commenting to amend the 50-50 rules :-)

Sachin said to break 50-50 in 25-25 of two innings. I think it can add a lot of excitement to people provided they make a good strategic move.