So dire. Hopefully, if you stay on this site long enough, you'll become a cricket fan.i think there is room for all the 3 formats .... i like all the 3 formats but my interest level would differ depending upon the series for e.g.
Ind vs SL test series < Ind vs SL ODI series
Ind vs NZ test series < Ind vs NZ ODI series
Ind vs WI test series < Ind vs WI ODI series
Ind vs Pak test series = Ind vs Pak ODI series
Ind vs Aus test series = Ind vs Aus ODI series
Ind vs Eng test series = Ind vs Eng ODI series
Ind vs SA test series = Ind vs RSA ODI series
ODI World Cup > T20 WC > any test series
Northern Pakistan .... probably near the Pakistan - Afghanistan borderwhere's Peshawar?
a cricket fan would love all formats, wouldn't he?So dire. Hopefully, if you stay on this site long enough, you'll become a cricket fan.
There is only one format of cricket. The rest are not cricket.a cricket fan would love all formats, wouldn't he?
I can't believe Aus vs Ind one day series is as vauled to you as the Aus vs Ind test series.i think there is room for all the 3 formats .... i like all the 3 formats but my interest level would differ depending upon the series for e.g.
Ind vs SL test series < Ind vs SL ODI series
Ind vs NZ test series < Ind vs NZ ODI series
Ind vs WI test series < Ind vs WI ODI series
Ind vs Pak test series = Ind vs Pak ODI series
Ind vs Aus test series = Ind vs Aus ODI series
Ind vs Eng test series = Ind vs Eng ODI series
Ind vs SA test series = Ind vs RSA ODI series
ODI World Cup > T20 WC > any test series
IPL > any meaningless ODI series like the tri-series in BD, Zim/BD vs Pak ODI series, Eng vs NZ test series, Aus vs WI test series, NZ vs SL, SL vs Eng and so on
He said over all Test series.Also lol T20 WC over some test series..
yeah, rightThere is only one format of cricket. The rest are not cricket.
Yup, timeless Tests. So?yeah, right
in fact the original version didn't have any limit to the number of days and the teams played till the 4th innings was completed
Obviously they are spin offs. That doesn't make them equivalent. When you remove what (to me) is fundamental to the game, it's not the same game.all the 3 current version are spinoffs of the original, the tests with 5 days limitation .... the ODIs with 50 overs' .... T20 with 20 overs
I finkin bout thiz new crkt game, itz called Ten10 - its mad ey s0 many sixas.yeah, right
in fact the original version didn't have any limit to the number of days and the teams played till the 4th innings was completed
all the 3 current version are spinoffs of the original, the tests with 5 days limitation .... the ODIs with 50 overs' .... T20 with 20 overs
all 3 has the fundamentals of the game...bowler bowls the batsmen defends the wicket/ hits the ball.Yup, timeless Tests. So?
Obviously they are spin offs. That doesn't make them equivalent. When you remove what (to me) is fundamental to the game, it's not the same game.
To you, those are the fundamentals. To me, what you described is not very different from baseball.all 3 has the fundamentals of the game...bowler bowls the batsmen defends the wicket/ hits the ball.
i think i watched it once...it was like a 4 innings 20 over game right?I finkin bout thiz new crkt game, itz called Ten10 - its mad ey s0 many sixas.
in fact, i like 10-10 too .... we used to play that in schoolI finkin bout thiz new crkt game, itz called Ten10 - its mad ey s0 many sixas.
baseball doesn't have a wicket. the fundamentals of the 2 games aren't that different besides wickets being replaced by baseball and a pitcher pitches.To you, those are the fundamentals. To me, what you described is not very different from baseball.
the key fundamentals of old cricket were 4 completed innings and timeless cricket. which to implies that the focus was on getting a result, along with a keen contestYup, timeless Tests. So?
Obviously they are spin offs. That doesn't make them equivalent. When you remove what (to me) is fundamental to the game, it's not the same game.
How does 20/20 capture 'old cricket' in a way that 50 over cricket doesn't?the key fundamentals of old cricket were 4 completed innings and timeless cricket. which to implies that the focus was on getting a result, along with a keen contest
when you add time to it as in tests in form of 5 days, those fundamentals get killed with the likelihood of a draw and with 4 innings not being played on occasions
when you add limited overs to it, the fundamentals get killed again with respect to playing 4 innings but the surety of result [except for unfortunate abandoned games] comes in
the different formats if you see are nothing more than an effort to capture some of that essence of old cricket in one way or the other .... it's not like any one of them captures the essence of old cricket completely so your argument that one format is the real one is inherently flawed
we even had 60 overs and 55 overs cricket before 50 overs got universally accepted. I heard that some countries like Pak had 40 or 45 overs cricketHow does 20/20 capture 'old cricket' in a way that 50 over cricket doesn't?