Cricketers' Views on Twenty20

[SJS]

SANGAKARRA
Tour Diary

Twenty20 scores seem to have declined a little in the past year and I suspect this is because bowlers have developed better strategies than they did at the outset. It is a very harsh format for the bowlers, but they have already adapted. Likewise, the approach of batsmen has evolved with batting not being all about big-hitting. The key will be smart cricket – a phrase we use a lot in the 50-over format - but it’s even more relevant to the shortened version, especially with our mix of accumulators and explosive impact players.

We are confident of being able to perform, but we know this is an unforgiving format – one mistake and you can lose a game. No team can be taken for granted.​

 

[TT Boy]

This thread is for what Cricketers think about the Twenty20 version of the game. I will start it off NZ Captain's views :-

Vettori gives Twenty20 thumbs down

Cricinfo staff

September 18, 2007



Daniel Vettori: "I personally love the more traditional forms of the game" © Getty Images




While organisers and broadcasters purr over Twenty20, Daniel Vettori, New Zealand's captain, has given the tournament and the format a thumbs down.

"I hope Twenty20 cricket will only be part of the landscape and not the future of the game," Vettori said. "I personally love the more traditional forms of the game, that is Test cricket and one-day internationals. But I suppose we guys have to take this game seriously too."

He went on to explain that captaining in matches was a hard ask. "It is not easy ... because you don't know what you will run into. You might have the best of plans but they may all have to be discarded at the spur of the moment.

"You have to be really thinking on your feet. There is very little time to take decisions with so much happening and it is not as if you have all the time in the world to formulate plans.

"The more wickets you take, better the chance for you to peg back the opposition. A couple of sixes and you will suddenly run out of ideas. So, it always helps if you are able to bag some wickets."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/current/story/311446.html

Said he was misquoted to Morrison on Sky, New Zealand guys are apparently big fans of 20/20...

 

[Matt79]

Smacked over the hand by management perhaps?

SJS on the charge here in digging up comments!

 

[SJS]

GRAEME SMITH
September 10, 2007
Source : Official website of T20 WC

The thing about Twenty20 games is that since everyone expects them to be loaded in favour of batters, they are always under pressure to perform. So even though bowlers might complain that they get a raw deal in this format, they can actually change the tenor of the game with two or three quick wickets. For all that, a fielding captain will need to think out of the box and conjure up more than one backup gameplan if he is to restrain the opposition.

With most international teams finding their feet in this shorter version of the game, South Africa possesses a slight advantage because we have played more Twenty20 games than most of the other teams in the competition, particularly those from the subcontinent. I feel that this World Cup is more of a trial run, much like the way the first ODI World Cup was held in the 1970s. And just as ODI rules and regulations have been fine tuned over the years, so we will see a different version of Twenty20 by the time the next World Cup is held.

Personally, I feel a tournament once every two years would work well. The 20-over format is likely to be particularly useful in drawing new audiences to the game in countries like Bermuda, Canada, and the USA, and once they begin to develop an interest in cricket, I am pretty sure they will become involved in the longer versions as well. And I am also sure that these longer versions will benefit from Twenty20, because it teaches you the art of remaining calm under pressure and in front of a big crowd, and maximising your abilities. For a bowler, most importantly, it teaches you to keep coming back after being smashed around the park.

Finally, I believe the Twenty20 version will throw up the next generation of cricketing stars - like the MS Dhonis and the de Villiers'. These are the guys who will take cricket forward in the next five or six years, and they exemplify the kind of athleticism and aggression that are the basics of Twenty20. Without doubt, the format suits younger players, because it is all about instant runs and instant wickets, with no time for build-ups. But it isn't any less interesting for that.​

 

[Richard]

He just keeps going this SJS!

 

[SJS]

Said he was misquoted to Morrison on Sky, New Zealand guys are apparently big fans of 20/20...

I am just posting what I can find. No way to verify against subsequent comments.

I must mention that a lot of players who had initial reservations have later chosen to approve or not pass negative comments on this format. That is understandable. There is a lot of money expected to come the players way throughthis format and negative publicity is not something sponsors are going to appreciate now that so many have commited very large sums.

You willl find fewer and fewer coments in negative vein on this format from now onwards.

Places are still up for grab in the Leagues being sponsored by BCCI and their Australian counterparts as well as ICL.

 

[SJS]

Said he was misquoted to Morrison on Sky, New Zealand guys are apparently big fans of 20/20...

FROM THE HORSE's MOUTH : Vettori writing for the official website of the T20 WC !!
September 18th, 2007

Off the field, I seem to have set off some kind of debate with my comments on Twenty20 vis-à-vis Test cricket, so I would like to make my views clearer. Simply put, I believe Test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, but that does not mean there’s no room for Twenty20. I think the game can accommodate all three current formats, and Twenty20 certainly generates plenty of entertainment with the big hits and the music and dancing, but I personally love the more traditional forms of the game.

