Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109

Thread: What an awful concept

  1. #76
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    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
    ..

  2. #77
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,688
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    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.

  3. #78
    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 FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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.

  4. #79
    Cricketer Of The Year Turbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    And what's up with those women in skimpy cloths?
    Quote Originally Posted by TT Boy View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Turbinator; 18-09-2007 at 07:38 PM.


  5. #80
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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)
    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

  6. #81
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Colonies
    Posts
    42,648
    Quote 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.
    ~ Cribbage

  7. #82
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Plops Champion! Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  8. #83
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    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.
    Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 19-09-2007 at 03:18 AM.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  9. #84
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,612
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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...
    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

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad View Post
    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.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  11. #86
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,308
    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.
    Cricketweb Colts Captain



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hayden > Lehmann
    I'm a member of Club Kerry

    I'm Green

    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 *********!

  12. #87
    State Captain Nishant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    london
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Wright View Post
    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!!!

  13. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    953
    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.

  14. #89
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    53,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    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?
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  15. #90
    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 Jono View Post
    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

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •