is it tap-dancing then?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
What an awful concept
- Thread starter Xuhaib
- Start date
absolutely! Well said jot1!Amen to this..... and what sideshowtim said and honestbharani, in his last paragraph.
20/20 is exciting, fast and crowd-pulling. As a cricket fan of all forms of the game, I get to see much more. Different types of shots, bowling and fielding and more players. Different strategies.
I see lesser teams doing well. Which can only lead to more confidence. Exposure to better teams betters their abilities.
I say keep all 3 formats. In this instance, IMO, more is better.
slugger
State Vice-Captain
ive only seen bits and pieces of the game on the news and stuff.. honestly when i herd about it last year i had my resevations about the concept.. but i am really impressed with what ive seen.. i really believe this will take cricket to a global stage.. and with the introduction of the club/franchise concept i would suspect in the next 20 years or so.. it will be a massive crowd puller and involve many more countiers than just the usual suspects..(test teams)..
Last edited:
so do u agree with 2020 as an 'awful concept' or not?...
BTW....congrats on ur 100th post!!
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I must say that Craddock makes some very valid points there. And I never thought I'd get into 20/20 cricket, but I do enjoy the fact there is a result in a few hours. The games haven't been too one-sided and there has been some very exciting cricket. Can't say I'd pay to go see a 20/20 game again (at least not an international one), but it is definitely great for television viewing.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The main thing is the pitches, really. As I keep saying, as long as the pitches have something in it for the bowlers, Twenty20 matches will always be exciting... Heck, I think even ODIs with pitches which do a little for bowlers produce good matches.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I agree with that, Something definitely needs to be done to bring the bowlers into the match as something better than bowling machines. If bowling became better/more difficult to handle, batting will automatically require more skills and the separation of wheat from chaff will be clearer.
Whats the point in having a contest where most of the bowlers bowl fast to medium but almost never with any slips.
I have a few ideas and will be writingabout it another time. One could surely be allowing a cricket ball with two halves of leather instead of four quarters as we have today. It makes the ball to swing much more. That should make the batsmen think and play instead of the mindless slogging we see today.
With the T-20 game as it is today, we could do without power plays. Its still going to be high scoring as faras scoring rates go.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
On the other hand, SJS, I think a certain amount of field restriction is needed in T20.. Only then, even on a bowlers' wicket, will they keep slips and the sort... Attacking captaincy is becoming more and more of a risk that many ppl are just unwilling to take and the only way to get all this in is through such rules.
But I do agree abt that 2 piece ball thing.... Some commentators have been harping on it for years, dunno why the admins don't lend them an ear.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I mentioned the slips in conjunction with the two piece cricket ball. It wil make sense to have slips if more edges are expected.
The field restriction is not making for slip fielders, nor is it making for an attack which is using the close in fielders as an attacking force.
All that is happening is that the inner ring of fielders are being spread around to increase the probability of stopping a larger number of shots. Some times fielders outside the circle can also be an attacking option. For example a leg spinner flighting outside the off stump making the batsman hit him with the risk of being caught by a deep cover.
They have to think of putting the fear of losing his wicket back in the batsman's mind. The limited overs format will still continue to make run scoring the major preoccupation of the batsman but knowing the risks of mindless batting he will have to develope the skills to counter the risk
Its that which will make the game exciting as a contest between bat and ball. To reduce it to a contest between bat and bat can never be good for the game in the long run.
Dissector
International Debutant
So far I have been quite impressed with the format. I agree that the key is a wicket with something for the bowlers. The ideal game is one where the par score is around 150.
20/20 games seem to produce a lot of terrific counter-attacking cricket where a batsman or a bowler can turn around the game in a few overs. Think of Uthappa against Pakistan or Vettori against India.
Relative to ODI's 20/20 may actually see more genuine bowlers compared to bits and pieces players. This is because part-time bowlers are much more difficult to hide and because you would back your top 6 bats to use most of the 20 overs.
