West Indies in Oz cut to three tests to accomodate Twenty20

[Tom Halsey]

a) Its not a fair contest when you consider a bowlers get far lesser overs to get the batsmen out. The batting team has the same number of wickets in hand. So they can score more freely.

b) In test cricket it usually went for an average of around 3 runs an over which has been slightly higher now. Its going at 6 runs around in one dayers. The one day game is more of a batsman's game.

c) There is no way of showing it is an even contest.

a) Last time I checked, bowlers still got wickets in 20/20.

b) Why you keep referring to run rates I have no idea.

c) Yes there is - you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Pratters]

As I said before, most decent bowlers wouldn't mind going for runs if it meant that they'd get more wickets. Within reason ofcourse.

So Bowlers would like Hong Kong sixes by your logic.

 

[Pratters]

So you're now contradicting youself by saying even mediocre bowlers get good figures.

And, as Marc says, good bowling gets good figures. How you can dispute that is beyond me.

Mediocre bowlers may get wickets and superior bowlers may not when batsmen try to hit them for runs as is the case partially for some bowlers in the one day game. Does not make it a bowler friendly game or a neutral game!

 

[Pratters]

a) Last time I checked, bowlers still got wickets in 20/20.

b) Why you keep referring to run rates I have no idea.

c) Yes there is - you just refuse to accept it.

a) Getting wickets alone does not show they are equal

b) Run rates shows how much the batsmen are dominating the bowlers in the twenty20 game.

c) Show me how it is an equal game and I will accept it. Being smacked for runs and getting wickets because batsmen are willing to take more risks as overs are lesser does not make it an even game by any realm of logic.

 

[Pratters]

Within reason ofcourse.

Being hit for 8-9 runs an over is not within reason.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Its because batsmen try to make runs faster. The great figures are not due to the greatness of the bowlers. Mediocre bowlers get wickets in 50 overs game like a M.Vaughan. Part time bowlers become far more effective in twenty20 games.

Part time bowlers will get hammered in 50 over games if they bowl as you'd expect, teams that have to make up 10 overs because of their team make-up lose and lose frequently. The same will happen in Twenty20.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If I'm averaging 15, going 9 an over, I'm happy.

 

[savill]

While Twenty20 appears to be more batsman dominated, look at who the major star has been - Adam Hollioake. Also, look at the semi final last year between Lancs-Surrey. If it had been so batsman dominant, why was it a low scoring game, yet exciting stuff?

 

[Tom Halsey]

So Bowlers would like Hong Kong sixes by your logic.

I'd love the challenge.

 

[Pratters]

If I'm averaging 15, going 9 an over, I'm happy.

So in a 4 over spell in a tweny20 game your figures would read

4-0-36-2

So the batting team would still manage a score of 180 runs for the loss of 10 wickets. I dont fathom how being smacked for 9 runs an over with just 20 overs to bowl and 10 wickets to take gives any thing to the bowlers.

 

[Pratters]

Part time bowlers will get hammered in 50 over games if they bowl as you'd expect, teams that have to make up 10 overs because of their team make-up lose and lose frequently. The same will happen in Twenty20.

Part time bowlers have a bigger chance in odi's than in tests and in twenty20 than in odis. More so because of batsmen going for the shots than bowlers earning the wickets.

There is ofcourse some one like Harris who shows exceptional skills in a one day game but the usual norm of a lower skill bowler getting into the wickets is because of batsmen smacking them. Hogg would rarely manage to get into the test team but would have much more of a chance in a twenty20 game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

What you fail to grasp Pratyush is cricket is all about contexts, on a flat pitch averaging 35 with the ball can be good. Sometimes when you're giving away 7-8 an over that's good, it's all about contexts and that's how you measure the performance not by having rigid standards by which you compare players.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Part time bowlers have a bigger chance in odi's than in tests and in twenty20 than in odis. More so because of batsmen going for the shots than bowlers earning the wickets.

There is ofcourse some one like Harris who shows exceptional skills in a one day game but the usual norm of a lower skill bowler getting into the wickets is because of batsmen smacking them. Hogg would rarely manage to get into the test team but would have much more of a chance in a twenty20 game.

They're not part-time bowlers.

 

[Pratters]

While Twenty20 appears to be more batsman dominated, look at who the major star has been - Adam Hollioake. Also, look at the semi final last year between Lancs-Surrey. If it had been so batsman dominant, why was it a low scoring game, yet exciting stuff?

Exceptions to the norms do occur as in the final. Also, England has much more swing friendly pitches which offers some thing to the bowlers which may cause some games to be low scoring, more so in cloudy conditions. It wouldnt be the norm though.

Adam Hollioake is perfect to succeed in the twenty20 game in England. Not an exceptional cricketer, a bits and pieces player. He wouldnt make the English test team would he right now?

 

[Pratters]

While Twenty20 appears to be more batsman dominated, look at who the major star has been - Adam Hollioake. Also, look at the semi final last year between Lancs-Surrey. If it had been so batsman dominant, why was it a low scoring game, yet exciting stuff?

Exceptions to the norms do occur as in the final. Also, England has much more swing friendly pitches which offers some thing to the bowlers which may cause some games to be low scoring, more so in cloudy conditions. It wouldnt be the norm though.

Adam Hollioake is perfect to succeed in the twenty20 game in England. Not an exceptional cricketer, a bits and pieces player. He wouldnt make the English test team would he right now?

 

[Pratters]

While Twenty20 appears to be more batsman dominated, look at who the major star has been - Adam Hollioake. Also, look at the semi final last year between Lancs-Surrey. If it had been so batsman dominant, why was it a low scoring game, yet exciting stuff?

Exceptions to the norms do occur as in the final. Also, England has much more swing friendly pitches which offers some thing to the bowlers which may cause some games to be low scoring, more so in cloudy conditions. It wouldnt be the norm though.

Adam Hollioake is perfect to succeed in the twenty20 game in England. Not an exceptional cricketer, a bits and pieces player. He wouldnt make the English test team would he right now?

 

[Tom Halsey]

So in a 4 over spell in a tweny20 game your figures would read

4-0-36-2

So the batting team would still manage a score of 180 runs for the loss of 10 wickets. I dont fathom how being smacked for 9 runs an over with just 20 overs to bowl and 10 wickets to take gives any thing to the bowlers.

2/36 are useful figures...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Exceptions to the norms do occur as in the final. Also, England has much more swing friendly pitches which offers some thing to the bowlers which may cause some games to be low scoring, more so in cloudy conditions. It wouldnt be the norm though.

Adam Hollioake is perfect to succeed in the twenty20 game in England. Not an exceptional cricketer, a bits and pieces player. He wouldnt make the English test team would he right now?

Did you have to say it 3 times?

He wouldn't make the Test team because he's retired.

 

[Pratters]

2/36 are useful figures...

In a 50 over game yes. Its average figures in a twenty over game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Exceptions to the norms do occur as in the final. Also, England has much more swing friendly pitches which offers some thing to the bowlers which may cause some games to be low scoring, more so in cloudy conditions. It wouldnt be the norm though.

Adam Hollioake is perfect to succeed in the twenty20 game in England. Not an exceptional cricketer, a bits and pieces player. He wouldnt make the English test team would he right now?

Why on Earth are you banging about someone wouldn't make a Test side when Twenty20 and Test cricket are accepted as being different? Oh and btw he did play Tests and no he wouldn't get in any side because he's retired.