Nevertheless, we would certainly love to go home with the inaugural ICC World Twenty20 trophy. Of course, that does not mean that I am already thinking ahead to a final win, because that way complacency lies, but it would be nice to win an international tournament that promises to become a prominent fixture of the international calendar in the years to come.​

 

[SJS]

A Twenty20 Mishap.............

The ridiculous spectacle of international bowlers celebrating like they had got a wicket, because they could bowl a straight one at the stumps on the batsman's end from twenty two yards away was full and final proof of the stupidity that Twenty20 is. They say that it provides busy people with an evenings entertainment. What it does to Cricket, seems secondary. In fact, not even secondary - it seems to be irrelevant!

Is Cricket shooting itself in the foot with Twenty20? Will Twenty20 becoming more and more popular make the average cricket watcher less patient and less appreciative of Test cricket or even ODI cricket? Does it threaten ODI cricket more than it threatens Test cricket? In the euphoria of sell out crowds and a TV spectacle with few rivals in the TV world, Cricket's lot has gone largely unscrutinized. With shallow modifications like making Umpires accessible to TV commentators and giving players microphones so they can chat with commentators, the real issue of Twenty20 cricket - what it does to the contest between bat and ball, is missed.

So what does it do to the contest between bat and ball? In Test cricket, the contest is finely balanced - testing character, discipline, control, skill, for both bowler and batsman. The batsman is interested in not being dismissed, while the bowler is interested in dismissing the batsman. Run scoring is dictated by this fundamental equation. In ODI cricket, and to a much greater extent in Twenty20 cricket, batsmen don't have to worry about preserving their wicket, because of the severe limitation in overs. So, the fundamental equation doesn't hold. Batsmen swing, and the frequency of miscues and edges is extremely high. Twenty20 is not a high "risk" contest, it is a high "chance" contest. Batsmen are more aggressive, precisely because the "risk" is infact lower. So they don't take greater "risks", they don't play less "selfishly", they take more "chances", and play more "recklessly". Its also a more violent contest, which doesn't have to be watched as carefully. It is the nature of professionals to develop methods to their madness, so hitting methods have developed, new strokes do get invented. But the basic point is, batsmen in Test cricket can't play those strokes because of the prevalent risk equation.

So what is Twenty20 promoting? A event based primarily on luck, which the spectator doesn't really have to watch very carefully. So does Twenty20 attract new spectators and audiences to Cricket? Or does it do it to "anti-Cricket"? Would a spectator who watches and enjoys the hoopla that is Twenty20, ever want to watch serious cricket? Is the argument that Twenty20 brings new spectators to cricket really valid? Or is it merely lip service to the concerns of those genuinely interested with cricket? Did Cricket need a new format to make money with? Was Test Cricket and ODI Cricket not bringing in revenue?

If the point of bringing more viewers to cricket was to attract new spectators, is Twenty20 the way to do it? Or does Twenty20 actually do exactly the opposite? Is this a mishap made with perfect Twenty20 vision? As with most things, time will tell. Reasonably though, Twenty20 can not possibly promote the popularity of Test or even ODI cricket. It is perfect for those who want spectators to win quickly (as most partisan new age "fans" do), it is not perfect at all for those who want to watch a genuine contest between batsman and bowler - one which tests both equally!

What Twenty20 does is that it eats into an increasingly packed calender and makes a mockery of the game at the same time. Has football (not the american variety), made even the slightest concession to TV in the last 50-60 years? As for bowl outs, they just underline the fact that the promoters and designers of the Twenty20 idea have just completely missed the point about Cricket (and don't really give a damn about it either). How about a World Cup for bowlers bowling at a single stump - that might actually require some skill - more skill than a Twenty20 bowl out! If the bowl out is an adaptation of the the penalty shoot out, then it reveals a very poor understanding of penalty shoot outs too, because even in penalty shoot outs, you have goalkeepers!

What Cricket needs is a shortened version which keeps the contest between bowler and batsman intact. ODI cricket did that to some extent, but artificial restrictions on the number of overs per bowler and number of overs per innings have weakened the idea at its very inception.Twenty20 is a disaster, which takes the cricketer, his bat, his ball, his cricket ground and his pitch, and uses it for a scam. Twenty20 Cricket posing as Cricket, is a bit like "Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi" posing as the lesson about family values. Maybe that explain why it works!​

A passionate fan : From a blog​

HERE​

 

[Richard]

So what is Twenty20 promoting? A event based primarily on luck, which the spectator doesn't really have to watch very carefully. So does Twenty20 attract new spectators and audiences to Cricket? Or does it do it to "anti-Cricket"? Would a spectator who watches and enjoys the hoopla that is Twenty20, ever want to watch serious cricket? Is the argument that Twenty20 brings new spectators to cricket really valid? Or is it merely lip service to the concerns of those genuinely interested with cricket? Did Cricket need a new format to make money with? Was Test Cricket and ODI Cricket not bringing in revenue?