Anyway whether or not you like the format, I think 20/20 is here to stay. The India-Pakistan game alone may have created hundreds of millions of fans.
One big benefit I think will be that domestic cricket will become much more viable in the future as a spectator sport . From the commercial point of view, cricket does need a format where spectators can get a result in an evening like most other sports. If domestic cricket becomes financially viable that will mean a better living for a lot more cricketers.
Will 20/20 hurt test cricket? Maybe but test cricket seems to have survived ODI's fairly well and my guess is that it will survive this as well. And we can't rule out some 20/20 fans becoming converts to tests especially as they get older.
20/20 games seem to produce a lot of terrific counter-attacking cricket where a batsman or a bowler can turn around the game in a few overs. Think of Uthappa against Pakistan or Vettori against India.
Relative to ODI's 20/20 may actually see more genuine bowlers compared to bits and pieces players. This is because part-time bowlers are much more difficult to hide and because you would back your top 6 bats to use most of the 20 overs.
Anyway whether or not you like the format, I think 20/20 is here to stay. The India-Pakistan game alone may have created hundreds of millions of fans.
One big benefit I think will be that domestic cricket will become much more viable in the future as a spectator sport . From the commercial point of view, cricket does need a format where spectators can get a result in an evening like most other sports. If domestic cricket becomes financially viable that will mean a better living for a lot more cricketers.
Will 20/20 hurt test cricket? Maybe but test cricket seems to have survived ODI's fairly well and my guess is that it will survive this as well. And we can't rule out some 20/20 fans becoming converts to tests especially as they get older.
Swervy
International Captain
well I am glad to see that in general the response to Twenty20 has been pretty positive.
I think this tourny has gon esome way to showing people that there is a place for good bowling in the game, and that good bowling will tend to be rewarded.
I think somewhere someone said it was sad to see Pollock getting whacked about. well for me, one of the good things about this format is that it has no respect for reputation. You perform on the day and you get your rewards, if you dont you get punished. There is nowhere to hide in this format. You bowl a crap over and you have bowled crap for a quarter of your spell. In 50 over stuff you have time to redeem yourself.
For me, this tournament has way way overshadowed the lumbering dinosaur that was the World Cup earlier this year, not only for excitment but in a lot of way, the quality of play. Some of the batting as been amazing to watch, and some of the bowling has been a lesson on really good death bowling
I think this tourny has gon esome way to showing people that there is a place for good bowling in the game, and that good bowling will tend to be rewarded.
I think somewhere someone said it was sad to see Pollock getting whacked about. well for me, one of the good things about this format is that it has no respect for reputation. You perform on the day and you get your rewards, if you dont you get punished. There is nowhere to hide in this format. You bowl a crap over and you have bowled crap for a quarter of your spell. In 50 over stuff you have time to redeem yourself.
For me, this tournament has way way overshadowed the lumbering dinosaur that was the World Cup earlier this year, not only for excitment but in a lot of way, the quality of play. Some of the batting as been amazing to watch, and some of the bowling has been a lesson on really good death bowling
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was once one of the most vociferous anti-Twenty20 voices around these parts. But I've come to accept it, as I have been somewhat entertained by this World Cup to date. More so than the 50-over tournament, at least. And I was certainly entertained by the WI-Eng games earlier this year. I still greatly prefer 50-over cricket to Twenty20, but this shorter game does have its merits - economic mostly.
And I have no problem with it, in that respect, once it isn't overdone to add to player burnout. Because it's the most attractive thing about cricket to many people outside of the sport, and I consider that a plus. It's essentially marijuana, a gateway drug.
I don't think it's tainting the sport. Once the statistics are kept separately from ODI stats (and they are), it's fine by me.
And I have no problem with it, in that respect, once it isn't overdone to add to player burnout. Because it's the most attractive thing about cricket to many people outside of the sport, and I consider that a plus. It's essentially marijuana, a gateway drug.
