Are you a fan of the proposals?

This debate is now closed.

Bristol's County Ground hosted a trial-run of the 20-over game on Sunday, the itinerant all-star outfit Lashings beating Gloucestershire inside 15 overs.

Innovations include a "golden over", a designated over in which the runs count double, and a "hot seat" where the next batsman sits in order to speed things up.

Are you excited by the prospect? Or will it cheapen the game of cricket?

If people actually thought about it a little more, rather than ranting and raving emotionally, one would have to come to the logical solution that 20-over cricket is not bad after all.

The fact that one-day cricket is as popular as it is, only underlines this. Cricket needs more money and a wider following to become a truly global sport. Funnily enough, more and more Americans are playing 'English' sports such as rugby and football.

Finally, to those who think that the 20-over format will ruin batsmen's technique and bowlers' morale, the issue is not the format, but simply the fact that countries like England and India do not produce sufficient quality cricketers anymore. Players like Jayasuriya, Gilchrist, Lara and Tendulkar are so versatile that they have the patience to score a double or triple century in the five-day game, yet they can rip a bowling attack apart in the one-day format.

Similarly, bowlers like McGrath are able to bowl a tight spell under virtually any circumstances. It is interesting to note that the players that are successful at the shortened forms of other sports, such as rugby sevens or five-a-side football, are generally players who are extremely versatile and skilful, which allows them to adapt to many playing conditions.
Manju Chandrasekhar, USA

Anything which enhances the excitement of cricket has to be a good thing. The future of English cricket depends on its youngsters, and their enthusiasm of the game. Forget traditions, this is the 21st century!
Rob, Japan

Looking at the list of negative comments already posted, I'd like to add this: a 20 over game need not ruin the whole sport of cricket, but will only add to its enjoyment.

People are commenting that good players will be ruined by slogging fests! Rubbish, an international player has unimaginable talent that won't be spoiled, but also there is nothing to stop the formation of 20 over specialist players, with their own rankings and average. These players can form the basis or the longer one-day match squads, but this does not mean that they can not perform in the longer game!!!!
William, UK

As a possible short term means of attracting more interest in the domestic game and hence more money to invest in the future of English cricket, I have no problem with this concept.
Keith Frost, England

This will definitely attract the newer generation of cricket watchers. One can only change things slowly and this step seems to be in the right direction.
Mudasir Khan, USA

I can't see the problem with 20 over cricket. Club players and youngsters grow up playing this cricket all the time. In my area the under 15's, 16's and 19's all play 20 over cricket. 20 over cricket is also played on a Thursday between the men. It has been like this for years and years.

The people that are now playing first class cricket in England have all grown up playing this form of the game , so to say that this form of cricket is new to them is to make a huge misjudgement. When one day cricket came in people said that it would destroy the game, it hasn't.

It will take the teams a season or two to get used to the 20 over league. After this I predict that these teams will not be able to just go out and slog because the bowlers will have to become more skilful and cunning to get the batsmen out, then in turn the batsmen will have to become more cunning in return. In truth the game will go on, with each area improving to deal with advancements by the other.
Craig Friswell, Warwickshire

I went to the 20-over game at Bristol on Sunday with my eight-year-old son. It lasted for about three hours, was fun and a good afternoon out. It was not cricket, but it was entertainment, it made money for the club and it gave my son a chance to see some big names in action. I would go again.
Simon Moore, Gloucestershire, England

Cricket needs more money, and that money has to come from more spectators. All the best efforts of recent years don't seem to have achieved that for the present four-day or 45-over formats, so let's give the 20-over format a go.

I speak as someone who really enjoys the watching the longer game, and I doubt I will ever go to watch a 20-over match. But those of us who like four-dayers or 45-overs are already giving as much time and money as we can spare.

This 20-over format has a chance of attracting a new audience, and the fact that their tastes may be different from the existing audience's is not a reason not to do it - quite the opposite, in fact.
Chris Pringle, Oxford UK

The 20-over game is not taking over from Test cricket or 50-over cricket - it is simply a new format. In athletics you have sprinters and long distance runners as you do in swimming, cycling etc. Rugby sevens has been successful but certainly hasn't taken away form the 15 a-side version.

