bestfriendh said:
hey sjs
ur point is taken but then if cricket is so perfect in the present sense can u plz temme y various cricket formats r bein invented to make it more "fun" for those enlglish blokes???.............
I think 20/20 etc is coming up because England is strugling to fill in the grounds. I dont know if changing the rules of the game are a solution. If they want to start a new type of game which is a 'spoof' )for want of a better word) on cricket, like 20/20, thats fine. But for Gods sake lets not call it cricket.
As I always say, Pool is Pool and Snooker is Snooker. Just because not enough people were playing(or could afford to/have access to) snooker, did not mean change snooker. Pool is a fifferent game.
If they want to fill their grounds (read make money for the game of cricket) by organising other games, let them do whatever they want. But you cant play one cricket to bring money to the longer version so that the latter may survive, and then play an even smaller version so that the one day version may survive. finally we may end up playing baseball so that some 10/10 version may survive.
This is ludicrous.
Of course something needs to be done if the game is dying or there is a lack of interest in the younger generation but you cant try to build their interest in cricket by not playing cricket but something else. this is not bringing crowds to cricket, this is enouraging people to LEAVE cricket and watch something elsethat they want to call a newer version of the game.
Tennis is struggling today because the game hgas changed and the serve and volley game is dying and IS dead amongst women. this has come about because of the change in equipment and the change to synthetic surfaces.
It is being realized and they are contemplating change in raquet headsize, gradually from 12 1/2 inches to 10" to redress the imbalance now favouring baseliners. They are talking of increasing the number of grass court tornaments and get rid of the slow abrasive hard courts.
They are doing this because they realise that the contrasting styles creat great contests such as McEnroe and Borg or Agassi and Sampras Or Martina and Chris. They also realise that a staple diet of baseline hitting will become so monotonous that day in and day out serving of this stuff will eventualy mean a slow death of the game and it is the return of the serve and volley, the passing shots and cleverly disguised lobs will enhance the game.
cricket needs to realise this too. We cant listen to the ignoramous riff-raff that are appear to matter from the viewing public. The fact of the matter is that the limited over game is already becoming too similar to the last game and the one before that. The first 15 overs and the last 10 are all that hold the viewer. This should have been a warning. Making it shorter means what ? Let the restriction remain throughout the fifty overs then. But is this a solution.
Fifty overs of slam bam, slam bam, slam bam will eventually peter out into nothing. Same with thirty overs or twenty.
If you want the game to survive, try and understand why the spectators are staying away.
Foolhardy schemes like 20/20 will benefit only mediocrity and Shaz and Waz shows will only provide much neded kicks to middle aged ex cricketers while doing nothing for those who genuinly love the game.