Now a 9 Run Hit

[Richard]

Yep, it does... and the more ludicrous the better IMO.

 

[Goughy]

However, overwhelmingly, Twenty20 is, well... a game for people who don't like cricket (ie, First-Class cricket).

I like cricket and I like T20. Why does that make your head explode? There are plenty out there like me that like both formats.

Liking T20 in no way makes it exclusive of liking FC cricket.

 

[Richard]

But how many times? I've never said it does. Stop looking at 1 line of a post and seemingly ignoring the rest. I never once said no-one who likes Twenty20 likes First-Class cricket.

I said most people who like one or the other do not like both. Most Twenty20 fans do not like First-Class cricket. And a fair portion of people who like First-Class cricket don't like Twenty20 (or OD cricket in some cases), much or at all.

The point is that there is no need to try and cater to both simualtaneously. Twenty20's main purpose is to provide something for those who don't like First-Class cricket. Therefore Twenty20 doesn't need to be First-Class-like.

 

[GIMH]

One-hand-one-bounce maybe?

I prefer the one-hand and the whole team is out rule. Should be introduced in all cricket, give the advantage back to the fielding site.

 

[GIMH]

The point is that there is no need to try and cater to both simualtaneously. Twenty20's main purpose is to provide something for those who don't like First-Class cricket. Therefore Twenty20 doesn't need to be First-Class-like.

That's not strictly true. The initial intent of T20 was to bring people back into the domestic game, the ECB's aim was a, to sell out stadia through the exciting new format, and b, bring these fans into other games. I think it worked as well, I know you don't, but there were plenty of people looking forwards to the 05 Ashes because Twenty20 had got them watching cricket, or watching cricket again in some cases.

 

[SJS]

I'm not stupid. Lucky for your edit.

Ninety metres is obviously over the boundary, so how do they work out which shots go over 90 metres? Marking the stadium or grandstand...? Sounds ludicrous.

In T20 in India most boundaries are closer to 60 meters than 90.

I think it might be a good idea to add a run for every ten meters beyond the new "exhilarating' boundaries. Six for just crossing the rope, 7 for 70 meters, 8 for 80, 10 for 100 and so on. As usual all great cricket ideas come from Indians

 

[GIMH]

How about if you hit the ball out of the ground you are out? Would make it more interesting IMO

 

[SJS]

How about if you hit the ball out of the ground you are out? Would make it more interesting IMO

Modify that to, if you are caught by any one amongst the crowd, you dont get a single run for that hit !! Touring sides will need to bring their own specialist fielding spectators I suppose and one might see the exciting spectacle of groups of fans undergoing serious fielding drills during intervals

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeah why don't we all dress up and pull a cracker! Isn't cricket great?!

 

[Uppercut]

Modify that to, if you are caught by any one amongst the crowd, you dont get a single run for that hit !! Touring sides will need to bring their own specialist fielding spectators I suppose and one might see the exciting spectacle of groups of fans undergoing serious fielding drills during intervals

But if you knock someone over, you get a number of extra runs decided by a team of judges based on style, aggression, control and comedy value.

 

[Richard]

That's not strictly true. The initial intent of T20 was to bring people back into the domestic game, the ECB's aim was a, to sell out stadia through the exciting new format, and b, bring these fans into other games. I think it worked as well, I know you don't, but there were plenty of people looking forwards to the 05 Ashes because Twenty20 had got them watching cricket, or watching cricket again in some cases.

Hmm, I am exceptionally sceptical that the success of the 2005 Ashes had so much as a thing to do with a couple of seasons' worth of Twenty20 Cup. Something not too dissimilar to 2005 happened in 2000, before Twenty20 had even been said.

And yeah - the exact point I'm making is that the ECB's aim is what you state it as (though not in so many words). To get people who don't like First-Class cricket to pay counties to watch something else.

You will never, ever achieve the aim of using Twenty20 to increase Championship crowds. Never. Championship cricket has been a tiny-minority sport for 70 years or more.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, I am exceptionally sceptical that the success of the 2005 Ashes had so much as a thing to do with a couple of seasons' worth of Twenty20 Cup. Something not too dissimilar to 2005 happened in 2000, before Twenty20 had even been said.

