Do you think 20/20 Cricket should replace the 50-over 1-day international?

20/20 all the way!!!

Who has time to waste a whole day in watching one match... Are you guys ok??!!! One day??!! in one match??!!! Don't u guys have something to do??!!

It's all about time that matters!! People can't sit in front of TV watching batsmen playing defensive and letting the balls pass by and waste their whole day.. But if the match is gonna last for 3 hours, there will be many people ready to spare their time... and 20/20 is adrenaline!! Hit or get out... every ball is important... You will see sixes and fours... and there are more chances of watching batsmen getting bowled and their wickets flying in the air!!... it's either this or that... hit it or get out... This is adrenaline!! and this can elevate cricket to become one of the best games in the world!!

My answer to this is no?

This same issue was raised in a slightly different form when 1-day internationals were first played, with purists believing that it corrupted the game as it was meant to be played.

In my opinion the 20-over format, along with the 50 over and 5-dayers has their place in international cricket ... although I also think the T20 should widen the net in order to let some of the smaller less known countries play as well - there's a slightly different skill set required to play the new format.

This would open up the possibility of more smaller countries joining the international arena - it would be nice not to see 7 or 8 countries dominate the game.

cricket is a professional sport, and the players get paid based on the endorsements they receive from sponsors and/or their central contracts with their respective countries or states. these sponsors only get involved if the game is marketable, while cricket authorities get the funds to pay cricketers through ticket sales. based on the current scenario, twenty20 is definitely more marketable and brings in more people to games than the fifty50 format.

therefore the question that should be asked is how to make the fifty50 format more interesting? but basically twenty20 and fifty50 should complement each other and not be competing against one another.

No. Traditions should continue.

Even though Test matches are 4.75 times longer than ODIs, nobody replaces it. If you see the crowds at Kotla (Delhi) & Eden Gardens (Kolkata), you won't say a test match is going on.

Both should continue being functioned. ODIs & T20s together will make a better market than T20s or ODIs alone.

No. They are played differently and one cannot replace the other, same as ODI's can't replace test cricket

Cricket's grace is not in its shortest form any way.

Of course, it is a kind of a lazy game where already modernization has taken roots in the form of 5050 and T20.

No. Thats unfair. A cricket game is for 50overs & shall test each other strenghts.

How many times we will have to ans. this qus.

we have already discuss much on this topic when T20 WC was being played.

they should keep both but if no then keep 50 overs.

within couple of years ODI may not exist

.....................v