Would you agree that in 20-20 cricket batsman should also restrict to play 24 ball as bowlers are restricted?

Question

In my opinion then only proper justification will be wit bats man

and bowler both and a balance team will have to select

by selectors of 5 batsman 5 bowlers and and one wc.

For example a bowler is doing well and taken 2-3 wickets

economically but he is restricted for 4 overs only. Similarly

a bats man if not out in 24 ball he should declared retire and to give chance tio another batsman' IN MY OPINION 20-20

CRICKET WILL BE MORE ENTERTAING IF YOU AGREE THIS THEN STAR ME IF NOT PLEASE GIVE REASON.

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

Similar question was asked last week, but it was related to a

bowler allowed to bowl 10 overs instead of 4. I had answered

the batsman restriction as well in that question. I agree, that if

one wants to make any sport with offense and defense to be

equal, then of course we have to. But given that these days the

ODI and T20 games are batsmen friendly, I do not think it will

happen.

There was a form of cricket where in a batsman was restricted

to score of 33 runs or n number of balls faced. But that was

stopped and do not know the reason.

If we restrict on the batsman, then the entire point of heavy

hitting will also be restrictive as well and possibly lead to

lower scores.

So unless T20 has to be equal on all sides, then I agree.

Answer 3

No, it wouldn't work, you'd have the tailenders all there & no runs! lol

Answer 4

no its a batsmans game.

Answer 5

i do not agree with you t20 is slam bang cricket and it need batsmen to  fire for it to be successful but it you know unfair for the bowlers you know all that free hit and stuff