Twenty20 not Ponting's game

[FaaipDeOiad]

20/20 is new and different and it takes some getting used to by all. I do not think it is unfair to suggest that members of the English cricketing public are further down the lines of this evolution and can look back and recognise issues that were raised, pointed out but ultimately successfully overcome from their recent 20/20 past being brought up elsewhere.

How is that different from arguing that the only reason English people like 20/20 is because they invented it and they aren't any good at ODIs anyway? The fact is that most Australian cricket fans have seen a reasonable number of 20/20 games now. It's been played domestically for two years and Australia's played a handful of internationals, and the majority of the players who are unenthused over the format have experienced it in England as well. In fact, guys like Hussey, Symonds and Lehmann would have played around the same amount of 20/20 cricket as most English players.

 

[Goughy]

How is that different from arguing that the only reason English people like 20/20 is because they invented it and they aren't any good at ODIs anyway?

The difference being is that arguing the above would be inaccurate.

We can go round in circles all day and obviously that would be pointless. Over time your opinion may not change but I will guarantee that many of a similar mindset will get over it and get into 20/20.

As I mentioned, we have seen this happen already. The point you miss is that 20/20 was very heavily criticised in the early days in England like you are doing yourself. It was not accepted due to the purile reasons you suggest above but because its a bloody good game. Im a convert that didnt see its worth in the beginning.

Your opinion may not change but that of many similar will. Just dont be surprised if we say "We told you so" as things are following a predictable and already witnessed pattern.

 

[Craig]

As for India, ODI is the format that brings in hundreds of millions and full houses every game. Why would they switch to a shorter format which would generate less money (shorter game)?

Wait to we have double headers, as in American sport.

(Using an example)


Game 1 - India v Australia Twenty20

Game 2 - India v England Twenty 20

Both on the same day/night.

 

[Langeveldt]

I reckon I've given Twenty20 a chance, I've probably seen more of it than most here, and the more I see it the more I dislike it.. I wish I liked it because most other people do, but if I wanted to see clowns, I'd go to the circus..

 

[Dravid]

I reckon I've given Twenty20 a chance, I've probably seen more of it than most here, and the more I see it the more I dislike it.. I wish I liked it because most other people do, but if I wanted to see clowns, I'd go to the circus..

Agreed. Having nick names on back of their shirts...wtf. Twenty20 is nothing but a joke.

 

[Craig]

I reckon I've given Twenty20 a chance, I've probably seen more of it than most here, and the more I see it the more I dislike it.. I wish I liked it because most other people do, but if I wanted to see clowns, I'd go to the circus..

So you must be frothing at some of the different uniforms used?

The music is as bad as watching ODI cricket in New Zealand and watching rugby there when there is a break in play (like an injury etc.).

 

[Langeveldt]

So you must be frothing at some of the different uniforms used?

The music is as bad as watching ODI cricket in New Zealand and watching rugby there when there is a break in play (like an injury etc.).

I don't get uptight about what cricketers wear, but to be honest, it's not the best is it? Surely if newcomers are going to be drawn to this format (I won't call it cricket), then they are going to want to know who "Church" is aren't they?

 

[Craig]

Well Ian Healy has a new gem: Split it up into 10 overs to make run chasing even easier. So would it be possible to win by an innings then?

His suggestion is that Team A bats for 10 overs and set's a total, then Team B comes out and set's their total for 10 overs, Team A come back for the their final 10 overs and set their score, and Team B come back out for 10 overs and chase what ever is left.

So it would be (to use an example)

Team A - 1-10 overs - 4/98

Team B - 1-10 - 3-120

Team A - 11-20 - 4/110

Team B 11-20 would then need 88 runs to win with seven wicket's left.

40 over version Test match cricket!

 

[Jono]

The difference being is that arguing the above would be inaccurate.

We can go round in circles all day and obviously that would be pointless. Over time your opinion may not change but I will guarantee that many of a similar mindset will get over it and get into 20/20.

