What an awful concept

[slugger]

re: rugby 7s camparison... i think you unwillingly high lighted that that the cream will rise to the top.... regardless of format.. tsure the game is a suped a version of odi as 7s is to rugby...with the shorter innings, wicket and 6s a plenty.. but one thing is evident in rugby 7s which may likely happen in t20 is that the better team of the traditional game will in the end come out on top...

for example...
rugby 7s. results..

2000 - New Zealand
2001 - New Zealand
2002 - New Zealand
2003 - New Zealand
2004 - New Zealand
2005 - New Zealand
2006 - Fiji
2007 - New Zealand
..

[howardj]

Originally Posted by slugger

re: rugby 7s camparison... i think you unwillingly high lighted that that the cream will rise to the top.... regardless of format.. tsure the game is a suped a version of odi as 7s is to rugby...with the shorter innings, wicket and 6s a plenty.. but one thing is evident in rugby 7s which may likely happen in t20 is that the better team of the traditional game will in the end come out on top...

for example...
rugby 7s. results..

2000 - New Zealand
2001 - New Zealand
2002 - New Zealand
2003 - New Zealand
2004 - New Zealand
2005 - New Zealand
2006 - Fiji
2007 - New Zealand
..

Mate, I take your point. But I wasn't really commenting on who wins or whether the cream rises to the top. Rather, just the monotony of both forms of those two games.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

Thanks for the effort to make a 'breakthrough' because I had given up.

[Turbinator]

Originally Posted by Sanz

And what's up with those women in skimpy cloths?

Originally Posted by TT Boy

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.

Aren't you [TT Boy] the guy who posted a half naked picture of himself in the "What Do You Look Like" thread?

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

Asif has seen success in this form of the game (Ntini on the other hand has not, though his ODI form has also been not so great), what I'm saying is that what would be so bad about new bowlers and batsman becoming highly skilled at the qualities you stated? Your quite right in suggesting that some types of players may not adapt at all, but those that do have used their abilities to excell in this game.

Players who play that kind of game will become highly successful in this format.

The skills new players will develop won't be any less than those of modern players, they'll just be different.

Hardly suggesting an end of days for tests though, but IMO the best players can adapt to any form of the game and I hope the same will be here. If a player is capable of hitting any ball out of the park consistently (more so than the likes of Afridi, who even in twenty20 is still an on-off player) could be highly successful in the other forms of the games.

(Also its not my intention to be difficult. Take nothing personal out of my disagreements, I mean nothing bad by them)

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Athlai

The skills new players will develop won't be any less than those of modern players, they'll just be different.

And once you accept that the skillset is different, it should soon become apparent that we will indeed get people who like fifty over cricket but dislike twenty over cricket. And not because they want to be stuck up, or because they can't handle change, but because the skills and qualities they enjoy are no longer as apparent and have been replaced by skills and qualities that they don't find as enjoyable.

Fuller isn't saying that no-one should like Twenty20 cricket or that it is lesser in terms of skill - but merely that the difference between the skillbase of it and test cricket (and yes indeed even fifty over cricket) make the game much less enjoyable for him.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

And once you accept that the skillset is different, it should soon become apparent that we will indeed get people who like fifty over cricket but dislike twenty over cricket. And not because they want to be stuck up, or because they can't handle change, but because the skills and qualities they enjoy are no longer as apparent and have been replaced by skills and qualities that they don't find as enjoyable.

Fuller isn't saying that no-one should like Twenty20 cricket or that it is lesser in terms of skill - but merely that the difference between the skillbase of it and test cricket (and yes indeed even fifty over cricket) make the game much less enjoyable for him.

Well I can agree with that.

The fifty over game will always be my favourite, tests and twenty20 rank about equally for me. There is the excitement of the short game and the pleasant battle of the long one between bat and ball. Waiting for someone to snap.