If the point of bringing more viewers to cricket was to attract new spectators, is Twenty20 the way to do it? Or does Twenty20 actually do exactly the opposite? Is this a mishap made with perfect Twenty20 vision? As with most things, time will tell. Reasonably though, Twenty20 can not possibly promote the popularity of Test or even ODI cricket. It is perfect for those who want spectators to win quickly (as most partisan new age "fans" do), it is not perfect at all for those who want to watch a genuine contest between batsman and bowler - one which tests both equally!

What Twenty20 does is that it eats into an increasingly packed calender and makes a mockery of the game at the same time. Has football (not the american variety), made even the slightest concession to TV in the last 50-60 years? As for bowl outs, they just underline the fact that the promoters and designers of the Twenty20 idea have just completely missed the point about Cricket (and don't really give a damn about it either). How about a World Cup for bowlers bowling at a single stump - that might actually require some skill - more skill than a Twenty20 bowl out! If the bowl out is an adaptation of the the penalty shoot out, then it reveals a very poor understanding of penalty shoot outs too, because even in penalty shoot outs, you have goalkeepers!

What Cricket needs is a shortened version which keeps the contest between bowler and batsman intact. ODI cricket did that to some extent, but artificial restrictions on the number of overs per bowler and number of overs per innings have weakened the idea at its very inception.Twenty20 is a disaster, which takes the cricketer, his bat, his ball, his cricket ground and his pitch, and uses it for a scam. Twenty20 Cricket posing as Cricket, is a bit like "Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi" posing as the lesson about family values. Maybe that explain why it works!

Pretty much my thoughts since the inception of the tournament in 2003 TBH.

Twenty20 is cricket for people who don't really like cricket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yes, I can actually. It's very obvious what that post appears to mean: that most of the stuff so far in this thread has been from Australians (and also those who don't have a clue what they're on about).

If you meant something else, you expressed it very poorly.

No 'a lot' does not necessarily mean most, it relates to the amount of something, not the proportion of it relative to something else. Regardless yours is a strawman argument.

 

[Scaly piscine]

A Twenty20 Mishap.............

The ridiculous spectacle of international bowlers celebrating like they had got a wicket, because they could bowl a straight one at the stumps on the batsman's end from twenty two yards away was full and final proof of the stupidity that Twenty20 is. They say that it provides busy people with an evenings entertainment. What it does to Cricket, seems secondary. In fact, not even secondary - it seems to be irrelevant!

Is Cricket shooting itself in the foot with Twenty20? Will Twenty20 becoming more and more popular make the average cricket watcher less patient and less appreciative of Test cricket or even ODI cricket? Does it threaten ODI cricket more than it threatens Test cricket? In the euphoria of sell out crowds and a TV spectacle with few rivals in the TV world, Cricket's lot has gone largely unscrutinized. With shallow modifications like making Umpires accessible to TV commentators and giving players microphones so they can chat with commentators, the real issue of Twenty20 cricket - what it does to the contest between bat and ball, is missed.

So what does it do to the contest between bat and ball? In Test cricket, the contest is finely balanced - testing character, discipline, control, skill, for both bowler and batsman. The batsman is interested in not being dismissed, while the bowler is interested in dismissing the batsman. Run scoring is dictated by this fundamental equation. In ODI cricket, and to a much greater extent in Twenty20 cricket, batsmen don't have to worry about preserving their wicket, because of the severe limitation in overs. So, the fundamental equation doesn't hold. Batsmen swing, and the frequency of miscues and edges is extremely high. Twenty20 is not a high "risk" contest, it is a high "chance" contest. Batsmen are more aggressive, precisely because the "risk" is infact lower. So they don't take greater "risks", they don't play less "selfishly", they take more "chances", and play more "recklessly". Its also a more violent contest, which doesn't have to be watched as carefully. It is the nature of professionals to develop methods to their madness, so hitting methods have developed, new strokes do get invented. But the basic point is, batsmen in Test cricket can't play those strokes because of the prevalent risk equation.

So what is Twenty20 promoting? A event based primarily on luck, which the spectator doesn't really have to watch very carefully. So does Twenty20 attract new spectators and audiences to Cricket? Or does it do it to "anti-Cricket"? Would a spectator who watches and enjoys the hoopla that is Twenty20, ever want to watch serious cricket? Is the argument that Twenty20 brings new spectators to cricket really valid? Or is it merely lip service to the concerns of those genuinely interested with cricket? Did Cricket need a new format to make money with? Was Test Cricket and ODI Cricket not bringing in revenue?