And yeah - the exact point I'm making is that the ECB's aim is what you state it as (though not in so many words). To get people who don't like First-Class cricket to pay counties to watch something else.

You will never, ever achieve the aim of using Twenty20 to increase Championship crowds. Never. Championship cricket has been a tiny-minority sport for 70 years or more.

Well firstly, there can be no doubt that the success of the Ashes in itself was a result of the mindblowing good Test cricket played by both sides, and the fact that we were competitive against the Aussies (we won, btw ). However, if you weren't a cricket fan of any sort, then it would probably have been day four @ Edgbaston that made you switch on if you hadn't been following it. The fact is that people who weren't much into cricket were looking forwards to the series for a long time. Sure, it was because word got around that we had got half-decent at winning Test matches, nothing peaks the interest of this country's population more than a successful side. But I think that definitely more people were watching because they'd gotten interested in Twenty20. They watched a bit of that, liked it, heard we were good at the longer stuff, flicked it on, and suddenly there are 20,000 people locked out at Old Trafford.

T20 probably won't increase Championship crowds but I can't agree that it doesn't raise interest in cricket in general. With youngsters, Twenty20 helps to maintain and attract interest. There are not too many 7 or 8 year olds who would sit through a Test match session, never mind full day, or even five, but they'll watch a bit of T20, love it, and as they grow up as cricket fans it is almost inevitable that they will get into the longer game.

My kid brother is 14, doesn't take much interest in the game tbh, follows the scores but won't watch all that much. However, when the T20is are on, he sets a reminder on Sky and annoys my mother by not letting her near the TV. When the Ashes roll round next summer he and all the other teenagers like him will almost certainly watch. In the long-term, those who watch T20 and the odd Test are likely to watch more Tests, IMO.

As you know, I like Twenty20 as it is nice to watch a whole game after being at work all day. The downside is that if you're actually at the game you lose a lot of the drinking time that you would have if you went to a Test or ODI . I genuinely don't think that there are all that many people who only watch Twenty20 - I think there is a case that footy fans go to the T20 in June & July to fill the void, but then me and my mates do that, except we do it at Tests/ODIs. But all the people that watch the domestic Twenty20s on Sky, I'd reckon it would mainly be people who take an overall interest in the game.

Would be fascinating to actually find out, mind you, through some sort of survey.

 

[Richard]

Well yeah. But I honestly can't say I reckon those who watch Twenty20 on Sky will also watch much Tests, on Sky or, previously, on C4.

And I'm also not really sure about the pre-Ashes hype of 2005. To me, it seemed to come exclusively from the already committed, not those outside the game's fanbase. Only after Edgbaston did it seem to start to permeate the outside World of Britain.

 

[GIMH]

Well yeah. But I honestly can't say I reckon those who watch Twenty20 on Sky will also watch much Tests, on Sky or, previously, on C4.

And I'm also not really sure about the pre-Ashes hype of 2005. To me, it seemed to come exclusively from the already committed, not those outside the game's fanbase. Only after Edgbaston did it seem to start to permeate the outside World of Britain.

No way. I was working in a pub at the time, and everyone was looking forwards to the Ashes, even if they weren't really cricket fans. The buzz around it started in late 04, then we got an Aussie working in the pub in January 05 and he discussed how they were going to whoops us etc. But basically, once England won the T20i, all anyone could talk about was the Ashes. Everyone.

 

[Richard]

Really? Totally different where I was TBH. And I was similarly in a booze-flogging establishment, though I presume a rather less a-buzzing one.

 

[SJS]

I tend to agree with what Richard is trying to say here ... and meeting much opposition (not surprised) doing it. Let me try to help

Its no one's case, and not Richards too I think, that all those who love FC cricket and Test cricket hate T 20. Of course not. So I think all those protestations are misdirected. Richards is not even suggesting that. Those who loved the longer version of the game (called traditionalists) have mixed reactions to it. Some hate it, some can live with it and some others welcome it - so no point in arguing about it however much one may relish arguing with Richard

The point he is trying to make is different.

