Bowlers benefitting from 20/20 Cricket

[Johnners]

So i was listening to the ABC Radio Cricket Coverage yesterday afternoon on the way home from work and Glenn Mitchell & Jamie Cox were discussing the affect that T20 cricket may/would/will have on ODI & Test cricket. During the Conversation Jamie Cox brought up the idea that T20 cricket could well end up being a blessing in disguise for bowlers for the reasons that they're being forced to find new ways to keep the batsmens scoring at a minimum.

It's an interesting thought, and imo quite a valid one. So far this CB Tri-Series in australia we've seen the bowlers dominate/on-top in all innings barring Englands first bowling attempt against Australia, something which many could see as proof that ODI bowling standards are increasing around the World.

The obvious counter argument provided was that instead of T20 having a negative affect on the bowlers, and a positive on the batsmen, and that we'd see the 400 barrier broken a little more frequently in the near future (mind you thats still not very often). Both arguments are valid ones, and have proof to support their argument. My question to you is..

Are Bowlers going to reap the long term Benefits of T20 cricket, or is it only assisting in turning Cricket into a batsmens game?

 

[gunner]

it should actually benefit bowlers
gives them chances/experience/scenario to bowl in odis at the death and obviously with the world cup around the corner death bowling will be a key component in every match

 

[silentstriker]

Ugh. Well it might help them become smarter because every delivery counts, but it also penalizes certain skills.

 

[Jono]

Scores have been less due to the pitches mainly, they've been good ODI wickets.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Well if you look at the increased run rate in tests in the last few years, you could argue that ODIs have made bowlers worse (or batsmen better, but I don't buy that), so could T20 exacerbate that?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't know about bowling "standards". It will improve some bowling techniques, e.g. death bowling, dart spinners, maybe bouncers; but at the expense of others - mainly those to do with good 4/5 day bowling practices.

 

[ripper868]

it'll help with the whole death overs side of things as the bowler knows the batsmen will be after him every ball.

 

[silentstriker]

Well if you look at the increased run rate in tests in the last few years, you could argue that ODIs have made bowlers worse (or batsmen better, but I don't buy that), so could T20 exacerbate that?

No, it hasn't done either. It has made batsmen more aggressive, not necessarily better. You can see that by the number of games that play out to finish now. Guys are scoring off deliveries that people would have defended or left alone in the past.

It has been good for the game in the sense that more results are likely, but it is also infuriating that you don't see a Boycott too often. 20/20 penalizes good bowling, especially bowling with flight. What about letting a batsman have a couple boundaries because you're setting them up later? Out the window. Its all contain, which IMO is not good for the 5 day version of the game.

 

[pasag]

Can never resist a slightly irrelevant fourth option tbh.

 

[chaminda_00]

Pitches are having a greater effort then T20 cricket. I wouldn't be surprised if they produce a tarmat next game and one team scores 350 plus.

 

[Johnners]

Thought i'd better post my own thoughts....

IMO what Cox was saying is quite the valid point, and i beleive it will hold true. With the batsmen looking to go after the bowlers every possible ball in T20 cricket, the bowlers will become more accustom to finding ways to reduce the batsmens scoring ability, something which will benefit them no end during ODI cricket, especially during the powerplays, and the last 10 overs of an innings. It's forcing the bowlers to find the best possible Line & length more often otherwise, they're every chance of having their careers cup short, something which should provide the bowlers with plenty of motivation to bowl as economically as possible.

 

[Johnners]

Can never resist a slightly irrelevant fourth option tbh.

haha, i did my best

 

[Dick Rockett]

No, it hasn't done either. It has made batsmen more aggressive, not necessarily better. You can see that by the number of games that play out to finish now. Guys are scoring off deliveries that people would have defended or left alone in the past.

It has been good for the game in the sense that more results are likely, but it is also infuriating that you don't see a Boycott too often. 20/20 penalizes good bowling, especially bowling with flight. What about letting a batsman have a couple boundaries because you're setting them up later? Out the window. Its all contain, which IMO is not good for the 5 day version of the game.

Some good points there

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't know about bowling "standards". It will improve some bowling techniques, e.g. death bowling, dart spinners, maybe bouncers; but at the expense of others - mainly those to do with good 4/5 day bowling practices.

Right.

It's not like we'll see every bowler in the world improve or get worse because they play 20/20 games. It'll be similar to ODI cricket. I certainly don't think 20/20 is a bowler's format, nor do I think it will do anything to encourage people to bowl or learn the proper skills for bowling in test cricket, but it's not going to have a direct impact on the quality of bowling overall unless it becomes the dominant format.

 

[Richard]

How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.

Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.

 

[pasag]

Illiterate?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

The impact it's making on current cricket obviously can't read or write, Gelman.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Illiterate?

Watch Richard argue that it was the correct word to use in that context because he has a better understanding of the English language than anyone else who speaks it, and that the belief that "literate" refers only to the ability to read and write is merely a falsehood spread by those with a misguided agena and/or minimal knowledge of English and the languages from which it borrows.

Either that or it was a typo.

 

[pasag]

Hahaha

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Gods don't make typo's.