West Indies in Oz cut to three tests to accomodate Twenty20

[Scaly piscine]

My opinion is that because batsmen are (usually) committing to shots rather than playing defensively they're far more likely to edge the good balls rather than simply playing and missing.

 

[Pratters]

Why not?

Its sad you put up such a question.

First we need to understand what is essentially cricket. Its a fair contest between the bat and the ball. When the Windies bowlers were dominating, the one bouncer rule per over was put into place to make the contest even.

When the one day cricket turned totally helpless for bowlers, one bouncer an over was put back into the one dayers which had initially been removed though the one day game still remains tilted towards the batsmen. I enjoy those one day games more which have lower scores and good contest between the bat and the ball on a helpful pitch. Much more exciting than seeing 300 runs in each inning.

Twenty20 throws the equation totally in favour of batsmen. It is here that it moves away from the principles of a fair contest between the bat and the ball.

So the question to be asked really is do we move away from what is essentially cricket if it is more popular? If cricket fans start enjoying base ball, do we bring in two wickets possible on one delivery as was stupidly put forward by the ICC last year and thankfully we havent heard of it again? The answer is clearly no.

Tweny20 will bring in instant money like one day cricket. But it totally deviates from the principles of a good even contest between the bat and the ball. Thus it moves away from the principles on which cricket is based. That is not at all good for cricket.

 

[Pratters]

That is garbage. I don't care how many runs I go for as long as I am picking up the wickets. And, as school cricket (apart from 1st XI) is 20 Overs, I play a fair bit of it, and love the challenge of trying to keep the runs down.

You are an exception who doesnt think the way most bowlers do. I respect your thinking and dont call it garbage even though its unfortunate some young bowlers feel that way.

 

[Pratters]

Indeed - as the game gets played more, it reverts to those with the normal skills that are more succesful than those that slog.

How can you assume so when the 50 over game has become more batsmen friendly over the years..

 

[Tom Halsey]

You are an exception who doesnt think the way most bowlers do. I respect your thinking and dont call it garbage even though its unfortunate some young bowlers feel that way.

It isn't unfortunate at all.

I find it a difficult yet exciting challenge to keep the runs down when the batsmen are playing a shot a ball.

And I can tell you most decent bowlers would rather pick up wickets than keep the runs down (within reason ofcourse).

 

[Tom Halsey]

Its sad you put up such a question.

First we need to understand what is essentially cricket. Its a fair contest between the bat and the ball. When the Windies bowlers were dominating, the one bouncer rule per over was put into place to make the contest even.

When the one day cricket turned totally helpless for bowlers, one bouncer an over was put back into the one dayers which had initially been removed though the one day game still remains tilted towards the batsmen. I enjoy those one day games more which have lower scores and good contest between the bat and the ball on a helpful pitch. Much more exciting than seeing 300 runs in each inning.

Twenty20 throws the equation totally in favour of batsmen. It is here that it moves away from the principles of a fair contest between the bat and the ball.

So the question to be asked really is do we move away from what is essentially cricket if it is more popular? If cricket fans start enjoying base ball, do we bring in two wickets possible on one delivery as was stupidly put forward by the ICC last year and thankfully we havent heard of it again? The answer is clearly no.

Tweny20 will bring in instant money like one day cricket. But it totally deviates from the principles of a good even contest between the bat and the ball. Thus it moves away from the principles on which cricket is based. That is not at all good for cricket.

Why is it in favour of batsmen? Infact most batsmen's averages decline, and bowlers improve.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How can you assume so when the 50 over game has become more batsmen friendly over the years..

It isn't an assumption, he's seen lots of it.

If you still think there's plenty of slogging in it then I still assume you haven't seen it.

 

[Gangster]

Don't expect an answer. The common approach for these people is to just keep on replying with "Well you've only seen two games. We've seen two seasons", while refusing to acknowledge or even try and debate your point. Intelligent debate does not occur.

A game where bowlers going for 7-9 an over is the norm, and actually considered decent bowling figures, is not good for cricket.

I don't loathe it, but I'm not a big fan of it. It was midly entertaining, however some of the stunts were stupid (The Haddin crap was a disgrace, whether smart or not). I acknowledge that bringing in 20 000 people is great for cricket, and don't mind it at domestic level. But if we start getting tri-series of Twenty20 cricket, we may as well bring in the bowling machines to replace the Akhtars, McGraths, Pollock's Warne's (worth repeating).

What's good for cricket is having people in the stands, not your ridiculously antiquated notions of what a game should or should not be. Either cricket evolves - and 20-20 is one potential evolution - or it dies out. Simple as that.

 

[Pratters]

It isn't an assumption, he's seen lots of it.

If you still think there's plenty of slogging in it then I still assume you haven't seen it.

Great insightful comment as always. He says it will even out for bowlers. So it hasnt already. Nothing to do with seeing a lot of it or not.

 

[Pratters]

Why is it in favour of batsmen? Infact most batsmen's averages decline, and bowlers improve.

If you are smashed for 8-9 an over, its definitely not in favour of bowlers! The averages are low because batsmen go for the runs and get out. There are 10 wickets in hand so they take more risks.

 

[marc71178]

Twenty20 throws the equation totally in favour of batsmen. It is here that it moves away from the principles of a fair contest between the bat and the ball.

Not so.

Good bowling by good bowlers still gets good figures.

 

[marc71178]

How can you assume so when the 50 over game has become more batsmen friendly over the years..

Erm things like flatter pitches and more and more fielding restrictions.

 

[marc71178]

Great insightful comment as always. He says it will even out for bowlers. So it hasnt already. Nothing to do with seeing a lot of it or not.

Actually not once in that to which you refer did I mention bowlers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Its sad you put up such a question.

First we need to understand what is essentially cricket. Its a fair contest between the bat and the ball.

Which part of Twenty20 isn't a fair contest?

It's just a different type of contest, much more focused on intensity than traditional Test values of patience, where the players have got to be thinking all the time.

 

[Pratters]

Actually not once in that to which you refer did I mention bowlers.

So for whom it will even out?

 

[Pratters]

Not so.

Good bowling by good bowlers still gets good figures.

Its because batsmen try to make runs faster. The great figures are not due to the greatness of the bowlers. Mediocre bowlers get wickets in 50 overs game like a M.Vaughan. Part time bowlers become far more effective in twenty20 games.

 

[Pratters]

Which part of Twenty20 isn't a fair contest?

It's just a different type of contest, much more focused on intensity than traditional Test values of patience, where the players have got to be thinking all the time.

Its not a fair contest when you consider a bowlers get far lesser overs to get the batsmen out. The batting team has the same number of wickets in hand. So they can score more freely.

In test cricket it usually went for an average of around 3 runs an over which has been slightly higher now. Its going at 6 runs around in one dayers. The one day game is more of a batsman's game.

When you give the batting team 20 overs in which you have to make whatever runs you can with the same 20 wickets in hand, they can virtually play with the bowlers if they have some wickets in hand just for a few overs. The bowlers get far lesser opportunity.

There is no way of showing it is an even contest.

 

[Pratters]

Erm things like flatter pitches and more and more fielding restrictions.

The fact is it has become more batsman friendly over the years. The twenty20 game is already very much batsman friendly and there is no reason to assume it will suddenly even out in the future, specially going by the way the one day game has progressed.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If you are smashed for 8-9 an over, its definitely not in favour of bowlers! The averages are low because batsmen go for the runs and get out. There are 10 wickets in hand so they take more risks.

As I said before, most decent bowlers wouldn't mind going for runs if it meant that they'd get more wickets. Within reason ofcourse.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Its because batsmen try to make runs faster. The great figures are not due to the greatness of the bowlers. Mediocre bowlers get wickets in 50 overs game like a M.Vaughan. Part time bowlers become far more effective in twenty20 games.

So you're now contradicting youself by saying even mediocre bowlers get good figures.

And, as Marc says, good bowling gets good figures. How you can dispute that is beyond me.