Holding slams Twenty20 'rubbish'

[marc71178]

"There is nothing good about Twenty20 cricket. People who disagree don't know what they are talking about."

Hmm, sounds familiar to me...

 

[Zinzan]

I Tend to agree with Holding, although being a cricketnut I'd still watch anygame.

The problem for me is that if 20/20 becomes established at international level, where would it stop? Suddenly we'd then have 3 games....Tests, ODI's and 20/20. Then in the future, people will be wanting to abbreviate the game even further.

 

[Son Of Coco]

you never heard of Robbie Williams then???

haha, or reality TV? Or Britney?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Interesting. I saw an interview with Michael Clarke after he won the AB medal the other night, and he was asked about playing 20/20 cricket in England. He said that it was very popular and so on, and then said that he thought it was the sort of game the fans would enjoy a lot more than the players, who would rather play the longer forms of the game. Then he said that it would be good because it would bring new fans into the game etc etc.

I simply asked because I've heard quite a few players saying this sort of things, and in all the positive commentary on it of late I hadn't read anything saying that it was actually fun to play.

Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!

Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!

Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.

Looks like another format where SA is doomed to failure then... every game has a real chance of a another Kabir Ali last over type event - now who seriously wouldn't want to see that apart from the dozen or so Saffie fans and Langeveldt?

 

[Zinzan]

Looks like another format where SA is doomed to failure then... every game has a real chance of a another Kabir Ali last over type event - now who seriously wouldn't want to see that apart from the dozen or so Saffie fans and Langeveldt?

For once I tend to agree with you.

S.A are definately the Greg Norman of the cricket world

 

[one_dayer]

haha, or reality TV? Or Britney?

Yes I was wrong there is popular rubbish, I cant bloody stand reality TV.
Why the hell is that popular anyway?

Name me a rubbish, popular sport?

 

[a massive zebra]

When it starts pushing Test matches out of the picture (see WI in Aus), it's a problem.

With due respect, West Indies no longer deserve a 5 Test Series against Australia unless all other teams get one.

 

[Jono]

Well Holding was a bowler. Do you blame him?

 

[Jono]

Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.

Top bowlers like being spanked for 8-10 runs an over? And like having 2 over spells, where they have no time to 'work out' a batsman, which is what cricket is about.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!

Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.

remember that the general consensus from the guys who played it in grade cricket was that it was fantastic but most of that seemed to come from the batsman. then when i played it as a bowler, i realise that there is no way that, from a bowling point of view, you can enjoy the challenge of twenty20. it takes the brain out of cricket. good on michael holding for speaking out. i can go down to the local park and watch guys slog, i cant watch them graft hundreds of pure class. get rid of the bubblegum.

 

[Sir Redman]

I tend to agree with Holding here. Cricket is not meant to be a fast-food, short-and-sweet game. The nature of it encourages long, toughly fought matches...thats what makes it appealing to some people.
Just because so many in the general public have the attention span of a fish doesn't mean we have to bow to their cluelessness and dumb down cricket so Joe Moron and Jane Ignoramus can watch it without being bored


EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry

 

[sledger]

I tend to agree with Holding here. Cricket is not meant to be a fast-food, short-and-sweet game. The nature of it encourages long, toughly fought matches...thats what makes it appealing to some people.
Just because so many in the general public have the attention span of a fish doesn't mean we have to bow to their cluelessness and dumb down cricket so Joe Moron and Jane Ignoramus can watch it without being bored


EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry

i agree to an extent here, its not bad for a while, but to be honest i get bored of 20twentty far faster than test. as long as test is not replaced then if 20twenty is around then i couldnt really care less as long as it takes nothing away from the longer form of the game.

 

[one_dayer]

remember that the general consensus from the guys who played it in grade cricket was that it was fantastic but most of that seemed to come from the batsman. then when i played it as a bowler, i realise that there is no way that, from a bowling point of view, you can enjoy the challenge of twenty20. it takes the brain out of cricket. good on michael holding for speaking out. i can go down to the local park and watch guys slog, i cant watch them graft hundreds of pure class. get rid of the bubblegum.

You obviously missed Ian Harveys 100 in last years Twenty20 Cup, every shot was hit clean and were proper cricket shots. Big hitting doesn't have to mean slogging.

I tend to agree with Holding here. Cricket is not meant to be a fast-food, short-and-sweet game. The nature of it encourages long, toughly fought matches...thats what makes it appealing to some people.
Just because so many in the general public have the attention span of a fish doesn't mean we have to bow to their cluelessness and dumb down cricket so Joe Moron and Jane Ignoramus can watch it without being bored

EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry

I dont think its about attention span with most people its about time, and most people dont even have time to sit around for an ODI these days let alone a 5 day Test Match.

 

[vic_orthdox]

EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry

don't be sorry. a goldfish has an attention span of only three seconds. it wanders to one side of the fishbowl, then forgets whats on the other side, so thats why it swims back, and continues to do so for hours on end.

You obviously missed Ian Harveys 100 in last years Twenty20 Cup, every shot was hit clean and were proper cricket shots. Big hitting doesn't have to mean slogging.

yeh, i probably used to term "slogging" too freely. my point is, as a batsman in a twenty20 game, once a bowler builds up pressure on you, its your job to try and play a big shot, and if you throw away your wicket, it is not nearly as big a deal as there are only 20 overs to bat out. even in a 50 over game, the batsman has to battle against the bowler to keep his wicket for the benefit of the team, in a twenty20 he is doing the right thing by the team by getting out.

 

[one_dayer]

yeh, i probably used to term "slogging" too freely. my point is, as a batsman in a twenty20 game, once a bowler builds up pressure on you, its your job to try and play a big shot, and if you throw away your wicket, it is not nearly as big a deal as there are only 20 overs to bat out. even in a 50 over game, the batsman has to battle against the bowler to keep his wicket for the benefit of the team, in a twenty20 he is doing the right thing by the team by getting out.

Yes the batsmen are trying to keep their wicket in the 50 over game mostly so they can slog their way through the last 10 overs.

 

[vic_orthdox]

but there is an initial battle between bat and ball, even if it is for the intent of slogging later on. there is no (or very minimal) battle between bat and ball in a twenty20 game.

 

[one_dayer]

but there is an initial battle between bat and ball, even if it is for the intent of slogging later on. there is no (or very minimal) battle between bat and ball in a twenty20 game.

Well there is a battle, just a different kind of battle. In this form of cricket its still the bowlers that win matches.

 

[Black Thunder]

The only place i'd like 20/20 in Australia to be is in a carnival type format (which is what i understand they're doing next year).

There's just so much luck involved in this form of the game that anyone can win (maybe that is a good thing though)....... Personally I'd rather see the team which possesses the must skill on the day/s to win a particular match.

 

[SJS]

How can it be 'rubbish' if it is so popular? I've never heard of popular rubbish.

Come to India and watch the TV soaps from Balaji Telefilms of Ekta Kapoor.

Rubbish is one of the most popular commodites in the world