Let's have a real game of cricket....

[Shounak]

because the game has to progress with the times..and attract the Playstation generation

Spot on. I've got heaps of friends who don't give a hoot about cricket. They couldn't watch a session of test cricket, let alone five days. But they switch their TV's on to watch the 20/20.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this. As long as I still get to enjoy my test cricket, 20/20 is like an entree. Or perhaps dessert.

 

[Beleg]

There's wishful thinking and then their is constructive and legitimate critcism. The two aren't as mutually exclusive as many think.

 

[Shounak]

I have always seen test cricket in Pakistan carry on with empty stands but was amazed this happened even during the Indo-Pak tests.

I never understood that. Are they simply not as cricket mad in Pakistan as they are in India?

 

[Shounak]

There's wishful thinking and then their is constructive and legitimate critcism. The two aren't as mutually exclusive as many think.

Of course you've got to balance realism with idealism.

 

[Beleg]

Pakistanies are very cricket mad. We just aren't interested in going to the stadiums and watching cricket when we can easily have a more enhanced form on television. (number of reasons for that)

Cricket is played far more than it is watched in Pakistan. Just go to any ground, any empty plot whatsoever and you will either see children and young men playing or at least some signs of previous playing.

 

[Swervy]

I'd love to see the bowler deliver it from the boundary!

two major typos....ar$e

 

[Swervy]

David Bairstow for England in a tri-series ODI in Australia. Made the old Ayatollah even more popular than he already was...

Swear I remember reading about this, but can't find any evidence scorecard-wise. Ed?

yeah it did happen..but I he also did it at the end of the first innings of matches as well

 

[Lillian Thomson]

David Bairstow for England in a tri-series ODI in Australia. Made the old Ayatollah even more popular than he already was...

Swear I remember reading about this, but can't find any evidence scorecard-wise. Ed?

Remember it well. England v West Indies at Sydney in 1979. Colin Croft needed to score 3 off the last ball bowled by Ian Botham and all England players except the bowler retreated to the boundary. I remember the huge grin on the late David Bairstow's face as he ran off towards the sight screen. It didn't matter as it happened as croft was bowled by Botham.

 

[Swervy]

Remember it well. England v West Indies at Sydney in 1979. Colin Croft needed to score 3 off the last ball bowled by Ian Botham and all England players except the bowler retreated to the boundary. I remember the huge grin on the late David Bairstow's face as he ran off towards the sight screen. It didn't matter as it happened as croft was bowled by Botham.

I do vaguely remember it....the one thing I really remember about that series was when Botham caught and bowled Kallicharan...Alvin applauded Beefy as he walked to the pavilion such was the brilliance of the catch

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't think there's anything wrong with this. As long as I still get to enjoy my test cricket, 20/20 is like an entree. Or perhaps dessert.

You won't.. Twenty20 is a money making menace that will spiral out of control, and the administrators are bound to start eating into the schedules of test matches before long.. Something has to give..

 

[Swervy]

You won't.. Twenty20 is a money making menace that will spiral out of control, and the administrators are bound to start eating into the schedules of test matches before long.. Something has to give..

Obviously Twenty20 is a big money spinner (because people like it, beleive it or not)...but people arent happy that it attracts more people to the game, which should have a knock on effect, in that more people will be attracted to playing the game as well..more competition, higher standard in all types of the game etc etc.

People arent happy with the changes with the 50 over game like the subs and the fielding restriction stuff, which may well increase scoring without detracting from the quality of the bowling.

Mr langeveldt, may I suggest that if you were around back in the early 60's you may well have complained about the money making menace that the Gillette Cup was, even though the introduction of one day cricket has probably saved more than half of the counties from financial ruin.

I know a lot of people are against change..I did however think that it was the older generation that was against this change. I am disturbed by the fact that so many younger people on this forum seem so anti-everything when it comes to change.

The fact that these changes occur doesnt make the game any less valid...infact, if these changes make the game more popular (such as Twenty20...people are actually talking about domestic cricket, people who might not normally give a damn about cricket), the game, with these changes will become more valid...simply because it is more important to more people.

The change in the size of the stumps, the change of the no-ball rule, the change of LBW law, the use of the white ball, the use of heavier bats, fielders throwing themselves around the field, field restrictions, limited overs etc etc have not changed the fundamental basics of the game so that it is an unrecognisable entity now compared to say 1900...it is still cricket...the same fundamental skills appy to test match as they do a 20/20 game...

I wish people would start being a bit more enthused by what in fact is a very exciting era for the game. People complain that the standard of play isnt what it used to be say 20 years ago...that in fact isnt true, its probably as good if not better .....and a darn sight more exciting

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wish people would start being a bit more enthused by what in fact is a very exciting era for the game. People complain that the standard of play isnt what it used to be say 20 years ago...that in fact isnt true, its probably as good if not better .....and a darn sight more exciting

You can't wish your opinion onto someone else. If people are happy with the changes then that's their prerogative, the same goes for people who don't like it. It's because the so called innovations have made the middle section of a one-day game so turgid that they are now trying more ways to artificially make the game more attractive. It won't be long before more patterns emerge in terms of when captains use the fielding restrictions and substitutions. There is no doubt that one-day cricket is the money spinner but there is no reason to believe that One-day Internationals would get smaller crowds if it was less gimmicky.

