What an awful concept

[SJS]

If great batsman and great bowlers are the best in the game then isn't that what players would aspire to become?

Thats not what this format will ensure. Because The best batsmen you are talking off are not using all their considerable skills in this format.

The coming generation will also concentrate only on those skills that are needed here not those that have made these players better than the others.

Thats why I talked of the short term versus the long term.

[Athlai]

Thats not what this format will ensure. Because The best batsmen you are talking off are not using all their considerable skills in this format.

The coming generation will also concentrate only on those skills that are needed here not those that have made these players better than the others.

Thats why I talked of the short term versus the long term.

I feel they are using a lot more skills than you are giving credit too, if they weren't then any Joe or Jim would be up at the top. You could say the same of ODI's, not all the skills are used in that game that are in test cricket.

Attacking the idea that the skills aren't up to scratch is just a bit too harsh for me, its also going to develop 'new' skills. If players want to play tests, they will play tests, if they want to play T20 they'll play T20. If test cricket is the pinnacle of cricketing skill then it will remain so , but that doesn't mean other games require no skill or even less skill. Different skills for sure though.

[SJS]

I feel they are using a lot more skills than you are giving credit too, if they weren't then any Joe or Jim would be up at the top. You could say the same of ODI's, not all the skills are used in that game that are in test cricket.

Attacking the idea that the skills aren't up to scratch is just a bit too harsh for me, its also going to develop 'new' skills. If players want to play tests, they will play tests, if they want to play T20 they'll play T20. If test cricket is the pinnacle of cricketing skill then it will remain so , but that doesn't mean other games require no skill or even less skill. Different skills for sure though.

Tell me how many wickets do you remember that fell to great bowling.

There are more 'unforced errors" in this format than 'outright winners' and that never makes for great spectacle. Not in tennis and not in cricket.

[Athlai]

Tell me how many wickets do you remember that fell to great bowling.

There are more 'unforced errors" in this format than 'outright winners' and that never makes for great spectacle. Not in tennis and not in cricket.

Odd that the unforced errors have came off quality bowlers isn't it.

Flintoff and Anderson both threw in some high quality balls today that dismissed the kiwi top order, there has been a load of good balls throughout the tournament, Asif's had beautiful spells, Lee's hattrick was all his quality. I would say theres hardly anymore dismissals in this format to unforced errors as there is in ODI's (in the last ten overs particularily). I've watched 2 thirds of the matches in this WC and I honestly believe that good bowling is what is getting the majority of the wickets and not your "unforced errors".

[SJS]

Odd that the unforced errors have came off quality bowlers isn't it.

Flintoff and Anderson both threw in some high quality balls today that dismissed the kiwi top order, there has been a load of good balls throughout the tournament, Asif's had beautiful spells, Lee's hattrick was all his quality. I would say theres hardly anymore dismissals in this format to unforced errors as there is in ODI's (in the last ten overs particularily). I've watched 2 thirds of the matches in this WC and I honestly believe that good bowling is what is getting the majority of the wickets and not your "unforced errors".

Of course they will. If you are going to slog and miss the ball still has to be pitched on the stumps for you to be bowled.

I think you are not at all on the same page as me.

I am notsaying that the better bowlers or the better batsmen will nottake wickets or score runs respectively. Read a second and third time if required please.

What I am saying is that the standards 'required' for this format will be lower for obvious reasons and over time the overall standards will decline.

Of course in any format the better players will perform better. But what dfines better will change.

When wickets stopped being left uncovered, players who had the technique to play on stickies vanished. Now have stickies and the Tendulkars and Laras will scream 'blue murder' . But have stickies as a permanent feature and players who are the best of the best will learn to play on them.

Skills evolve with need butthey also disappear, over time, as the need disappears.

I rest my case. Since I have absolutely nothing more to add and repeating oneself is very tiresome

[Athlai]

Just like when ODI cricket began this games places will show its on values to the game. Anderson didn't pitch on to the stumps, hit the right area and went straight to the keeper. Dismissing this game as something different which will harm the game sounds just like what was originally thought of ODI cricket.

The standards themselves I feel will not lower as they are different standards entirely. If your of the idea that this game is the death of test cricket than I can understand that train of thought, but so many players are good across all levels that I can't believe that. Any player who can play an aggressive stroke off of any ball has the potential to be a good batsman.

This game will develop ODI cricket IMO. Bowling, Fielding, Batting, the aggressive nature of this game will roll over into the slightly longer format. Test cricket? The verdicts out.

If your favourite games the longest one then maybe there are dark days ahead. A long innings and defensive strokes may begin to decline. I don't think so myself, I believe these games will be kept well and truely seperate for a long time to come.

[Scaly piscine]

Of course they will. If you are going to slog and miss the ball still has to be pitched on the stumps for you to be bowled.

I think you are not at all on the same page as me.

I am notsaying that the better bowlers or the better batsmen will nottake wickets or score runs respectively. Read a second and third time if required please.

What I am saying is that the standards 'required' for this format will be lower for obvious reasons and over time the overall standards will decline.

Of course in any format the better players will perform better. But what dfines better will change.

When wickets stopped being left uncovered, players who had the technique to play on stickies vanished. Now have stickies and the Tendulkars and Laras will scream 'blue murder' . But have stickies as a permanent feature and players who are the best of the best will learn to play on them.

Skills evolve with need butthey also disappear, over time, as the need disappears.

I rest my case. Since I have absolutely nothing more to add and repeating oneself is very tiresome

The standards required for this format are not lower, they're just different.