There will always be overreaction from the purists, but basically it will create a lot of interest in the game and allow me to go to Lord's or the Oval after work and watch a full game of cricket. However, it won't stop me watching Test matches. What's all the fuss about?
Mark Hatcher, England

Most people who want to go and watch cricket also play the game. As the majority of these people must also work full-time like me, you never get the chance to go to a game.

This new format will give people who are in the same boat as me the chance to go and watch and generate some much needed revenue for the county clubs. As well as this it will give kids the chance to see top players playing the same game that they play at school and for their clubs.
Ben, England

I find it hard to support any change to the game that will irrevocably alter the true nature of the game. To me, a twenty over match will result in a slug-fest and not a good game of cricket. If they want to enable more people to watch cricket I suggest they play 50-over games where one team bats from 6-9pm on one day, and resume with the second 50 overs from 6-9pm on day two. This would put the game in prime TV viewing hours while retaining the integrity of the sport.
Dmitri, USA

20 over cricket may become an enjoyable addition to conventional cricket but I can't see it doing any good for our bowlers. I can't imagine any bowler relishing the fact that they are going to be smashed to the boundary with almost every ball. It will not compliment the styles of the good old line and length Test cricketers. I can't see Gough or Hoggard racing to the changing rooms to be the first to get put on the whites (or pinks, blues, oranges or canary yellows!)
Steve L, England

Whereas one day cricket undeniably draws revenue into the game, it's arguable that techniques are being eroded by the ever-increasing amount of limited overs cricket.

Batsmen find it difficult enough to build a patient innings already, and surely this will be exacerbated by twenty-over cricket? For me this further debases the great game of cricket and reduces it to a 'Mickey Mouse' sideshow.
Jeremy Griffiths, England

There is no need for another one day cricket format, and creating another tournament like this will reduce the standard. The real test for the players is the Test cricket. In test cricket you can see the quality batsman and the bowlers.
Sasikumar KK, India

I do not think the 20-over game has enough time to create the "build-up" the 50-over game epitomized. The tension in the NatWest One-day Final was palpable. Emulating that intensity in a 20-over game will be incredibly difficult.

Perhaps they need to make it seven-a-side or eight-a-side. This would make runs easier to score and put a higher premium on a batsman's wicket.
Zubin Rustom Wadia, India

As a gimmick it might be entertaining, but cricket it aint. It seems to be more in line with UK's pathetic preoccupation with things American - a silly imitation of baseball. It may be worth a try for the non-purists if it will make a bit of money, but please find a different name - don't call it cricket.
Duncan Ascough, Canada

I work Monday to Friday, 8.45 am to 6.00 pm. Cricket played at a time I can watch sounds like a good idea to me. I assume that the critics are school children, OAPS or unemployed. I also assume that the "golden over" is a joke thought up to generate some media interest.
Peter, UK

The 20-over thrash is the latest and most lamentable in a long procession of apparent innovations which domestic cricket lovers have been forced to endure over the past decade. Four-day games (none starting at weekends), two divisions, the reduction in overseas players and uniform number of overs in one day games were all introduced to either improve the quality of English players or to bring the (young) crowds rushing back.

Sadly, these measures have not only failed in every objective, they have also reduced, considerably, the enjoyment of the English season for the real supporters of the game. Now, the ECB is replacing the popular B&H Cup with a form of the game best described as a series of after-work beer matches.

Those subtle nuances of the game that all-day limited overs cricket manages to retain will be sacrificed for constant, instant fulfilment. The ebb and flow so unique to a game of cricket will be usurped by a bang and a crash. If that's what it takes to make cricket attractive to the masses then I'd rather it withered gracefully into the English loam.
Rob Ward, UK

I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life. This is only a shade better than the 10-over idea that was bounced around. This idea will be nothing more than an afternoon slogging session, where the batsmen will pick up bad habits and the bowler's confidence gets a hammering.

If people are not interested in the current limited overs cricket then dramatically cutting the number of overs isn't going to change a thing. The best way of increasing Cricket's popularity is by increasing the quality of the players.
James Dickens, UK

Let's be honest, a batsman playing 40 overs before even trying to hit any big shots isn't very exciting. Today's children are tomorrow's professionals, and how many kids do you know who have the concentration to play for a full day?

