Twenty20 not Ponting's game

[Dravid]

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!

Idiotic idea tbh. I thought Twenty20 was the limit to their attempt to ruin Cricket...guess not.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I'd like you to point me to a 20/20 that involved the bowlers doing something like this:

http://www1.cricinfo.com/link_to_da...DS/POOL-A/AUS_ENG_WC2003_ODI37_02MAR2003.html

With momentum shifts, going one way then the other. That's what 20/20 lacks, how many momentum shifts are there in the game? England were cruising, and then Bichel comes in and completely dominates them. Then you have Australia's innings where Caddick ripped through their top order, but Bevan and Bichel came to the party late. See-saw battle, show me them. I'm really curious to see how many occur. And this ODI was just one example I picked of many.

Take this match with Taylor and Thornely wrecking things. Kent are 37/6. Henderson smash three sixes and they've made a competitive total all of a sudden. Pothas and McLean give Hampshire a sniff at 93/5 - then Min Patel and Amjad Khan win the game for Kent with their bowling. (Admittedly it must have been somewhat special conditions when Khan gets 3/11 with six wides...)

Or this international - early Bond setbacks, Chanderpaul and Bravo rebuild after 79/5, Bravo and Taylor bowl NZ out and they need 20 off nine with two wickets in hand. Franklin and Bond get 19 and tie the game.

I'd say you get momentum shifts roughly as often in a Twenty20 as in a ODI, but since the game is about two fifths the length, you get two fifths the amount of momentum shifts.

 

[PY]

1st URL isn't working mate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Symonds' record in international 20/20 games is hilarious. He's 4th in runs after Smith, Ponting and Trescothick, and equal first in wickets, along with star England seamer Paul Collingwood.

 

[steds]

20/20 is like sevens rugby - it has it's roots in a sport but bears little resemblance to the original version

Test cricket: 13 blokes playing on field at one time. Two umpires. Bloke with ball runs in and 'bowls', trying to 'take a wicket'. Bloke with bat tries to hit ball and score a 'run' or more. 'Runs' are scored by the two blokes with bat both running to the other end. If the ball is hit out of the playing area, 4 or 6 'runs' are scored. After 6 'balls', the 'bowler' takes a rest and someone else 'bowls' for 6 balls from the other end.

Twenty20 cricket: 13 blokes playing on field at one time. Two umpires. Bloke with ball runs in and 'bowls', trying to 'take a wicket'. Bloke with bat tries to hit ball and score a 'run' or more. 'Runs' are scored by the two blokes with bat both running to the other end. If the ball is hit out of the playing area, 4 or 6 'runs' are scored. After 6 'balls', the 'bowler' takes a rest and someone else 'bowls' for 6 balls from the other end.

 

[steds]

The whole point of cricket is different at different levels.

Wrong. At a lower level people play to entertain themselves. At a professional level people pay to watch something entertaining and it's up to the players to provide that. Would you pay to watch cricket if you got absolutely no enjoyment out of it whatsoever?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wrong. At a lower level people play to entertain themselves. At a professional level people pay to watch something entertaining and it's up to the players to provide that. Would you pay to watch cricket if you got absolutely no enjoyment out of it whatsoever?

Fortunately there's a bunch of masochists out there keeping the ECB afloat.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Personally, I think it's a disgrace that CA have chosen KFC to sponsor their shirts. KFC being well known as one of the worst culprits of animal right's abuse in the world.

 

[silentstriker]

Personally, I think it's a disgrace that CA have chosen KFC to sponsor their shirts. KFC being well known as one of the worst culprits of animal right's abuse in the world.

Good wings though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Good wings though.

Wouldn't dare eat any of that **** you get in KFC, McDonalds or Burger King tbh.

 

[silentstriker]

Wouldn't dare eat any of that **** you get in KFC, McDonalds or Burger King tbh.

Generally speaking, thats a good idea. But sometimes you can't resist.

 

[Goughy]

Wouldn't dare eat any of that **** you get in KFC, McDonalds or Burger King tbh.

Hmmm. Ill be quiet on this as one of the above is the primary sponsor of a sports development program our business runs.

 

[silentstriker]

Hmmm. Ill be quiet on this as one of the above is the primary sponsor of a sports development program our business runs.

TBH, if you have any athletes, you probably don't want to encourage them to eat at your sponsor's place of business .

 

[Dick Rockett]

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.

Haha, you're a knob. Notice how I'm using an absolute with no evidence to back it up? But because I say so, it's true.

Ignoring our foul-tempered fellow poster for a minute, I'd like to put my two cents into the "I don't like 20/20" jar. I watched last night's game, and it made me think of eating nothing but fried chicken for a month. Great at first, but you quickly want some real substance. All those sixes eventually lost their impact, there were so many that it started becoming boring and predictable. It'd be the same as if all the attractive women in town started walking about nude - for months your eyes are permanently bulging, but eventually they'll just blend into the scenery.

As for Gillespie, I can totally understand what he's on about - there's nothing in 20/20 for the bowler. They basically participate as cannon fodder. It would be just as effective to set up a Jugs machine at each end and rest the bowlers for the real game.