I won't be surprised at all if a lot of young players who succeed initially at T20 become just as good in tests though. If the ICC and national cricket boards don't drop the ball anyway.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Asif has seen success in this form of the game (Ntini on the other hand has not, though his ODI form has also been not so great), what I'm saying is that what would be so bad about new bowlers and batsman becoming highly skilled at the qualities you stated? Your quite right in suggesting that some types of players may not adapt at all, but those that do have used their abilities to excell in this game.

Nothing is bad about players becoming good at improvisation, bowling slower balls, being sharp in the field and between the wickets and so on. All those things are relevant skills to cricket. What is bad, IMO, is having some of the most enjoyable and exciting elements of cricket pushed to the side in favour of big hitting, which is essentially what 20/20 provides in much greater doses than other forms of the game.

The real reason I don't like 20/20 is just that I find it kind of boring, more or less for the reason Jono offered in this thread, but in terms of the impact it's likely to have, I think ODI cricket has a much healthier balance between the different skills of the game. Obviously just limiting the number of overs played has an impact on tactics, but I think 50 overs is a better balance than 20, where you can have aggressive bowling and fielding and players who can play long innings (like a Michael Bevan type) succeed, but the tougher requirements in terms of fielding and the pressures on the scoring rate still exist.

There is a place for limited overs cricket, obviously, but everyone would agree that a game of 2 overs would be stupid, so there has to be a limit. Much more than 50 overs wouldn't be different enough from test cricket to warrant being a different format, but 20 for me places far too much emphasis on big hitting and run rates and suffers in terms of what cricket is truly about, which is the contest between bat and ball, with bowlers trying to take wickets and batsmen trying to make runs.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Nothing is bad about players becoming good at improvisation, bowling slower balls, being sharp in the field and between the wickets and so on. All those things are relevant skills to cricket. What is bad, IMO, is having some of the most enjoyable and exciting elements of cricket pushed to the side in favour of big hitting, which is essentially what 20/20 provides in much greater doses than other forms of the game.

The real reason I don't like 20/20 is just that I find it kind of boring, more or less for the reason Jono offered in this thread, but in terms of the impact it's likely to have, I think ODI cricket has a much healthier balance between the different skills of the game. Obviously just limiting the number of overs played has an impact on tactics, but I think 50 overs is a better balance than 20, where you can have aggressive bowling and fielding and players who can play long innings (like a Michael Bevan type) succeed, but the tougher requirements in terms of fielding and the pressures on the scoring rate still exist.

There is a place for limited overs cricket, obviously, but everyone would agree that a game of 2 overs would be stupid, so there has to be a limit. Much more than 50 overs wouldn't be different enough from test cricket to warrant being a different format, but 20 for me places far too much emphasis on big hitting and run rates and suffers in terms of what cricket is truly about, which is the contest between bat and ball, with bowlers trying to take wickets and batsmen trying to make runs.

yeah, in a nutshell, 20 overs is way too few when you have 10 wickets in hand...

On the other hand, as something which is played in limited quantity in the international tours, it has great potential. If you think about it, a 3 match Twenty20 series will not take more than 3 days to play if the venues are reasonably close enough... And it could act as the ideal bridge between a test and an ODI series.


And reg. the skills, I don't think players will LOSE their skills by playing Twenty20. The Ntinis and Asifs will still be good in test cricket and ODIs as they were before. The only problem you and SJS seem to be mainly concerned about is how the next generation of players will give more importance to the skills required for Twenty20 than for the skills required for Test cricket. I don't think it is true... Because we are still seeing that for every Sehwag, there is an Aakash Chopra around. ODI cricket didn't change Test cricket too much... Maybe the patience of batsmen (AND bowlers, I guess) has gone down a little bit but really that is as much a product of the times we live in as it is of ODI cricket...

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Nothing is bad about players becoming good at improvisation, bowling slower balls, being sharp in the field and between the wickets and so on. All those things are relevant skills to cricket. What is bad, IMO, is having some of the most enjoyable and exciting elements of cricket pushed to the side in favour of big hitting, which is essentially what 20/20 provides in much greater doses than other forms of the game.