Should I write off Test cricket as substandard because being able to play the reverse sweep or the lap over fine leg is virtually useless? How about the bowlers like Hoggard who aren't 'good enough' to bowl any variations or change his lines and lengths?

This line of reasoning is no more ridiculous than what you're doing.

[Athlai]

The standards required for this format are not lower, they're just different.

Should I write off Test cricket as substandard because being able to play the reverse sweep or the lap over fine leg is virtually useless? How about the bowlers like Hoggard who aren't 'good enough' to bowl any variations or change his lines and lengths?

This line of reasoning is no more ridiculous than what you're doing.

Well said mate.

[Jono]

I'll just say this. When a boundary being hit isn't special anymore, and is just like a batsman shouldering arms in test cricket (and you can see this through the crowd reaction) then its a worrying side of the game.

[Sanz]

I watched a few innings of Twenty20 and all I see is Batsmen having a go at pretty much every ball like they do it in baseball, very poor cousin of baseball. This is not the cricket I grew up watching, playing and listening. There simply is no excitement whatsoever, no contest between bat and ball, no room for good fielding, good batting and virtually no room for any decent bowling. And what's up with those women in skimpy cloths ? Even that is cheap, these women are fat and ugly, and their skimpy cloths seem like borrowed/stolen from NFL cheerleader squad 10 years ago.

Twenty20 is like being served popcorn at Dinner table. All noise no substance.

[TT Boy]

I watched a few innings of Twenty20 and all I see is Batsmen having a go at pretty much every ball like they do it in baseball, very poor cousin of baseball. This is not the cricket I grew up watching, playing and listening. There simply is no excitement whatsoever, no contest between bat and ball, no room for good fielding, good batting and virtually no room for any decent bowling. And what's up with those women in skimpy cloths ? Even that is cheap, these women are fat and ugly, and their skimpy cloths seem like borrowed/stolen from NFL cheerleader squad 10 years ago.

Twenty20 is like being served popcorn at Dinner table. All noise no substance.

Now there’s a lie, the female dancers have looked fantastic, stars of tournament!

Also the other sentiments above it seem like a waste of space as well. ‘No room for good fielding‘, yeah, not really sure about that one, for fielding in 20/20 is one area which is magnified to the extreme. Can’t field or catch, then you won’t progress and that’s as simple as that - see the West Indies and probably England for evidence of this.

[Sanz]

Now there’s a lie, the female dancers have looked fantastic, stars of tournament!

It's not, IMO. But if you think they are the best things of the tournament about cricket, then I guess it says a lot about the game.

Also the other sentiments above it seem like a waste of space as well. ‘No room for good fielding‘, yeah, not really sure about that one, for fielding in 20/20 is one area which is magnified to the extreme. Can’t field or catch, then you won’t progress and that’s as simple as that - see the West Indies and probably England for evidence of this.

Look I watched Eng/SA game and it seemed that the fielders are in hurry to make something happen and because of that they are dropping lollys, doing stupid mistakes in the field. Do you know how many catches have been dropped in this tournament so far ?

[TT Boy]

Look I watched Eng/SA game and it seemed that the fielders are in hurry to make something happen and because of that they are dropping lollys, doing stupid mistakes in the field. Do you know how many catches have been dropped in this tournament so far ?

Thankfully I don’t but I’ve seen a fair few put down, even by great fielders such as AB- which you could either contribute to the pressure situations which 20/20 create and how it intensifies the game so much that you need to be on your metal all the time (no time to slack). Or AB just couldn’t pick the ball up under the Newlands lights.

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding the argument or just trying to be difficult. Nobody is saying that every good player is going to be hopeless at 20/20 and every average player brilliant. Obviously the format does take skill, and players who adapt well will perform, and that's usually going to be good players, even though it does narrow the gap in class in certain cases. The issue, for those who don't get much out of 20/20, is what exactly they are succeeding at, and what skills are being marginalised in the process. Someone like Bracken does well in 20/20 because he's got good variations and is tough to score off, much like in ODI cricket, but unlike in ODI cricket he bowls to a field with no slips and would rather bowl a maiden than take a wicket. Guys like Ntini or Asif who are quality aggressive fast bowlers are relegated to alsorans in 20/20 because their skillset is of minimal importance in comparison to, say, Shahid Afridi's. That's the issue, and that's the problem with the lack of "aggressive bowling" - not that every bowler capable of taking wickets is simply hopeless in the shorter format.

[howardj]

As I said...Test cricket has survived pretty much everything you can think of. I don't see why it would die off because of this....It could possibly mean less ODI's are played....but too many of those are played these days anyway, so why does it matter?

I think the ICC has handled this T20 phenomenon very well. With the creation of this international tournament and also the creation of the IPL they are avoiding the catastrophe that happened with WSC cricket. And if Tests could survive that sh*t storm, who's to say they won't survive T20?

Test cricket is the format prefered by every International cricketer in the World. Ask them which format they'd rather be successful at and they'd all give you the same answer. As long as all cricketers have this passion, which has been built by years and years of love for the game, Test cricket will be around. People who love the game enough to play it professionally will always see Test cricket as the epitome of the game.

Hear hear. I agree mate. Predicting the 'death' of something seems to be very fashionable. In the case of Test cricket though, it offers something entirely different to Twenty20 - and that is why it won't be overrun by it. It is a totally different animal. For mine, Twenty20 is like Sevens Rugby where so many tries are scored (or big shots are played) that you just end up going: 'ho hum another boundary'. Boundaries and big shots should be unique, not monotonous to the point of being meaningless.