I don't think it's tainting the sport. Once the statistics are kept separately from ODI stats (and they are), it's fine by me.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
yeah, but what I meant was that, if you see in ODI cricket, that rule of having two catchers in the first 15 overs did help to an extent. Maybe we can just have a rule that really doesn't restrict the number of guys outside the circle but makes sure that there must be two men catching for the first 7 overs of the Twenty20... That, coupled with wickets where there is something for the bowlers, might really produce some good and interesting cricket.
As you said, having fielding outside the circle is not necessarily always a defensive move, but having a couple of guys close in has its own advantages. At the end of the day, they do get their fair share of catches, don't they?
Maybe say allow 3 guys in the boundary during the first 7 overs plus two guys catching? That might make it a little more interesting instead of seeing 5 men in the ring on the offside...
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The problem with any rules that make speed of run scoring the major criteria for batsmen will automatically make "restricting run scoring" the major preoccupation of the bowlers.
This will lead to defensive bowling and we will lose the skills of attacking bowling. It is attacking bowling of high class that leads to batsmen having to hone their skills to be able to counter this class of bowling.
It is a vicious circle which reduces the skill sets and this is what is the problem with the direction that cricket seems to be taking.
It can be avoided if the focus was not so much on batting.
Why do we need a one day game and noe a 20-20 format. The reasosn are basically threefold
1. Reduce the time taken for a game
2. Always produce a result
3. Provide excitement for the viewer
The first two are understood easily and taken care of in both shorter formats. The third is a problem. Not because excitement is undesirable but because it is undefined.
If we are going to reach a stage where viewers are excited only by the ball soaring out of the ground we would have already damaged the game in a way that will ruin it for good.
Anyone who can think rationally will realise that excitement also comes from a great bowler running through a side and the other side responding in kind and fighting to defend a small total. Unless this is kept in mind we are going to make great bowlers an extinct breed. And those who spend a lifetime sending average bowlers out of the ground are not great batsmen either. Hence we will finally end up devoiding the game of both great bowlers AND great batsmen.
This is what needs to be avoided.
For that ICC has to stop thinking short term.
This will lead to defensive bowling and we will lose the skills of attacking bowling. It is attacking bowling of high class that leads to batsmen having to hone their skills to be able to counter this class of bowling.
It is a vicious circle which reduces the skill sets and this is what is the problem with the direction that cricket seems to be taking.
It can be avoided if the focus was not so much on batting.
Why do we need a one day game and noe a 20-20 format. The reasosn are basically threefold
1. Reduce the time taken for a game
2. Always produce a result
3. Provide excitement for the viewer
The first two are understood easily and taken care of in both shorter formats. The third is a problem. Not because excitement is undesirable but because it is undefined.
If we are going to reach a stage where viewers are excited only by the ball soaring out of the ground we would have already damaged the game in a way that will ruin it for good.
Anyone who can think rationally will realise that excitement also comes from a great bowler running through a side and the other side responding in kind and fighting to defend a small total. Unless this is kept in mind we are going to make great bowlers an extinct breed. And those who spend a lifetime sending average bowlers out of the ground are not great batsmen either. Hence we will finally end up devoiding the game of both great bowlers AND great batsmen.
This is what needs to be avoided.
For that ICC has to stop thinking short term.
Last edited:
Athlai
Not Terrible
Paranoia SJS, so far the great bowlers of our time have hit sucess in this format, and the great batsman have too. Look at the records and try and find average players sneaking to the top and you will be looking for a good while.
Everytime we see an average player succeeding at this game we condemn it but in what way is this different from ODI's? If you only took a handful of ODI's as opposed to a large amount of them I'm sure you'd find many 'average' players doing well.
