THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
April 29, 2014

Are T20s more exciting than ODIs?

Kartikeya Date
Darren Sammy led West Indies to a thrilling win over Australia recently, but are T20 games closer than ODIs and Tests?  © AFP
Enlarge

Since the first international T20 game was played on February 17, 2005, runs and wickets have occurred in ODIs at the rate of 242 runs and eight wickets per 50 overs. In international T20 games runs and wickets have occurred at the rate of 146 runs and seven wickets per 20 overs. These figures are based on ODIs involving only the top eight Test-playing nations (excluding Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the Associate teams).

As a point of comparison, since February 17, 2005, it has taken 107.3 overs on average for ten wickets to fall in a Test, at a cost of 328 runs. Since the first international T20 game, batsmen have been dismissed once every 18 balls in T20, every 37 balls in ODIs, and every 65 balls in Tests. Since all rules except for over quotas and the length of innings are identical across formats, this is a useful baseline.

Completed innings in each format
Format Balls faced Runs Wickets
T20 120 146.5 6.7
ODI 300 241.5 8.2
Tests 645 327.6 10.0

One of the claims about T20 is that it produces a greater proportion of exciting finishes. This is conventionally taken to mean that more games are decided in the last over, or that the outcome is still uncertain in a larger proportion of T20 games until much later in the contest than in the other formats.

This view has its limits. The shorter the format, the greater the effect of each individual delivery, and therefore the greater the potential of each individual delivery to influence the state of the game. By this logic, a five-over game will be more "exciting" than a 20-over game. But are T20 games on average closer than ODIs or Tests? Test matches are not zero-sum games - they allow a third result, the draw. A draw does not imply parity, despite the implicit claim to this effect in the ICC's Test ratings. A draw is merely an inconclusive game. Let's set Test cricket aside for now.

The margins of victory in T20 and ODI cricket are revealing. Successful chases have been more frequent in ODI cricket than in T20; chasing teams win about 8% more often in ODIs. Nearly one in three T20 internationals has been decided by fewer than 7 runs (that is, by a margin of one hit) or in the final over, while only one in seven ODIs is decided in this way.

Category T20 ODI
Total Results 230 703
Wins by six runs or less 26 24
Wins with six or less balls remaining 42 69
Wins with 10% of balls remaining 64 210
Wins with 10% of average score or less (15 or less for T20, 25 or less for ODIs) 51 52
Successful run chase 100 355
Successful defense of score 123 339
Tied games 7 9

Eighty-five per cent of T20 chases are completed with five or more wickets to spare. The corresponding figure for ODIs is 70%. In an earlier post I showed that compared to T20, a larger share of the bowling in ODIs is done by good bowlers. The fact that chases are less successful in T20 than in ODIs, combined with the above facts, suggests that the practice of picking bits-and-pieces players who can hit the long ball in T20 may hurt chasing teams.

This is also apparent from the fact that lower-order batsmen seem to be able to steer a higher share of chases in ODIs than they do in T20s. However, keep in mind that the rules of dismissal and the rules for allotting runs are identical in T20 and ODI, and so the lower run rates in ODI cricket may work in favour of lower-order players.

Margin (wickets) T20 ODI
1 1% 6.1%
2 3% 7.3%
3 7% 8.7%
4 4% 11.1%
5 18% 14%
6 25% 19%
7 18% 17.2%
8 14% 12.5%
9 6% 5%
10 4% 2.6%
1 to 3 wickets 11% 22.2%
4 to 6 wickets 47% 44%
7 to 10 wickets 42% 37.3%
5 or more wickets 85% 70.3%

 © 
Enlarge

One in five ODI chases are completed with at most three wickets to spare. In T20, one in ten successful chases is completed with 7 or more wickets lost.

For games won by the team batting first, I calculated the margin of victory as a percentage of the target. The higher number of last-over finishes in T20s are obviously by virtue of the small number of overs. As a share of the target, the distribution of results is not dissimilar in the two limited-overs formats. (This data also considers only matches involving the top eight Test-playing teams from February 17, 2005 to April 1, 2014.)

 © 
Enlarge

The closest 10% of ODI matches won by the team batting first (33 matches) produced a margin of victory of upto 4.4%. The closest 10% of T20 matches won by the team batting first (12 matches) produced a margin of victory of up to 2.7%.

 © 
Enlarge

The data for the two charts above is in the table below.

  Percentage of Target Runs
Results T20 ODI T20 ODI
Closest 2.3% 4.4% 3 11
20 4.6% 7.7% 6 21
30 7.7% 10.9% 12 27
40 9.3% 15.1% 16 40
50 13.2% 18.7% 22 52
60 18.1% 24.9% 30 65
70 23.7% 31.2% 38 85
89 29% 37.7% 50 108
90 41.8% 46.1% 75 135
One-sided 56.5% 85.8% 104 259

The closeness and excitement of T20 games seems to be an artifact of the number of runs that can be scored off a single delivery and the small number of deliveries available for teams to play with. This also produces a greater role for luck (since, for example, the value of a single lucky edge to the boundary is much greater in the shorter format).

There is further evidence that shows the enhanced role of luck in T20 compared to ODIs. Since the start of T20, the strongest ODI side has won 65% of its games, while the weakest has won 28%. The strongest T20 side won 57% of its games while the weakest team won 39%. (These figures do not include games involving Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or the Associate Members.)

 © 
Enlarge

The record is similar if we only consider the last five years. The strongest ODI team won 62% of its games, while the weakest won only 27%. The strongest T20 team won 57% of its games while the weakest won 40%.

 © 
Enlarge

While weak teams tend to be weak in both T20 and ODIs, they win significantly larger number of T20s than they do ODIs. This suggests that the consequence of individual risk-taking paying off is greater in T20 than in ODIs.

So what is to be done? Bad teams win T20 games more often than they do ODI games. Fortune plays a larger role, bad bowlers bowl more in T20, bits-and-pieces players play more. The excitement of the final-over finish, which basically comes about due to the length of the contest and not because of anything either team is consciously doing. (It never does; no team plays to make games closer rather than to effect easy wins, notwithstanding MS Dhoni's apparent interest in taking run chases to the final over).

Is cricket possible over 20 overs? I think it is if the shortening of the game is managed well. I propose the following for T20:

1. Double the over quotas for each bowler to eight per innings. This will result in teams favouring better bowlers, and better batsmen.

2. Eliminate the batting Powerplay. Instead, introduce a bowling Powerplay of five consecutive overs in which the fielding side gets to play three additional fielders, giving the fielding captain 12 fielders to play with, instead of nine. This Powerplay should be taken at a time of the fielding captain's choosing. Substantively, allowing more fielders is not different from limiting what parts of the field can be patrolled by fielders. The latter has been common in all cricket since Bodyline at least.

3. During the remaining 15 overs of the game, the fielding side will have to revert to playing with 11 players (nine fielders). But during this time:

a) A boundary will be worth two runs instead of four.
b) Hitting the ball over the boundary will be worth three runs instead of six.
c) Missed catches or missed relay throws that cross the boundary will be worth four extra runs (or six in the case of a missed catch where the ball is parried over the boundary).

4. Give the batting side a maximum of six wickets (eight batsmen) to play with over 20 overs. (I will present evidence in a forthcoming post which shows why six wickets is a good number. Currently, I will point to fact that 6.7 wickets fall per completed T20 innings on average).

These rule changes will hopefully produce the following consequences:

1. Fielding captains will have more resources to play with.

2. Power-hitting will be rewarded, since hitting fours and sixes against better bowlers and 12 fielders increases the difficulty of hitting boundaries. Reducing the runs that accrue for reaching the boundary at other times increases the value of being able to reach the boundary during the Powerplay.

3. There may be the possibility of scoring more runs within the field of play than by hitting boundaries for 15 of the 20 overs.

4. Teams will have an incentive to play the best bowlers and best batsmen they can find. The incentive to compromise will be minimal.

Overall, shifting the balance towards the fielding side using the rule changes that I propose will produce a contest between bat and ball that is better balanced and might create measures of merit beyond outcomes in individual cases. This will go a long way towards making T20 a sport like cricket is.

Kartikeya Date writes at A Cricketing View and tweets here

RSS Feeds: Kartikeya Date

Keywords: Stats

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by flickspin on (May 2, 2014, 8:12 GMT)

juzar fahkruddin

i agree with you about 4 slips and bowler steaming in test, nothing better in cricket

or in india with 2 spinners & a handful of fielders around the bat, nothing better in cricket

watching mitchell johnson steam in and tear teams to shreds was thrilling cricket, as good or if not better than someone scoring a 200.it was brutal, the batsmen had no answer, great cricket

i love test cricket the most.

but i love the power hitting of modern cricket, before gilchrist and hayden the average score was 240-260 with only one 6 in the whole game, in 50/50 cricket now thier are half a dozen 6's , the average score is 300 and teams chase them down.which was un heard of 10 years ago.