One final point - if 20/20 ends up being the most publicly recognised format, then test cricket has a dim future. Kids aren't going to grow up appreciating the subtleties of our great game when they've been watching 20/20 slogfests their whole lives. How are they going to appreciate a battle between bowler and batsman that lasts all morning?

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, you're a knob. Notice how I'm using an absolute with no evidence to back it up? But because I say so, it's true.

Ignoring our foul-tempered fellow poster for a minute, I'd like to put my two cents into the "I don't like 20/20" jar. I watched last night's game, and it made me think of eating nothing but fried chicken for a month. Great at first, but you quickly want some real substance. All those sixes eventually lost their impact, there were so many that it started becoming boring and predictable. It'd be the same as if all the attractive women in town started walking about nude - for months your eyes are permanently bulging, but eventually they'll just blend into the scenery.

As for Gillespie, I can totally understand what he's on about - there's nothing in 20/20 for the bowler. They basically participate as cannon fodder. It would be just as effective to set up a Jugs machine at each end and rest the bowlers for the real game.

One final point - if 20/20 ends up being the most publicly recognised format, then test cricket has a dim future. Kids aren't going to grow up appreciating the subtleties of our great game when they've been watching 20/20 slogfests their whole lives. How are they going to appreciate a battle between bowler and batsman that lasts all morning?

Is it any different from kids who grow up watching ODI's though? I did, and me and everyone I knew wanted to be batsmen. But as you grow up, your tastes change and expand. I am not that worried about it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Haha, you're a knob. Notice how I'm using an absolute with no evidence to back it up? But because I say so, it's true.

Ignoring our foul-tempered fellow poster for a minute, I'd like to put my two cents into the "I don't like 20/20" jar. I watched last night's game, and it made me think of eating nothing but fried chicken for a month. Great at first, but you quickly want some real substance. All those sixes eventually lost their impact, there were so many that it started becoming boring and predictable. It'd be the same as if all the attractive women in town started walking about nude - for months your eyes are permanently bulging, but eventually they'll just blend into the scenery.

As for Gillespie, I can totally understand what he's on about - there's nothing in 20/20 for the bowler. They basically participate as cannon fodder. It would be just as effective to set up a Jugs machine at each end and rest the bowlers for the real game.

One final point - if 20/20 ends up being the most publicly recognised format, then test cricket has a dim future. Kids aren't going to grow up appreciating the subtleties of our great game when they've been watching 20/20 slogfests their whole lives. How are they going to appreciate a battle between bowler and batsman that lasts all morning?

In order paragraph by paragraph:

Like I give a toss, I spend enough time doing something useful in the Battrick forum, I'm rebutting the latest rehashed garbage concerning Twenty20 *again*.

Explain why it's getting bigger in England and other countries then over several seasons, leading to international games, despite overzealous initial and mainly senseless hatred from certain countries.

The goalposts are different. Gillespie tends to moan about everything and is completely wrong here. Twenty20 is more a bowlers' game than ODIs. Moan about ODIs if you wish to moan about anything.

Bit already done.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I'm rebutting the latest rehashed garbage concerning Twenty20 *again*.

In order to rebut something, you have to make a point of some kind.

Explain why it's getting bigger in England and other countries then over several seasons, leading to international games, despite overzealous initial and mainly senseless hatred from certain countries.

Why would I need to explain that? The post was my opinion, I don't feel the need to speak for the English public.

The goalposts are different. Gillespie tends to moan about everything and is completely wrong here. Twenty20 is more a bowlers' game than ODIs. Moan about ODIs if you wish to moan about anything.

Yet more absolutes with no actual evidence to back yourself up.

 

[adharcric]

Wrong. At a lower level people play to entertain themselves. At a professional level people pay to watch something entertaining and it's up to the players to provide that. Would you pay to watch cricket if you got absolutely no enjoyment out of it whatsoever?

If you had read my entire post, you would've realized that I didn't really deny your point that it's all about entertainment. I merely said that people have different forms of entertainment and the sort of entertainment that twenty20 provides is not what suits everybody. For example, hardcore fans of test (or one-day cricket) who appreciate certain subtletlies of the game as well as the prospect for momentum shifts and more attacking bowlers in the contest between bat and ball.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Is it any different from kids who grow up watching ODI's though? I did, and me and everyone I knew wanted to be batsmen. But as you grow up, your tastes change and expand. I am not that worried about it.

It's hard to tell. I was certainly exposed to both when I was young, although ODIs were not as prevalent as they are now. Tests were still very much the ultimate among the fans and the press. It probably helped that NZ had a strong team in those days.

I dunno, I reckon right about now we're getting a lot of kids growing up who've really been exposed to mostly ODIs and I think it's already having a negative effect on crowds at the games. In recent years our side has been as successful as at any other time barring the 80s, but no-one's showing up.

 

[adharcric]

Is it any different from kids who grow up watching ODI's though? I did, and me and everyone I knew wanted to be batsmen. But as you grow up, your tastes change and expand. I am not that worried about it.

Haha yeah, I think I was the only kid who wanted to be a bowler. Then again, that was within a small community of 15-20 in America and not a thousand-child community in India.