Whoever first came up with Twenty20, why didn’t he consider **Thirty30 **? To me, Thirty30 seems to be an ideal compromise between a full-day ODI and the mindless slogging of the Twenty20 format.
(1) Thirty30 will give individual bowlers little more to work with ( 6 overs instead of paltry 4). In the Twenty20 format , individual bowlers bowl so few overs that even Shoaib Akhtar can breeze through his quota without getting injured… !! Seriously though, with Thirty30, bowlers get more chance to exhibit their skills and have a chance to make a comeback if they get hit in the first few overs.
(2) In Thirty30, batsmen will have to be little more cautious and analytical as opposed to blindly slogging from start to end of the innings as in Twenty20. In Thirty30, there will be a real chance of the batting team losing their way and getting all out if they lose too many wickets upfront. So some “brainwork” and planning will be required, which is totally missing in Twenty20.
(3) And most importantly, Thirty30 will probably take just about an hour more time than Twenty20 , preserving the “short format” appeal of Twenty20s.
Re: Why isn't anybody suggesting Thirty30 ? It seems ideal.
^What is the *pangaa *with just 1 hour more ?
Twenty20 takes 2.5 hours, Thirty30 will take 3.5 hours....still very short if you ask me.
Even Baseball games can take up to 3 hours (and that's without EXTRA INNINGS).
And Americans who generally like dhoom-dharaaka entertainment seem to be okay with it.
t30 will take around 4 hours ..
cuz there must b breaks in between … while T20 has no drink break …
plus players will need more time to rest before 2nd innings to start …
on the other hand 25-25 can b a good option … :halo:
Re: Why isn't anybody suggesting Thirty30 ? It seems ideal.
^ I got nothing better to do my friend.
But seriously.....I can't come to terms with the fact that Twenty20 totally shuts out the bowlers.
And going by the T20 leagues being floated all around, it seems like Cricket would be predominantly T20 in the future...which is such a pity. *Tukkaybaazi *will be the order of the day (any team can beat any team). Cricket will be like a Hindi Movie - you can leave your brain outside the stadium gate.
Re: Why isn't anybody suggesting Thirty30 ? It seems ideal.
I like the idea. But I don't think we are ready for a new format of the game already. Usually the formats are tested in domestic cricket, then brought on to the international stage if they become popular. I dont know if 30 over cricket has been tried or not, might want to check that out also.
Thirty 30 as a replacement for traditional one-day cricket? Perhaps not. As a replacement for Twenty 20, it is ideal. I was reading this article and it is on the same lines. Declining over rate and time could be a constraint. Teams usually fall below the radar and cover roughly about 12 - 14 overs in one hour.
For test matches, they might just fall out of the picture one day. Why even bother to see someone play a maiden over. Frankly, there is more interest on what happens in the sidelines - half-naked women dancing to the tune of a four or six - than what happens in the middle. We will remember test cricket, but why not somehow make that effective in some way, rather than killing 2 birds with one stone - traditional format and test cricket. We have already killed it. Another season of IPL and the Stanford deal and even the English will leave their beloved Lords of watching a test match to mark their calendars for Twenty/20’s and it’s red-headed stepchild (Thirty 30).