Do T10s better fulfil the purpose of T20s, as a platform for entertainment in cricket?

[Rana]

I believe so. T20 was initiated as a response to the fringe fans of cricket who claimed Test and ODIs are too time consuming and they are not over and done with easily the way a football or basketball match are. So T20 aimed to provide a platform for entertainment in cricket. However with time, teams realised that this format also provides a decent amount of time and the game became more tactical. Scores of 160 are par, yet to think about it scoring 160 in 20 doesn't provide the thrill of a a short game. The occasional 190+ scores are the ones that suggest the batting carnage fans around the world would like to see.

Now, T10 is half of that time spent on a T20 game, and this is actually the format in which people want to see hacks go at the ball from ball one. This is no doubt entertaining, plenty of slaps for Six. Isnt this what the shortest format of the game was supposed to provide?

 

[Executioner]

It's so much far from the truth in my honest opinion.

T20 was never really about slogging from ball 1.

T20 was meant to be a format where batsmen will try to mix caution with aggression and tee off at the end. However all this considering that they have wickets are left in the tank.

T20 still requires a lot of a good mix of skill for the batsmen. For example someone like Amla Willamson Tamim aren't perfect for T10 cricket but very useful in t20. T20 has that good mix of crickerers in the side.

Each batsmen has a certain role. Each bowler has a certain role.

For example batsmen-

Opener 1- grafter
Opener 2- aggressor
No.3 - best bat, accumulator
No.4 - big hitter + accumulator
No.5 - aggressive and calculative
No. 6 - slogger + calculative
No. 7- slogger + calculative.

In T10 no one has a defined role. It's all slog slog slog because there are 7 batsmen and not enough batsmen. So even if you get out there is no real repurcussions.

As for bowlers, they have defined role based on bowling in the pp, middle overs or death. In T10 every over is targeted pretty much the same way, PP or death.

People think that T20 is popular because of being short. It's not. It's a about a good blend of aggression and skill. That's what mate T20 so popular.

 

[Sirris]

Didn't though much of T10 but followed the last matches of the tournament albeit via scorecard.

It had me pumped, blood rushing and heart beat going up. That's what I need when I watch sports.

If we are going to have a fun cricket format than in its first outing T10 did a decent job. Potential wise it could be better than t20. In T20 little kids can still hide during the middle overs while in T10s the kids get exposed while the men step up. In T20 teams rarely play with a RR of 10+ over a long period of time while in T10 that's the bare minimum.

What are you crying about, pal?

Your favorite bowler is getting spanked all around the park?

Well too bad he is not good enough for this contest!

Your favorite talented and aggressive player can't last more than two balls?

Well too bad he is not good enough to play against the big boys. He is an imposter, a fake, a poser.

Over time this format can bring out a new breed of players who are strong enough to last and not crumble under pressure. Who are able bowl two overs without getting spanked around and last longer than two balls while hitting big.

We are living in a fast paced world, in contrast to 100 years ago today the cars, the planes, communication and lifestyle is all fast paced. So the old school fans need to wake up and look around.

Cricket needs innovation, this tournament was a daring step towards innovation and I support this step.

The bowlers are forced to be innovative and think of ways to avoid getting good spanked while the batsmen are forced to play big shots while lasting longer than 5 minutes.

 

[hafizexpress]

Could the T10 be a good fit in the Olympics

 

[Cricfan4eva]

F5 will fulfill the purpose even more.

Or better yet. Imagine Amir vs Rohit contest being decided over book cricket. Gee! Wouldn't everyone love that...

 

[ExplicitAI]

Imagine if cricket gets even more shortened to T1. Just kidding but T10 looks good only for exhibition games like this, I wouldn't be too keen on it for international cricket.

 

[JattMaula]

It feels like playing Football on Handball field.

 

[shah_1]

T20 is better than this joke.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I believe so. T20 was initiated as a response to the fringe fans of cricket who claimed Test and ODIs are too time consuming and they are not over and done with easily the way a football or basketball match are. So T20 aimed to provide a platform for entertainment in cricket. However with time, teams realised that this format also provides a decent amount of time and the game became more tactical. Scores of 160 are par, yet to think about it scoring 160 in 20 doesn't provide the thrill of a a short game. The occasional 190+ scores are the ones that suggest the batting carnage fans around the world would like to see.

Now, T10 is half of that time spent on a T20 game, and this is actually the format in which people want to see hacks go at the ball from ball one. This is no doubt entertaining, plenty of slaps for Six. Isnt this what the shortest format of the game was supposed to provide?

No T20 is and will be more popular than T10.

T20 is not too long, and it's simply not true that people want shorter and shorter games.