The idea of T-20 (and taking cricket to newer lands) is not just about bringing back the existing cricket lovers, who may have stopped watching tha game, but also, and much more importantly, to bring newer fans (who I call neo-converts). Its a missionary programme and its here that Richard and many others, yours truly included, have an issue with it. Or rather, a bigger issue with it. What kind of converts are we getting as co-religionists? Do they really love cricket (as it has existed for over two centuries)? Will the drive to bring them at any cost (read changing the game in form and style and tradition) not do long term damage? Will it end up driving away many of the faithful (which means those who have not yet been driven away) while the fickleness of the neo-converts remains unchanged and their loyalty to the game uncertain?

These are the questions that bother some of us. A forum where almost the entire population consists of cricket lovers may not be the best place to ask this question because those who respond are only cricket lovers. Hence this debate that Richard is so bravely trying to handle by himself

I have talked to so many people in my family who never watched cricket, mostly women, who have found T-20 format exciting. They have one thing in common - they despise first class cricket and Test cricket.

So the debate is not about what percenaget of the lovers of the traditional form of the game love T-20, but rather what are we going to end up achieving and to what extent are we willing to change the game in order to do it keeping in mind the important fact that the 'neo-converts' do not like the traditional format of the game universally while the response to T-20 by the existing fans of the traditional game is mixed at best.

 

[Top_Cat]

I tend to agree with what Richard is trying to say here ... and meeting much opposition (not surprised) doing it. Let me try to help

Its no one's case, and not Richards too I think, that all those who love FC cricket and Test cricket hate T 20. Of course not. So I think all those protestations are misdirected. Richards is not even suggesting that. Those who loved the longer version of the game (called traditionalists) have mixed reactions to it. Some hate it, some can live with it and some others welcome it - so no point in arguing about it however much one may relish arguing with Richard

The point he is trying to make is different.

The idea of T-20 (and taking cricket to newer lands) is not just about bringing back the existing cricket lovers, who may have stopped watching tha game, but also, and much more importantly, to bring newer fans (who I call neo-converts). Its a missionary programme and its here that Richard and many others, yours truly included, have an issue with it. Or rather, a bigger issue with it. What kind of converts are we getting as co-religionists? Do they really love cricket (as it has existed for over two centuries)? Will the drive to bring them at any cost (read changing the game in form and style and tradition) not do long term damage? Will it end up driving away many of the faithful (which means those who have not yet been driven away) while the fickleness of the neo-converts remains unchanged and their loyalty to the game uncertain?

These are the questions that bother some of us. A forum where almost the entire population consists of cricket lovers may not be the best place to ask this question because those who respond are only cricket lovers. Hence this debate that Richard is so bravely trying to handle by himself

I have talked to so many people in my family who never watched cricket, mostly women, who have found T-20 format exciting. They have one thing in common - they despise first class cricket and Test cricket.

So the debate is not about what percenaget of the lovers of the traditional form of the game love T-20, but rather what are we going to end up achieving and to what extent are we willing to change the game in order to do it keeping in mind the important fact that the 'neo-converts' do not like the traditional format of the game universally while the response to T-20 by the existing fans of the traditional game is mixed at best.

The question I would ask, though, is where is the threat to Test cricket and where have all these negative changes occurred? As far as I can see, Test cricket has remained largely unaffected by Twenty20. Yesterday's play was Test cricket at its best and there are no indications that's about to change any time soon. All of the innovations which are occurring to Twenty20 to bias batting are pretty much staying there and other consequences such as faster and more innovative methods of scoring can only benefit Test cricket. And rule changes which were intended to nullify certain bowling (one bouncer per over/batsman) have been relaxed too.

Test cricket will just have to adjust to a more crowded schedule, really. I've seen no signs that there are wholesale changes to make it more appealing to non-fans on the way. Tests still go for 5 days, still in white clothing, still use a red ball, etc.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm not stupid. Lucky for your edit.

Ninety metres is obviously over the boundary, so how do they work out which shots go over 90 metres? Marking the stadium or grandstand...? Sounds ludicrous.

I thought I'd better add that in case you didn't realise I was joking.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I prefer the one-hand and the whole team is out rule. Should be introduced in all cricket, give the advantage back to the fielding site.

Add typsy run to that, and put a clothesline halfway to the boundary that the batsman has to run around if he hits it outside the circle.

 

[nightprowler10]

Now if uh, six, huh, turned out to be nine
Oh I dont mind, I dont mind

Well actually I do in this case, but I couldn't resist putting that Hendrix line in here.