For these reasons I would be in favour of a changed format. There just remains one problem - it wouldn't be very English, now would it?
James Sykes, England

Some of us here are suggesting a 20-overs game will make cricket popular in countries like USA/Canada. But that's a myth. If cricket should become popular we should stick to cricket in its original form and not twist everything we invent. Note that golf is also popular in US/Canada, and I thought it was slower than a one-day game!
Vijay N, India

20-overs cricket more exciting than baseball? Have you ever watched a game of baseball? It basically consists of a game of catch between pitcher and whatever the back-stop is called while a selection of people swing at the ball in vain! Baseball is far more boring than Test cricket.
Richard Evans, Uk

I'm neither a cricket fan nor a player. But please do not start to Americanise any of the sports that have history. Changing the rules of a game in an attempt to make it popular is a flawed concept. If a game can't cut it as it stands, let it fade to a minority sport played enthusiastically by millions, like cricket for example.
Ken, Romania

A new game needs a new name - how about Quickcricket or Rapidcricket. Along with a new name, the 20-over game will need a new personality. As happens with all new innovations, there is resistance, followed by reluctant acceptance and then finally the euphoria.

Any form of the game that can retain the excitement and produce quick results will be lapped up by cricket lovers. The purists and pundits will take their time to come to terms with what they may initially call "rubbish". With big hitting becoming a basic requirement for the shortened game, inhibitions will be shed quickly.

In countries where the game is not presently popular, "quickcricket" can build interest and followings, not to speak of television sponsorship which can give a boost to the game. It's a whole new ball game so don't get upset and compare it with other forms of cricket.
Ajay Singh, India

No wonder England haven't been on top of cricket for some time now. What a load of hogwash.
Gary, RSA

I can't wait until next summer and the advent of 20-over cricket. For two glorious weeks I will be able to leave work and go to watch a cricket match. At the moment the best I can do is attend a day or two of Test cricket every year, but in 2003 my friends and I will be able to have "picnic suppers" at the Oval and Lords.
Simon, UK

Already hardcore fans believe that one day cricket spolit Test cricket, and with such new "useless" innovations, we can rest assured that it will be tombsday for cricket soon.
Sree, India

To compare this ridiculous slog with Test cricket is like comparing Rogan Josh with a chain-store beefburger. Cricket is a sport in which the audience can participate, with scorecard, Wisden, notepad and calculator, but the game needs to be of length before this can be done.

The fact that the game is to be reduced to a slogging match indicates where society has gone - to a state where only instant, flashy thrills will suffice, and anything that requires thought or exhibits subtlety is considered dull and is spurned without proper consideration.
Steve Robey, UK

If England players can't play attractive 50 overs cricket then neither can they play 20 overs cricket.
Shyamal Shah, USA

What rubbish! You call these innovations. This is equivalent to American ideas of widening the goal posts in football so that people will see more goals.

If you have class, skills and flair it will show in the current format. Just watch Australia, Pakistan, South Africa or India. Don't try to fix it if ain't broken!
Ashish Pujari, India

There can't be anything more exciting than the present 50 over game.
Sanjeev Varma, Houston-USA

No doubt, the excitement will grow with the shorter version of cricket but that will sacrifice the class and real art of the game. When this happens, the finest stroke makers like Tendulkar and Lara will not be any different from wild hitting tail-enders.
Balamurugan Ramraj, USA

Excuse me? Who came up with these ideas? Some say cricket is dying in England. Now I know the reason why!
SD, US

I think it's a great Idea. To make cricket popular in the world, we have to make changes to the game. Especially in the countries like USA or Canada where time is money.

The 2O overs game would be attractive for young and old even in the UK. Unfortunately, cricket has a bad reputation of being slow, boring and long. To compete with football, the ICC or ECB has to do something because the future of cricket is in their hands.
Aamir Aziz, Pakistan

Well we've already had a taste of it with that final Test match against the Sri Lankans. I was salivating at the prospect of another dash last night, but alas, it didn't happen.

I am all for it if it excites youngsters into the game, the game needs to invest in these people or die. The innovations will liven up the game for others, like the Americans, who have less patience with the longer game.

It has the potential to be more exciting than baseball, thus you'll be appealing to the traditionalist as well as the new. It's an exciting time for cricket here and I will certainly attend more live matches to watch this format of the game.
Paul Hallett, Banbury, UK

With the advent of one day cricket, cricket has already lost a lot of charm. Nowadays, one day cricket has become a display of brute force where the real cricketing quality of the players is not tested. Yes, one day cricket is exciting, but you rarely get to see good quality batting and bowling.
Vikram Reddy, India