Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 109

Thread: What an awful concept

  1. #46
    State Captain Lostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,945
    going to watch a 20/20 is like going to watch a movie that is shorter than 90 mins, by the time i get out of the ground/theater feel like i got robbed. No problem on tv though.
    For as long as there is limited overs cricket - of ten, twenty or fifty overs - there will remain the Sri Lankan spinners' mid-innings choke

  2. #47
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,694
    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.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  3. #48
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #49
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,694
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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.
    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.


  5. #50
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #51
    International Debutant Dissector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,249
    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.

  7. #52
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    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
    rave down, hit the ground


    MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

  8. #53
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Meh, like you say they only last 180 minutes so you won't have to put up with them very long if you don't like the idea.

  9. #54
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Zimdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    Posts
    83
    Personally this type of cricket is rather bias.

    It favours teams with erratic players and big hitters, who are normally unsuitable to play test cricket.

    Test cricket is the true gem of cricket in my opinion. A true test cricket legend is a true cricket legend.
    We live for alot, our land has been destroyed, but our cricket lives on.

  10. #55
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    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.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."


  11. #56
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,694
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    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.
    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...

  12. #57
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    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.
    Last edited by SJS; 18-09-2007 at 12:27 AM.

  13. #58
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,474
    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.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  14. #59
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,255
    I ever said the good batsmen will overnight become bad.

    Same for bowlers.

    Read again.

  15. #60
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,474
    If great batsman and great bowlers are the best in the game then isn't that what players would aspire to become?

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Poll on the Concept of Super Sub
    By JASON in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 01:22 AM
  2. Cricket manager concept
    By xixsoside in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2004, 11:31 AM
  3. Awful European Weather
    By Simon in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-12-2002, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •