SA Footy

With Twenty20 being such a hit with the junkies, what makes this concept different to the Super 8s tournaments that were held in 1996? Was it because it was played in the winter, up in Cairns? Perhaps people didn't like the concept of only 8 players on the field? It wasn't promoted enough? I remember it used to be telecast on Foxtel - there weren't good crowds up in Cairns, but if it was given as much of a chance (and the showbiz attached) of Twenty20, would Super 8s have been entrenched in the cricket calendar?

It was always promoted as not being a serious game. Much like the super 6's. Was done with a lot of past players as well and it was never thought of as more than a hit and giggle type concept. Unfortunately the Twenty 20 concept has seen first class and International sides participating bringing a wider audience and resulting in the ridiculous concept being taken seriously.

RR on 20-20 - our previous generation said the same thing about 50 over cricket

I have some books on the early days of ODIs and some of the negative comments about 20-20 today are word for word what was said about ODIs 30 years ago

But its the revenues from these new forms of the game that have helped Test cricket (the original and the best version) alive

I don't have a problem with 20-20 as you can prob tell Anything that gets 30,000 people to a final in a State competition can't be all bad can it?

hondo71 wrote:RR on 20-20 - our previous generation said the same thing about 50 over cricket

I have some books on the early days of ODIs and some of the negative comments about 20-20 today are word for word for ODIs 30 years ago

I don't have a problem with 20-20 as you can prob tell Anything that gets 30,000 people to a final in a State competition can't be all bad can it?

Each to their own. Just try to convince a young cricketer with potential that it is worth pursuing becoming a bowler now. Also try teaching the art of batting for an extended period of time. What would be the point of either?

True but how much better is it being a bowler in a ODI? Its as contrived as 20-20 IMO

Sorry Spelly don't mind me while I hijack your thread and get it completely off track

hondo71 wrote:Sorry Spelly don't mind me while I hijack your thread and get it completely off track

You do raise a good point about the same grumbles regarding 20/20 as ODIs when they took off.

I don't mind 20/20, as it brings in audiences that wouldn't normally watch cricket, but my gripes is that it has crowded up the schedule even more. Further more, from a personal point of view, after watching a game of 20/20, it feels like I haven't watched a game at all. To me, it's like a pop/rock concert and a blur of bats swinging and balls flying around for 240 odd balls and that's it.

I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy (funny saying that at my age), but at the foremost in my mind, is that it just makes the schedule even more crowded and that we may not see the best of some players due to fatigue from travelling and playing.

On the actual topic though, Rod has made a good point regarding the national sides, but the domestic Super 8s comp. had mostly players in it which were first choice for their sides then (and even now).

The final of the Super 8s domestic tournament in 1996 was between Queensland and Western Australia. Matches were held in Cairns, then Townsville, then the Gabba.

The teams at the Gabba for the final were:
Queensland:
Jimmy Maher
Matthew Hayden
Andy Bichel
Scott Prestwidge
Michael Kasprowicz
Craig McDermott
Ian Healy (capt & wk)
Adam Dale

Western Australia:
Justin Langer
Martin Lavender
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist (capt & wk)
Rob Baker
Kade Harvey
Jo Angel
Sean Cary

For the record, Western Australia won with 8 balls to spare.