What is the point of the Champions Trophy?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jamee999

It's where the umbilical cord connects to the baby, isn't it?

Yeah, it is - the point is there isn't a "point", it's just something that's there, that you have no choice over.

The Champions Trophy is similar.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

What makes you say its a higher standard? Wouldn't really agree on that

There are more of the best Test\ODI players involved aren't there? And they're more evenly distributed?

WRT to T20 fans - I'm not sure if that's still the case. It was originally but I think in any sport where it's possible there will always be a desire for an international game.

Yeah but the game will probably be better if there isn't. The international game doesn't need Twenty20 - it's already got Tests and ODIs, and indeed there's fair evidence that Twenty20 at international level is going to end-up doing great harm to the game - again we wait (and I mean wait 30 or 40 years) to see whether that ends-up being the case.

On the other hand, the domestic game can do very well indeed out of it.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

There are more of the best Test\ODI players involved aren't there? And they're more evenly distributed?

Yeah but the game will probably be better if there isn't. The international game doesn't need Twenty20 - it's already got Tests and ODIs, and indeed there's fair evidence that Twenty20 at international level is going to end-up doing great harm to the game - again we wait (and I mean wait 30 or 40 years) to see whether that ends-up being the case.

On the other hand, the domestic game can do very well indeed out of it.

Would have to look at the IPL sides. There is a 4 man limit to overseas players per side, add in the Indian internationals and I guess close to half the players in each side are Test/ODI plaers...in international T20s not many sides have gone with T20 specialists so most players are ODI players at least. When England sent a side packed with T20 specialists to the WC last year it did not go well.

WRT harm, that is subjective, I guess. What T20Is might do is kill off ODIs which I know you and many others would consider harming the game (not an unreasonable thing to say). But it's progress, wants change, and only if Tests were culled would I consider cricket ruined tttt

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yeah, it is - the point is there isn't a "point", it's just something that's there, that you have no choice over.

The Champions Trophy is similar.

I agree with you 100% that the Champions Trophy is pointless.

[Richard]

I wasn't saying that - bryce was. It's he you need to be agreeing with.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Would have to look at the IPL sides. There is a 4 man limit to overseas players per side, add in the Indian internationals and I guess close to half the players in each side are Test/ODI plaers...in international T20s not many sides have gone with T20 specialists so most players are ODI players at least. When England sent a side packed with T20 specialists to the WC last year it did not go well.

Didn't the "specialists" go better than the established Test\ODI players?

WRT harm, that is subjective, I guess. What T20Is might do is kill off ODIs which I know you and many others would consider harming the game (not an unreasonable thing to say). But it's progress, wants change, and only if Tests were culled would I consider cricket ruined tttt

Nah, there's a very real chance the massive disparity in paycheques will cause players to care little about Test skills and focus on developing Twenty20 skills. That's where the damage comes - as well as potentially shorter-term things like reducing Test and ODI numbers. As I say - the effects won't be seen for 30 years or so though.

[GIMH]

The top run scorers:

ML Hayden (Aus) 6 6 3 265 73* 88.33 183 144.80 0 4 0 32 10 
G Gambhir (India) 7 6 0 227 75 37.83 175 129.71 0 3 1 27 5 
Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak) 7 7 3 218 66* 54.50 156 139.74 0 2 0 18 9 
Shoaib Malik (Pak) 7 7 2 195 57 39.00 154 126.62 0 2 0 15 5 
KP Pietersen (Eng) 5 5 0 178 79 35.60 110 161.81 0 1 0 17 6 
JM Kemp (SA) 5 5 3 173 89* 86.50 124 139.51 0 1 0 13 10 
AC Gilchrist (Aus) 6 6 1 169 45 33.80 112 150.89 0 0 0 17

The best bowlers:

Umar Gul (Pak) 7 27.4 0 155 13 4/25 11.92 5.60 12.7 1 0 
SR Clark (Aus) 6 24.0 0 144 12 4/20 12.00 6.00 12.0 1 0 
RP Singh (India) 7 24.0 0 152 12 4/13 12.66 6.33 12.0 1 0 
Shahid Afridi (Pak) 7 28.0 1 188 12 4/19 15.66 6.71 14.0 1 0 
DL Vettori (NZ) 6 24.0 0 128 11 4/20 11.63 5.33 13.0 1 0 
IK Pathan (India) 7 22.0 1 149 10 3/16 14.90 6.77 13.2 0 0 
Mohammad Asif (Pak) 7 26.5 0 212 10 4/18 21.20 7.90 16.1 1 0

Bit of both with the batsmen, most of those bowlers have had a run in their Test side though

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Richard

I wasn't saying that - bryce was. It's he you need to be agreeing with.

Fervently disagree with him regarding the usefulness of a belly button however.

[Richard]

Ind33d?

Please do elaborate on the lack of utter uselessness of them?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Richard

The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.

It's not a higher standard than T20 internationals- absolutely not. 7 of the 11 players in an IPL game must be Indian, some of those under-19. Of the 4 overseas players, they're often picked from those not involved in international duty. Players like Brett Geeves, Darren Lehmann, Dwayne Smith, Dilhara Fernando, James Hopes, Dimi Mascarenhas all got games, and that's before one gets to the Indians and under-19s in there to make up numbers. International T20 is still of a considerably higher standard than the IPL was, what makes you think otherwise?

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's not a higher standard than T20 internationals- absolutely not. 7 of the 11 players in an IPL game must be Indian, some of those under-19. Of the 4 overseas players, they're often picked from those not involved in international duty. Players like Brett Geeves, Darren Lehmann, Dwayne Smith, Dilhara Fernando, James Hopes, Dimi Mascarenhas all got games, and that's before one gets to the Indians and under-19s in there to make up numbers. International T20 is still of a considerably higher standard than the IPL was, what makes you think otherwise?

DWTA. The IPL was awesome, simply because Warne was playing. (And won the tournament with only him, Watson & Smith as the internationals).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's not a higher standard than T20 internationals- absolutely not. 7 of the 11 players in an IPL game must be Indian, some of those under-19. Of the 4 overseas players, they're often picked from those not involved in international duty. Players like Brett Geeves, Darren Lehmann, Dwayne Smith, Dilhara Fernando, James Hopes, Dimi Mascarenhas all got games, and that's before one gets to the Indians and under-19s in there to make up numbers. International T20 is still of a considerably higher standard than the IPL was, what makes you think otherwise?

The Razzmattazz, probably.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Richard

The Razzmattazz, probably.

Yeah, the whole tournament was a bit of a pain in the ass. Bar the chance to be reminded how far ahead of the pack Pollock and McGrath are in LO cricket. I rather like the format, unlike yourself, but the IPL was filled with tedious, annoying little sideshows. Like Shoaib Akhtar.