As I mentioned, we have seen this happen already. The point you miss is that 20/20 was very heavily criticised in the early days in England like you are doing yourself. It was not accepted due to the purile reasons you suggest above but because its a bloody good game. Im a convert that didnt see its worth in the beginning.

Your opinion may not change but that of many similar will. Just dont be surprised if we say "We told you so" as things are following a predictable and already witnessed pattern.

Going to argue a point as to why some disagree about it not being any good? People have made arguments as to why they dislike it, and its ignored and replaced by words such as "You'll come around, and if you don't others will so bad luck."

Even if 20/20 becomes huge, what exactly does that prove in relation to what we've argued?

 

[Matt79]

Ponting's problem with the format is just the same as some of the other people on here, they've already decided they don't like it before they've given it a chance. Then you get this state of mind where these people feel like they've got to moan about it at every opportunity and it reinforces their dislike and others dislike.

Jeez, don't know anybody else around here who adopts a dogmatic and indefensible position on a subject and then views all new evidence through that prism... say on the subject of the adherence of the Pakistani cricket team to the letter and spirit of the law.

 

[Speersy]

I seriously can not see Australia losing a 20/20 game batting first. The England bowlers had alot of experience in that format and still could not handle the aussies.

Umm wtf is the go with flintoff, I stayed up and watched the Ashes in England and I think there was a better player there.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Even if 20/20 becomes huge, what exactly does that prove in relation to what we've argued?

Yeah exactly. Personally I don't have much doubt the form will be reasonably successful in Australia, and I don't think that's really the issue at all. It clearly appeals to people who aren't already cricket fans (although not as much as Channel 9 seem to want to make out), and it's convenient for the spectator who does like cricket, and gets good crowds consistently. I know a number of people who rarely if ever have the patience to watch a game of cricket who have watched entire 20/20 matches and spoken highly of the format. In fact, I know someone who refuses to watch any test cricket and finds it boring, but watched the 20/20 against South Africa last year and told me he loved it. Mind you, it came with the suggestion that they ban bouncers from the format because it "makes it too hard for the batsman to hit the ball", but the evidence is there that 20/20 will be popular.

However, the format isn't being marketed at all towards fans of test cricket in Australia, and based on the reactions from players, pundits and from the more hardcore variety of cricket fan (such as on this site), it's not exactly proving to be a hit with such people. The gimmicks make it worse rather than better, obviously. And really, it seems to me that people are turning against the format the more it is played, rather than the other way around.

 

[Matt79]

I think the crowd at tonight's match was smaller than the crowd for the Australia-RSA match last year, which would make no sense when you consider the general appeal of an Australia-England contest compared to Australia-South Africa - IF the format was not relying on novelty value...

 

[Scaly piscine]

He rubbishes the content in Fuller's post and then fails to address that content at all. Perhaps you should address the points (made by Fuller) that scaly piscine called "wrong".

I don't have an hour to explain how virtually everything he said was wrong. I've got better things to do.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think the crowd at tonight's match was smaller than the crowd for the Australia-RSA match last year, which would make no sense when you consider the general appeal of an Australia-England contest compared to Australia-South Africa - IF the format was not relying on novelty value...

Say what?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the crowd at tonight's match was smaller than the crowd for the Australia-RSA match last year, which would make no sense when you consider the general appeal of an Australia-England contest compared to Australia-South Africa - IF the format was not relying on novelty value...

Yeah I noted some empty seats too. Was the match actually a sell-out? It might end up being one of the only matches involving Australia this summer that isn't, if not.

 

[Matt79]

^^ Most Australians would rather see Australia play England at anything, rather than watch South Africa. Nothing against the Saffies, but there's nothing like the visceral enjoyment Australian crowds get from trying to beat the Poms, even if we've been smashing them for two months solid. An ODI between England and Australia would have got a bigger crowd than tonight's match.

 

[GIMH]

I think the point he's trying to make is that there was no contest

 

[Matt79]

Righteo...

 

[Matt79]

Yeah I noted some empty seats too. Was the match actually a sell-out? It might end up being one of the only matches involving Australia this summer that isn't, if not.

I thought I heard them say 32000 in attendance...