Top 10 Batsman with the most runs and their averages
G Smith 347 @ 57.83
S Jayasuriya 246 @ 61.50
P Collingwood 219 @ 24.33
R Ponting 212 @ 35.33
K Pietersen 212 @ 23.55
B McCullum 195 @ 32.50
C Gayle 193 @ 38.60
A Ahmed 179 @ 35.80
S Malik 171 @ 24.42
M Hayden 170 @ 56.66
Is that a shocking list of dire modern batsman? I don't think so, we do have to change our perceptions slightly though, a good average is no longer 35 and up, it is now more along the lines of 25 and up. Eventually these players averages will go down but these are the ones who have scored the runs so far and in what way are any of them average?
Top 10 Bowlers for wickets, averages, economy
S Afridi 11 @ 13.36 and 6.83
N Bracken 10 @ 12.80 and 6.14
A Razzak 10 @ 14.20 and 5.91
P Collingwood 10 @ 16.20 and 9.00
M Asif 9 @ 16.66 and 7.56
D Vettori 8 @ 7.62 and 5.08
E Chigumbura 8 @ 9.12 and 8.11
C Fernando 8 @ 18.50 and 6.72
S Bond 8 @ 20 and 7.11
S Pollock 8 @ 23.12 and 8.22
Slower bowling is obviously the most effective but many of ODI's best bowlers at the moment, Bond, Pollock, Bracken (Asif needs a little longer at that form of the game), added with a lot of the finest slower bowlers show that average bowlers are hardly succeeding in any particular way, especially considering that the most matches any of these players have played is 9 and that honour goes to Collingwood. Aggressive bowling is hardly dying, which I feel is easy to identify if you consider the likes of Bracken in this list. Economies can no longer be expected to be 4.5 and under, now a good economy is 7 and under, and a good average is 25 and under, a great one being near 15.
All this uproar about average players being made to look better is BS, this is early days in the game, and the best players in the game at the moment being in the top tens is hardly a fluke.
Everytime we see an average player succeeding at this game we condemn it but in what way is this different from ODI's? If you only took a handful of ODI's as opposed to a large amount of them I'm sure you'd find many 'average' players doing well.
Top 10 Batsman with the most runs and their averages
G Smith 347 @ 57.83
S Jayasuriya 246 @ 61.50
P Collingwood 219 @ 24.33
R Ponting 212 @ 35.33
K Pietersen 212 @ 23.55
B McCullum 195 @ 32.50
C Gayle 193 @ 38.60
A Ahmed 179 @ 35.80
S Malik 171 @ 24.42
M Hayden 170 @ 56.66
Is that a shocking list of dire modern batsman? I don't think so, we do have to change our perceptions slightly though, a good average is no longer 35 and up, it is now more along the lines of 25 and up. Eventually these players averages will go down but these are the ones who have scored the runs so far and in what way are any of them average?
Top 10 Bowlers for wickets, averages, economy
S Afridi 11 @ 13.36 and 6.83
N Bracken 10 @ 12.80 and 6.14
A Razzak 10 @ 14.20 and 5.91
P Collingwood 10 @ 16.20 and 9.00
M Asif 9 @ 16.66 and 7.56
D Vettori 8 @ 7.62 and 5.08
E Chigumbura 8 @ 9.12 and 8.11
C Fernando 8 @ 18.50 and 6.72
S Bond 8 @ 20 and 7.11
S Pollock 8 @ 23.12 and 8.22
Slower bowling is obviously the most effective but many of ODI's best bowlers at the moment, Bond, Pollock, Bracken (Asif needs a little longer at that form of the game), added with a lot of the finest slower bowlers show that average bowlers are hardly succeeding in any particular way, especially considering that the most matches any of these players have played is 9 and that honour goes to Collingwood. Aggressive bowling is hardly dying, which I feel is easy to identify if you consider the likes of Bracken in this list. Economies can no longer be expected to be 4.5 and under, now a good economy is 7 and under, and a good average is 25 and under, a great one being near 15.
All this uproar about average players being made to look better is BS, this is early days in the game, and the best players in the game at the moment being in the top tens is hardly a fluke.