The real reason I don't like 20/20 is just that I find it kind of boring, more or less for the reason Jono offered in this thread, but in terms of the impact it's likely to have, I think ODI cricket has a much healthier balance between the different skills of the game. Obviously just limiting the number of overs played has an impact on tactics, but I think 50 overs is a better balance than 20, where you can have aggressive bowling and fielding and players who can play long innings (like a Michael Bevan type) succeed, but the tougher requirements in terms of fielding and the pressures on the scoring rate still exist.

There is a place for limited overs cricket, obviously, but everyone would agree that a game of 2 overs would be stupid, so there has to be a limit. Much more than 50 overs wouldn't be different enough from test cricket to warrant being a different format, but 20 for me places far too much emphasis on big hitting and run rates and suffers in terms of what cricket is truly about, which is the contest between bat and ball, with bowlers trying to take wickets and batsmen trying to make runs.

As I've said before there is a more of a contest and balance between bat and ball in Twenty20 than there is in ODI cricket. See the damage done by good/bad bowling in this tournament. In terms of bowling figures and impact on the game there is rarely much difference between a good performance and an average one in ODIs. There's rarely much in it for bowlers in ODIs, the best they can do is limit the 4 balls and hope they get away with 4 a over, while any competent part-timer can bowl in the middle overs and go for 4-5 an over. That homogenizing process of bowler performances is what makes ODI so much of a batsman's game.

[Mister Wright]

I used to think 20/20 was boring, but I've been really engaged by the tournament and I think there has been a higher percentage of games that are competitive so far in this tournament than 50 over cricket provides at the moment.

[Nishant]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

I used to think 20/20 was boring, but I've been really engaged by the tournament and I think there has been a higher percentage of games that are competitive so far in this tournament than 50 over cricket provides at the moment.

quite true...it has been a great tournament!!!

[bond21]

Test matches are the pinnacle of cricket, no doubt about it. Have a look at this world cup and tell me its for the cricketing purist without lying to yourself. Every boundary, every over, every wicket they play stupid music and dancers get up and dance. What is going on?

The cameras show the crowd almost as much as the cricket.

Talk about cricket being a batsman's game, when that was first said I didnt think they would think it would get like this.

Lets have a look at all the batsman's advantages in T20.

1. Front foot no ball = free hit....what a joke

2. a ball slightly down leg side is a wide....joke

3. Fielding restrictions.....

Then just add all the traditional ones like benefit of the doubt on every decision

Its a sad day when a format is invented when bowling is nothing more than bowling yorkers hoping not to get smashed. Why watch that when u could watch brett lee or shoaib akhtar steaming in with 5 slips and 2 gullys and bowling for a whole session if they wanted?

Maybe if they got rid of the music and stupid dancers it would feel less like a mardi gras and more like a game of cricket.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

As I've said before there is a more of a contest and balance between bat and ball in Twenty20 than there is in ODI cricket. See the damage done by good/bad bowling in this tournament. In terms of bowling figures and impact on the game there is rarely much difference between a good performance and an average one in ODIs. There's rarely much in it for bowlers in ODIs, the best they can do is limit the 4 balls and hope they get away with 4 a over, while any competent part-timer can bowl in the middle overs and go for 4-5 an over. That homogenizing process of bowler performances is what makes ODI so much of a batsman's game.

If there's such a great contest between bat and ball in 20/20 cricket, then why the hell are there no slips after 2 overs?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Jono

If there's such a great contest between bat and ball in 20/20 cricket, then why the hell are there no slips after 2 overs?

Oh there ARE slips. In fact there is at least one slip fielder and one gully fielder almost throughoutthe twenty overs. Haven't you seen them ?

They just stand a bit further away from the stumps. The snicks carry to the boundary you see