The main problem could be the effect it is allegedly having on lower developmental levels of the game. If young kids are all playing 2020 cricket rather than more traditional forms then there simply won't be the base for first class cricket. And i actually don't think playing exclusively 2020 cricket during development is likely to make someone a good 2020 player at higher levels either. It is a lot easier to adapt from first class cricket to 2020 than vice versa. All cricket requires a good technique to some extent and you just won't get that growing up playing 2020.
All young kids start off playing a short form of the game though don't they? Maybe not 20 overs necessarily, but generally you don't send 9,10,11 year olds to field for 40 or 50 overs. I wan't in the school team or anything like that (they played on Saturdays, so had more time available) but when I think back to my schooldays we only had a couple of hours to play a match in, so they would probably have been 15 overs a side or thereabouts. I agree though that for adults/professionals, it's easier to adapt downwards.
It's the cricket we needed, but not the cricket we deserve.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
One article I read (possibly by Michael Atherton) suggested that the rise of T20 and the domestic tournaments esp IPL could lead to club sides being more powerful than national teams in the future, such as in football where there's no doubt EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga sides etc are holding much more sway. Not something I'd like to see but maybe others would?
On the length of the tournament, personally I reckon iof the organisers would shorten it then it should be given an official window. It's not going away anytime soon, players will want to earn the money and you may as well let them have it while making sure it doesn't impact on international cricket. One effect of this could be though that all countries will demand a window for their own tournament?
Last edited by VCC44; 06-04-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Last edited by Cabinet96; 06-04-2013 at 07:08 AM.
"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Sucks for them tbh. On with the England!
IPL is good in terms of players getting paid more money. However I do think it ruins the way test cricket is played.
I do think Pakistani players also deserve to get paid better and IPL could help with that. They allow Pakistani coaches (Wasim, Mushy, Waqar), commies (Ramiz) and umpires (Ladies man Rauf) but not the players.
Azhar Mahmood gets a go as well, though his case is slightly different.
The IPL is not required, since it marginalises Indian players, capped or uncapped, while overseas players often get into the frontline. The excessive dependence on foreigners has taken its toll on developing Indian T20 players, because of which Indians struggle in T20, and the circle goes on. Contrast that with the other T20 leagues that actually develop local talent. That's what the country's cricket scene requires.
"Talent is nothing without opportunity"
"You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"
Twenty20 used to be boring.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)