 

[Slow Love™]

I've had precious little exposure to Twenty20 cricket up to this point, but to be honest, I kinda like it, and don't feel that the game is that threatened by it. Having said that, there's always a line between happy tinkering for greater enjoyment and purposeless gimmickry - the only thing that really irritates me about some of the newer innovations is that friggin' music they play in between dismissals, after boundaries, etc. They're usually based on stupid wordplays, ie "The only way is up, baby...", or you get the same song being used to introduce multiple players because when the promoters asked them "What's your song", they said "I don't f***in' care."

I can't believe that playing this music ups spectator involvement in the game - it's just distracting and irritating.

BTW, I just wanted to praise Lillian Thomson for having such an excellent username.

 

[Swervy]

You can't wish your opinion onto someone else. If people are happy with the changes then that's their prerogative, the same goes for people who don't like it. It's because the so called innovations have made the middle section of a one-day game so turgid that they are now trying more ways to artificially make the game more attractive. It won't be long before more patterns emerge in terms of when captains use the fielding restrictions and substitutions. There is no doubt that one-day cricket is the money spinner but there is no reason to believe that One-day Internationals would get smaller crowds if it was less gimmicky.

I can wish people were a bit more positive...the point of this forum is for people to express their opinions...and in my opinion is is a tad disappointing that so many people are almost automatically anti-change even before they have really had time to think about it (Obviously,Twenty20 has been going for a couple of years, but with the subs and the fielding restriction stuff, people were instant with crticism.

What innovations have made the middle section 'turgid'..as far as I can tell, nothing has changed with the middle overs for 25 years...as far as I can tell its just the tactics that have changed, in that teams are more willing to risk it early compared to in the 80's. The frustrating part of those middle overs really is the fact that what it has done is delayed the old traditional 10 over slog...it is now more of a 6 over slog at the end..simply coz the scores in the first 15 are higher and for more wickets

Just because there is no evidence that ODI crowds would reduce, it doesnt mean the game can rest on its laurals..its that sort of complacency that brought the game to its knees on a number of times through out its history....another example of a sport relaxing a bit too much with past accomplishments was football in the late 80"s..it took innovative and daring thought to drag the game of football back to where it currently is in the UK today.

All successful sport evolve ..and most of time that evolution is seen as being artificial. Sports have to evolve or they die..simple as

 

[chekmeout]

Obviously Twenty20 is a big money spinner (because people like it, beleive it or not)...but people arent happy that it attracts more people to the game, which should have a knock on effect, in that more people will be attracted to playing the game as well..more competition, higher standard in all types of the game etc etc.

People arent happy with the changes with the 50 over game like the subs and the fielding restriction stuff, which may well increase scoring without detracting from the quality of the bowling.

Mr langeveldt, may I suggest that if you were around back in the early 60's you may well have complained about the money making menace that the Gillette Cup was, even though the introduction of one day cricket has probably saved more than half of the counties from financial ruin.

I know a lot of people are against change..I did however think that it was the older generation that was against this change. I am disturbed by the fact that so many younger people on this forum seem so anti-everything when it comes to change.

The fact that these changes occur doesnt make the game any less valid...infact, if these changes make the game more popular (such as Twenty20...people are actually talking about domestic cricket, people who might not normally give a damn about cricket), the game, with these changes will become more valid...simply because it is more important to more people.

The change in the size of the stumps, the change of the no-ball rule, the change of LBW law, the use of the white ball, the use of heavier bats, fielders throwing themselves around the field, field restrictions, limited overs etc etc have not changed the fundamental basics of the game so that it is an unrecognisable entity now compared to say 1900...it is still cricket...the same fundamental skills appy to test match as they do a 20/20 game...

I wish people would start being a bit more enthused by what in fact is a very exciting era for the game. People complain that the standard of play isnt what it used to be say 20 years ago...that in fact isnt true, its probably as good if not better .....and a darn sight more exciting

Well said Swervy, I support your views 100%

 

[Scaly piscine]

I also don't see much threat as far as the game is concerned with Twenty20. I don't think there's any threat of Twenty20 taking over international schedules, even if they threw in 5 Twenty20s because of the relative effort involved it would be the equivalent of 1 Test (schedule-wise). The only possible threat I see is if a world wide club/team competition was created - that might mess the equilibrium up. As for the music, it's vaguely useful for me because I'm usually listening to the game on the radio, and so I know there's a boundary or a wicket if the commentators are busy fumbling their lines - I guess it could be of similar use to the spectators, but yea the choice of music can be somewhat dodgy.

 

[sledger]

fits in nicely with the sport then, neither one thing or the other, just a quick fix, test will always be the ultimate form of the game.

 

[Shounak]

The only possible threat I see is if a world wide club/team competition was created - that might mess the equilibrium up.

I see a 20/20 World Cup or or some sort of [Insert your company name here] Trophy being played. Something like this would drag spectators in from everywhere. Viewers would get results in a couple of hours and love it. This will simply change the equilibrium, rather then mess it up.

 

[Shounak]

You won't.. Twenty20 is a money making menace that will spiral out of control, and the administrators are bound to start eating into the schedules of test matches before long.. Something has to give..

That's quite possible. The exact same thing occurred with ODI's. However, in 20/20's defence, players may begin to play even more cricket then they currently do. 40 years ago, players did not play as much cricket as they presently do. I'm sure schedules will become tighter as cricket becomes more professional. But no doubt, Test cricket will suffer as a result of 20/20 cricket.

There's nothing that can be done to stop it. If 20/20 is what the masses want, then they shall receive.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How about allowing the Not Out batsman to continue his innings with the man who was out last running from the other end? However, he can only continue his innings for as long as he maintains the strike.