Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
Its a class competition its good for a new batch of fans and thats what counts
the thing about t20 is that it will get younger spectators or those who think cricket is rubbish into liking it and enjoying it and they will then hopefully get into test and odi cricket which i know works a i have freinds who said they never liked cricket but didnt understand it and they watcjed a few twenty over matches and understood and enjoyed it which i think means that it not only makes money for cricket but also helps build crickets foundations. and a game like tonights in cape town will do wonders for the game
ENGLAND CB SERIES CHAMPS FUTURE WORLD CUP CHAMPS(2011) AND IN 2009 THE ASHES HOLDERS
the official England 'patriotic cheerleader'
Proud supporter of the England national cricket, football and rugby teams and of TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR FOOTBALL CLUBS
come on CW BLUE
Those who were attracted to the game by odi's have not started liking tests also. Twenty 20 is even less likely to do that. What it does do is to reduce the importance, over time of the existing formats.
Trying to attract to the game those who think it is rubbish in the first place by changing it to suit their tastes doesn't guarantee permanent loyalties. Those who are in it for instant gratification will after they have had their fill need something more to turn them on as it were while those who are tradiional loyalists will have many among them who will be turned off.
The crowds at grounds and cricket fans in general will keep getting less and less interested in the finer aspects of the game and this is what will finally change the game in a irreversible manner (I still hope not) and the pantheon of great sports will be the poorer for it.
Fast food is not a replacement for great gourmet stuff but the latter needs more of those who appreciate it. Same with one night stands versus lifelong passions.
Nice post from SJS. 20/20 has to be judged on its merits as a format of the game, not on this supposed influx of new fans to other forms of cricket. There's a lot of evidence that people who don't like cricket as a rule are showing an interest in 20/20, none that they are suddenly developing a taste for test and ODI cricket. The same applies to ODIs of course, there are many who like ODIs because they are "exciting" or whatever but find tests boring. The main difference with 20/20 is that it's more extreme, both in terms of the actual differences between the forms and the differences between how the forms are presented.
Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 13-09-2007 at 12:39 AM.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
Hmm whats that old saying, "No such thing as bad publicity"?, its ridiculous righting off the idea that twenty20 bringing in new fans will not make people more interested in ODI and test cricket. While its hardly going to make every twenty20 fan a fan of the other formats this larger exposure could see a real influx of promotion of the game to areas that previously had no exposure at all.
Will this interest be immediate? No probably not, but sticking to the same ol' was hardly going to draw interest into the game. Twenty20 also has its own benefits to the other forms of the game, though it will take years for this to develop amongst them.
When ODI cricket began I'm sure we are all aware on how it was accepted by many fans, yet its mark on the longer form of the game is obvious, strike rates have went up in the longer form of the game since ODI made its grand entrance onto the worlds stage. The same is going to happen once again, the powerplay overs and death overs of a match which have always been targetted will now be a cash in time.
I am very interested to see how bowling copes with this fresh wave of aggressive batting but to suggest that twenty20 is ruining the game is IMO ridiculous. Its a part of the game, it draws crowds, it brings in money. And without money cricket can not develop or expand, and the free publicity ain't bad either.
In the beginning I wasn't a big fan of it, didn't see the excitement in it as most games are a one sided affair if a team gets 220+ (which is the only game I've watched Aus v S.A. at the 'Gabba). However, if it is a competitive match that goes right to the end it is pretty excitement.
Given that I don't like to see bat dominate ball, I'm not a huge fan, but given that there's been a lack of cricket to watch lately, I'll take anything atm.
Cricketweb Colts Captain
I'm a member of Club KerryOriginally Posted by Richard
The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!
Twenty20 is not as bad as people are making it out to be. Surely, it is not a TRUE test of the traditional cricketing skills, but it requires some interesting things of its own. Sure, the guys who can slog and take the pace off the ball are probably gonna be more successful in this format than the others, but then again, we have seen the same in ODIs with the likes of Larsen and Harris for New Zealand. And we didn't label them as rubbish bowlers, did we? Because it takes a bit of skill to do even that. If that was so easy, why culdn't Pollock or Ntini do the same and escape punishment?
As someone rightly pointed out, in the first game, the best bowlers were guys who were being genuinely quick... not the bits and pieces heroes...
The format is fine. SJS is right in saying that there is no real guarantee that Twenty20 fans will get into tests and ODIs as well. But put it this way: if there is a guy who never gave a damn about cricket and suddenly got interested in Twenty20, he will still wanna at least check out the scores in the newspapers when the other versions are on, just to see how his favourite player/team is doing... And at least a percentage (however small it may be) will definitely start to get a little more interest in the other formats of the game as we go on. For instance, my cousin became an instant fan of Chris Gayle after the first game. She doesn't give a damn about cricket, in all honesty but she liked the way he batted (she used the word that he batted like a cinema hero fighting off the bad guys in a movie).
What I expect to happen over time is that say, in the next year or the year after that, we get to see a really good knock from Gayle in a test (maybe a flat track or whatever) and she reads about it. She is already a fan of him and watches a lot of Twenty20, she might wanna check out the highlights of his innings and then perhaps watch the next test he plays in, maybe just for as long as he is batting but slowly but surely the interest builds up. Of course a lot is left to chance here, but at least there is a CHANCE that someone will become a new fan. That is very important.
But the responsibility, IMO, lies now with the curators. Yesterday's game showed that even a track with a bit in it for the bowlers, produces a very interesting game of Twenty20. That is the path that we should follow because just having flat tracks all the time will def. kill the game.
We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
I think we will see some fans move from Twenty20 to other formats eventually, especially so with younger fans of it. Twenty20 brings young fans into it, they like it and a lot will start playing cricket themselves and eventually a lot of them, as they get more mature and find themselves more into cricket generally, will develop interest for the other formats.
The argument about T20 making average players good and vice versa can easily be applied to ODIs as well though.
Originally Posted by Axl Rose
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Perhaps whether or not 20/20 appeals comes down to what problems one has with ODI cricket. For instance, a lot of casual fans say things like "I don't like cricket except when it's X runs off X balls". To such a fan, 20/20 is perfect. And of course, a lot of people think ODI cricket is good at the death and with the new ball, but find the middle overs dull. 20/20 also removes this. Personally, my issues with ODI cricket as compared to test cricket are different, and 20/20 simply makes them a hell of a lot worse, and the things I enjoy are much harder to find.
I also find the marketing of the format crass and annoying, but when it comes down to the actual games themselves, that's how it seems to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)