2 or 3 forms of cricket eventually?
Martin Crowe has come out and said he's in favour of reducing to 2 forms of cricket - Tests and Twenty20. Shane Warne has said the same.
I've got to say I'm in agreement (much as I personally prefer 40 or 50 over cricket to Twenty20 and would prefer it if Twenty20 was jettisoned) - imagine a world without one of the two lesser formats....Kevin Pietersen might even be available for the odd game of County cricket!
So that makes 2 cricketing greats and me (and the BBC's Australian correspendant Nick Bryant, but he hardly counts!). I know CMJ is against because I asked him when he came to Steyning - he thinks 3 formats of the game will remain.
Anyone else want to join Shane Warne, Martin Crowe and myself in supporting a reduction to two formats of cricket!?!?
3 comments:
I'd keep all 3 going for now until it's clear how twenty20 will pan out. Perhaps make a decision after the 2015 50 over world cup?
All 3 will stay for good, but 50 over cricket will be 40 and messed about with. For example, 2 innings each as trialled in Australia yesterday.
I would lean towards two formats, and I wouldn't really be concerned which of the two lesser formats fell by the wayside. I think T20 can be entertaining, but it is a cheap thrill and just seems so artificial. I have little interest in 50 over cricket except the global tournaments which I actually really like. I agree there is a need for some kind of test championship, but for a game that lasts five days, an ideal format is going to be nearly impossible to find.
Post a Comment