i love run chases in 20/20 and 50/50 cricket

nothing better in 50/50 or 20/20 than half a dozen 6's, a dozen 4's, a fast bowlers steaming in, a spinner showing his craft, 300 runs, being chased down in the final 2 overs.

not every game can keep to this script, but when it does its exciting

Posted by flickspin on (May 2, 2014, 7:24 GMT)

@ jazer fahkruddin

would you really want to watch a game of batsmen scoring 1's & 2's, 4's & 6's are far entertaining.

people talk about the boring middle overs of a 50/50, overs 30-40 were batsmen hit 1's & 2's,

20/20 cricket has helped 50/50 become far more entertaining with average score being 300, the power hitting in overs 40-50 is as entertaining as cricket gets

in the recent 50/50 series between australia and india there was faulker smashing 70 runs off 50 balls to win a match, kohli smashing runs all over the joint and rohit sharma scoring a 200, it was the best 50/50 series i had seen in years.

plenty of runs, wickets and entertainment.

the new fielding restrictions make the game fair more entertaining, i love the amount of 4's & 6's

the only thing i dont like about 20/20 & 50/50 cricket is the 5 bowler, in 20/20 i would give 4 bowlers 5 overs each, in 50/50 cricket i would give 4 bowlers 13 overs each.

4 bowlers would make the middle overs far more entertaining

Posted by   on (May 2, 2014, 4:41 GMT)

It's really boring to watch Bowlers are getting smashed all over and the game is for batsmen only. T20 is a slow death of cricket. The real cricket was when bowlers were with 4 slips and bowl is fast and swinging. Any given day a exciting test match or even ODI is more fun then watching boring T20 where all you see is 6 after 6 on flat pitch, short boundaries , small ground.Good luck to The future of cricket.

Posted by jokerbala on (May 1, 2014, 16:20 GMT)

The more you invest in something the more is the payoff . Which is why close Test matches and ODIs to some extent have that epic battle feel compared to a T20 which is forgotten in a week or so even if it had a nail biting finish. But that is not to say T20 are not entertaining. If Test matches are like wives , ODI is a girl friend and T20s are one night stands.

Posted by CricStaah on (May 1, 2014, 15:18 GMT)

I think cricket in general will get boring as long as we see the death of fast bowlers! I blame small boundries/big bats/flat pitches for this! Any format would be interesting if you had genuine fast bowlers in the game! look at the ashes 2005 series - Eng team were fully loaded with quicks the teams of old were great coz of this: Pakistan - wasim waqar Windies - walsh and Amrose or before the the 4 greats ausies - magrath or b4 that lilly and tommo india - mmmmmmmm prasad and Srinath??? looooool

Posted by   on (May 1, 2014, 14:19 GMT)

How about looking at it from a spectators point of view, attention spans are tested more in an ODI than a T20. at least a one sided T20 is over quickly!

Posted by ultimatechamp_1 on (May 1, 2014, 8:38 GMT)

i didnt agrre with the changes wanted by the writer. 12 fielders are too many. it will cut the chances of hitting fours and batsmen will tend to take lesser risks and will not play aerial shots. 4 overs per bowler is fine as it poses a good challenge to the skippers to how to design their sides. a boundary worth 2 runs is insane. why will some one try to hit boundary when they can run 2 easily. present format is good. let it be

Posted by   on (April 30, 2014, 12:14 GMT)

@ First_slip I do agree with your view point that T20 will never surpass the skill of Test crikcet but how can one simply say that T20 is not cricket?

Posted by jets786 on (April 30, 2014, 12:09 GMT)

I think the consensus shows that most are happy with the T20 format - the real question is what can be done to make full ODIs more exciting

Perhaps the solution is to have 2 innings of 20 overs each for a full day ODI. This would bring many advantages of the T20 format to ODIs - better bowlers will bowl more overs, better batsmen will bat twice, the game will still be 'live' at the halfway point, risk taking will still be encouraged, luck will still play a part in providing close finishes, whilst still providing scope for better teams to show their skill.

What do others think?

Posted by brusselslion on (April 30, 2014, 10:15 GMT)

"Is cricket possible over 20 overs? I think it is if the shortening of the game is managed well." The inference presumably being that in its current form, T20 is unsustainable? This is utter nonsense. I much prefer Test & ODIs to T20, but it is difficult to argue that T20 is not popular. Does luck play a bigger part in T20s. Almost certainly; although I'd suggest that introducing changes along the lines proposed by the author, won't change that much. Will these changes somehow improve the shotmaking or bowling in T20? Will more people come through the turnstiles? In both cases, I'd suggest not. This is change for change's sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Comments have now been closed for this article