T20 - Changes Needed

[cnerd123]

Yeah but that's just adding pointless stats. Why do you need "balls per innings"? Just give the average. It's more relevant anyway. The best players are still the ones with the highest averages, but not necessarily the ones with the highest strike rates IMO.

Different roles in the team. When you see a high SR, low Balls Per Innings (BPI) guy, you know he is out there to have a hit. If you see a low SR, high BPI guy, you know he's the anchor. If you see a high SR, high BPI guy, you know he's a beast of a batsman. You see a low SR, low BPI guy, you know he's kinda ****.

All four of those kind of batsmen, and anyone in between, can average 30 given the right combination of runs scored and dismissals. The batting average doesn't tell you as much as those two stats will.

 

[TheJediBrah]

balls per innings doesn't tell you anything, except you can use it to calculate average if you have the SR . . .

oh well agree to disagree

 

[vcs]

You can only compare BPI for batsmen playing in the same position. Lasting 10 balls per innings on average for an opener and 10 balls per innings for a guy like Dhoni or Faulkner down the order are two completely different things.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd only have T20 World Cups, each team gets two warm ups, and no international T20 in-between.

 

[cnerd123]

You can only compare BPI for batsmen playing in the same position. Lasting 10 balls per innings on average for an opener and 10 balls per innings for a guy like Dhoni or Faulkner down the order are two completely different things.

Yea I don't mean it as a useful stat for any sort of statistical discussion or analysis, just that it conveys more useful information to the viewer sitting at home watching the game who isn't fully aware of all the players and their skill sets/roles.

 

[vcs]

I'd only have T20 World Cups, each team gets two warm ups, and no international T20 in-between.

You'd run the risk of seeing very poor standard of play/strategy in the WC (which doesn't look good) because teams haven't had enough time to experiment and test out some combinations. There'd be a lot of complaints about how the standard of play is so much higher in the IPL/Big Bash.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You'd run the risk of seeing very poor standard of play/strategy in the WC (which doesn't look good) because teams haven't had enough time to experiment and test out some combinations. There'd be a lot of complaints about how the standard of play is so much higher in the IPL/Big Bash.

They'd all have their strategies about oppositions from the IPL/Big Bash and other domestic tournaments. But you're probably right. It's the same criticism that gets made of the Football World Cup too...

I just think it'd be fun.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You'd run the risk of seeing very poor standard of play/strategy in the WC (which doesn't look good) because teams haven't had enough time to experiment and test out some combinations. There'd be a lot of complaints about how the standard of play is so much higher in the IPL/Big Bash.

they hardly play together before the T20 World cups anyway. Each 2 match T20 series that ends up getting played has a bunch of players rested anyway and doesn't happen often regardless.

I know in Australia's case the T20 World Cup teams are often unrecognisable from whatever team played the last T20 bilateral match

 

[Blocky]

I wouldn't even bother with it being a WC...

If anything, if you're wanting to make an international T20 league, do it like the Rugby Sevens, have a mixture of players who are young and pre-entry into the international arena properly, with a mixture of the older guys who are out of the game and keep it separate from Test and ODI Cricket, that way you can have it almost any time of the year, anywhere in the world and not impact the proper game formats.

 

[Daemon]

T20 is ****ing awesome now that chucking has been clamped down on. leg spinners doing well is great to see. power hitting these days is on another planet compared to the past. death bowling is so, so important. games turn quickly. chances for upsets are high. boring one sided games are done and dusted quickly and painlessly.

Personally hate to play the format though, I'm a 20(35) technically sound make the bowling look better than it is sort of player.

 

[SteveNZ]

Ultimately, I don't think T20 adds anything to the international game. I think it should become domestic only and become a marquee situation where players from all over the world get together in leagues to boost the local coffers and get some eyes on domestic talent. I'd bin it from the international game and focus on Tests + ODI at international level.

Agree. Have a World T20 if you must, every 2 years. But meaningless T20 internationals where an extra Test could be - I know they raise revenues but I'd prefer the ICC said we'll get in behind T20 domestic comps, create proper windows for them and use them to provide the financial foundation to keep Tests afloat.

 

[SteveNZ]

You'd run the risk of seeing very poor standard of play/strategy in the WC (which doesn't look good) because teams haven't had enough time to experiment and test out some combinations. There'd be a lot of complaints about how the standard of play is so much higher in the IPL/Big Bash.

Not sure about that, cricket is a largely individual sport. Not at all the same as football World Cups etc. Maybe the standard would be better in Big Bash etc but I'd say that's down to constant play in similar conditions, not team dynamics. Plus the guys likely are team mates in ODIs, on the vast majority.

 

[Burgey]

After watching Lynn hit Tait out of the Gabba last night, I think they need bigger grounds. Waaaaay. Igger grounds

 

[Furball]

Have long thought that outside a World Cup, international T20 is largely pointless.

However, if you're looking to make the domestic T20 leagues more meaningful, there needs to be restrictions on how many teams a player can play for.

 

[NUFAN]

Have long thought that outside a World Cup, international T20 is largely pointless.

However, if you're looking to make the domestic T20 leagues more meaningful, there needs to be restrictions on how many teams a player can play for.

Yep I agree with this. I would make it a max of 3 or 2 if your Indian.. Your own comp, the IPL (since there is a window specifically for it) and one other tournament.

 

[Crazy Sam]

Why restrict players? Does the general public really care about T20 tournaments outside their own country?

 

[NUFAN]

Why restrict players? Does the general public really care about T20 tournaments outside their own country?

I dont even have a good answer. I guess after reading the idea that everyone bar the keeper should bowl 2 overs, any other suggestion sounded revolutionary.

 

[Crazy Sam]

The first sentence of the opening post sure reads like a troll post rather than a legitimate attempt at discussion.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

The first sentence of the opening post sure reads like a troll post rather than a legitimate attempt at discussion.

39 posts and counting of legitimate discussion says you're wrong. It also says that I'm spot on, exactly as that first sentence said. Kindly stop infesting my thread with your unproductive rubbish.

 

[Sarun]

Agree. Have a World T20 if you must, every 2 years. But meaningless T20 internationals where an extra Test could be - I know they raise revenues but I'd prefer the ICC said we'll get in behind T20 domestic comps, create proper windows for them and use them to provide the financial foundation to keep Tests afloat.

meh, I don't think T20I's should subsidize tests. If the longer format can't survive (outside the usual suspects) on its own legs, let it inch on pathetically.