20/20 cricket

[GotSpin]

They should defaintly play baseball music!

 

[thierry henry]

Except you said they're both slogfests so if that were true blind sloggers would do well in Twenty20 and as you've accepted they don't. Anyway just believe me when I say that a 10 over innings is considerably different to a 20 over innings.

Yes, they are slogfests, comparatively speaking. "Blind sloggers" will never succeed in any form of cricket, that's self-evident. No, I won't just believe you.

 

[Scaly piscine]

slogfests = slogging loads = something blind sloggers do

Do you see the relationship and how that disqualifies Twenty20 from being a slogfest?

 

[thierry henry]

Do you know the meaning of the word "comparatively"?

Slogging is probably the wrong word. Risky batting perhaps describes it better.

 

[GotSpin]

In 20-20 its not a case of slogging all out. You still need to be able to play cricket shots properly just in a more aggresive manner,

 

[Scaly piscine]

In 20-20 its not a case of slogging all out. You still need to be able to play cricket shots properly just in a more aggresive manner,

That's what I've been trying to get across to henry, it's something Pakistan have (hopefully) learnt the hard way today.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Slogging in Twenty20 cricket will almost always result in the team losing six wickets in the first ten overs and losing the match, whilst what's succeeded has been intelligent batting, aggressive running, improvisation and alert fielding, plus the extra time limit makes it much more of an intense game.

 

[Josh]

I must say the Australia A batsmen looked most comfortable. David Hussey was definately not doing anything out of the ordinary, a regular One Day innings for him. White did have a bit more of a go than normal, but that doesn't mean his strokes were wild or erratic.

 

[marc71178]

I think it's ridiculous that 20/20 is suddenly so popular when it is such an obvious and unimaginative rip-off of CricketMax.

Erm, no it's not.

 

[marc71178]

Anyway, the point is that 20/20 is obviously a very minor modification of CricketMax, and it can hardly be said that they are seriously different games, or that one is much better than the other.

The only real similarity is the 20 overs a side - apart from that they're different.

Twenty20 is very similar to normal cricket, but Max wasn't - I think that'll be why the players didn't like that

 

[Jono]

Originally Martin Crowe (who developed it) had four stumps at each end, but that wee experiment was dropped pretty quickly.

LMAO!

Regarding today's game. Although the first over initially put me off (come on, that wasn't cricket), I did like the intensity of the match. Australia A did very well to claw back after Akhtar and the others ripped through their 'top order'. I was really looking forward to a great run chase by Pakistan, boy was I disappointed.

We all know Afridi has no brain. That's obvious so I'm not even bothered with his performance. Who is really confusing me is Razzaq. It's not that he's inconsistent. What I've noticed is some days it seems he just doesn't care, while other days it seems like he's extremely determined. I don't even need to explain which is the day he performs (such as on Wednesday) and which is the day he fails, like today. He really didn't look interested today.

 

[Scaly piscine]

One important factor which no-one has previously mentioned yet, which I think makes Twenty20 a great prospect and even more desirable is the fact that Richard doesn't like it.

 

[apartheid smash]

One important factor which no-one has previously mentioned yet, which I think makes Twenty20 a great prospect and even more desirable is the fact that Richard doesn't like it.

Richard doesnt even like his own mother, i would know, after watching him grow up i can tell you that they very rarely enjoy each others company.

 

[Ferd]

the game was great last night, the home crowd really got behind tait and the music between overs is a excellent idea(cept for the hilltop hoods songs). Bit dissapointing Pakistan didn't get closer but at the end nobody cared. I would think everyone there would go again although it might of been better to have the game after the VB series rather than before it.

Highlight of my night: Seeing Richie Benaud(with his white suit on), Mark Nichollas(sp), Tubbs and Chappelli in the carpark after the match. I will die happy now

 

[GotSpin]

Im telling you, they need baseball music!

 

[thierry henry]

The only real similarity is the 20 overs a side - apart from that they're different.

Twenty20 is very similar to normal cricket, but Max wasn't - I think that'll be why the players didn't like that

"The only real difference"- please, what can be so different about games that are each 20 overs a side? How can you possibly suggest that the basic idea is not the same? And what is the "idea" behind 20/20, unlike Max I daresay it didn't take a great deal of time to think it up. And you honestly think that a 20 over each form of cricket, created a few years after anothr 20 over each form of cricket, and coinciding neatly with the latter's demise, is in no way a rip-off!?!

 

[marc71178]

No it's not.

Max had 2 innings each of 10 overs right - therefore every top batsman gets 2 bites at the cherry.

It had bonus zones etc, thus changing the scoring system.

Twenty20 is far more simple, being a 20 over a side game under standard rules (with the odd thing like speeding up between dismissals etc.) - it is far from a rip off, and, judging by the International take-up of it, I guess you could say it's a tad more successful.

 

[Craig]

I enjoyed it a lot - it was something new and I was impressed. And now it will be introduced into part of Australia's domestic season in 05/06 I believe.

I don't know if they showed Twenty20 on C4 or only on Sky in England, but one of Richie Benaud's suggestions is that instead of penalising a side 6 runs for a slow over-rate ie Team A doesn't bowl their 20 overs in time, that the runs penalised be the equalivant of the team batting first's scoring rate. So if a team is scoring at 9 runs an over, then Team A get penalised an extra 9 runs when they come out to bat. Also for the no-ball free hit, not to allow the team to change the field for it.

At work there was one suggestion was to play more then one game at ie double-header, but I don't think that would be possible.

 

[bryce]

i think 20/20 is just a rip off of ODI cricket - a concept that any man and his dog could think up, yet it is popular ?
these types of cricket should not be regulars on international calenders EVER - but merely used as say no more than one or two of them for warm-up matches against touring teams, otherwise they should be kept to domestic competitions only, if 20/20 cricket becomes a regular feature on international calendar's then cricket will be the loser IMO

 

[Scaly piscine]

They showed the finals day highlights on Channel 4, that was it as far as terrestrial TV. Finals day consisted of the two semi-finals and the resulting final (which is floodlit) - so there are actually 3 games in one day. I do however think the games should be just one a day apart from that, as part of the pull of Twenty20 is a 3 hour game you can get a result from which fits in with peoples lives much better.