If the point of bringing more viewers to cricket was to attract new spectators, is Twenty20 the way to do it? Or does Twenty20 actually do exactly the opposite? Is this a mishap made with perfect Twenty20 vision? As with most things, time will tell. Reasonably though, Twenty20 can not possibly promote the popularity of Test or even ODI cricket. It is perfect for those who want spectators to win quickly (as most partisan new age "fans" do), it is not perfect at all for those who want to watch a genuine contest between batsman and bowler - one which tests both equally!

What Twenty20 does is that it eats into an increasingly packed calender and makes a mockery of the game at the same time. Has football (not the american variety), made even the slightest concession to TV in the last 50-60 years? As for bowl outs, they just underline the fact that the promoters and designers of the Twenty20 idea have just completely missed the point about Cricket (and don't really give a damn about it either). How about a World Cup for bowlers bowling at a single stump - that might actually require some skill - more skill than a Twenty20 bowl out! If the bowl out is an adaptation of the the penalty shoot out, then it reveals a very poor understanding of penalty shoot outs too, because even in penalty shoot outs, you have goalkeepers!

What Cricket needs is a shortened version which keeps the contest between bowler and batsman intact. ODI cricket did that to some extent, but artificial restrictions on the number of overs per bowler and number of overs per innings have weakened the idea at its very inception.Twenty20 is a disaster, which takes the cricketer, his bat, his ball, his cricket ground and his pitch, and uses it for a scam. Twenty20 Cricket posing as Cricket, is a bit like "Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi" posing as the lesson about family values. Maybe that explain why it works!​

A passionate fan : From a blog​

HERE​

Can't be arsed dissecting all of this, but football has made plenty of concessions and changes because of TV despite being obviously the most popular team sport in the world awash with money - which cricket isn't or hasn't been.

Twenty20 is more of a contest between bat and ball than ODIs are. I've gone through this before so I'll not repeat myself.

Bowl-outs are a limited overs thing, not unique to Twenty20 so using that stick to beat Twenty20 with is ridiculous.

A lot of this seems to be just extremist opinion dressed up as an argument.

 

[Richard]

Twenty20 is more of a contest between bat and ball than ODIs are. I've gone through this before so I'll not repeat myself.

Yes and you've been wrong every single time because your "demerits" of ODIs are in fact every bit as incorrect-presumption-based as those demerits which you accuse so many people of perpetuating about Twenty20.

 

[adharcric]

DARREN MADDY

"Probably the reason I've had so much success in Twenty20 is because of the lack of thought that's gone into it," said Maddy. "I just watch the ball and try to hit it."

 

[Richard]

No 'a lot' does not necessarily mean most, it relates to the amount of something, not the proportion of it relative to something else. Regardless yours is a strawman argument.

Matt79 never mentioned any percentage, he just showed that it was not a case of a lot of Aussies, it was a case of a lot of people from many different places.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yes and you've been wrong every single time because your "demerits" of ODIs are in fact every bit as incorrect-presumption-based as those demerits which you accuse so many people of perpetuating about Twenty20.

Except as you always do, you just say they're wrong and have never once managed to actually pick them apart. All you do is waffle on like this and say they're wrong, hoping repetition of unsubstantiated remarks will make people believe it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Matt79 never mentioned any percentage, he just showed that it was not a case of a lot of Aussies, it was a case of a lot of people from many different places.

No it was you that translated 'a lot' into 'most' in the post I quoted and bolded.

Matt mentioning 3 names from 2 pages of quotes didn't show much. It showed he misinterpreted a straight forward comment and that was about it.

 

[Richard]

Except as you always do, you just say they're wrong and have never once managed to actually pick them apart. All you do is waffle on like this and say they're wrong, hoping repetition of unsubstantiated remarks will make people believe it.

I've never had the chance, mostly during your rantings about Twenty20 I've been absent. Rest assured, next time I come accross one I'll pick it apart.

 

[Richard]

No it was you that translated 'a lot' into 'most' in the post I quoted and bolded.

Matt mentioning 3 names from 2 pages of quotes didn't show much. It showed he misinterpreted a straight forward comment and that was about it.

The most and the a lot are completely separate. By saying there were a lot of Aussies, you referred to most of the content posted at that time in this thread.

 

[Swervy]

Twenty20 is cricket for people who don't really like cricket.

This is tosh of course....

Whilst this tournament has been on, I have had discussions with ,or overheard people who are new to the game or love the game (and have done for years) have nothing but good to say about Twenty20 in the last week or so.

I am sorry, given your admission that you have barely watched a game, you are no authority on the games merits or otherwise

 

[SJS]

GRAEME SMITH

“Honestly, I’ve lost a bit of patience since I began playing Twenty20. Here you just don’t have enough time to take decisions. But I guess that’s where the challenge lies. After all, look at Twenty20’s contribution. I don’t think the 438 chase would’ve been possible had we not had the Twenty20 experience.”​