What an awful concept

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-09-2007, 04:42 AM
Xuhaib

What an awful concept

Thanks ICC!!!

Just to fill in your coffers you have been able to devise a format where class cricketers like Pollock and Nitini will become a liability for their team and mediocre FTB like Gayle and Kemp will rule the roost..

:wallbash: :@
12-09-2007, 04:47 AM
Perm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

Thanks ICC!!!

Just to fill in your coffers you have been able to devise a format where class cricketers like Pollock and Nitini will become a liability for their team and mediocre FTB like Gayle and Kemp will rule the roost..

:wallbash: :@

Get over it, if you don't like Twenty20 then don't watch it. I beleive there is a whole society where you can moan and whinge all you like.
12-09-2007, 04:49 AM
Athlai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perm

Get over it, if you don't like Twenty20 then don't watch it. I beleive there is a whole society where you can moan and whinge all you like.

Called France. I mean TTIBS
12-09-2007, 04:53 AM
grecian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athlai

Called France. I mean TTIBS

:laugh:

TBH, wasn't Ntini fairly hopeless in the real World Cup too.

I did think West Indies terrible performance in the field, did take a bit of gloss off the match. No-one enjoys watching ineptitude in Tests, ODIs or Twenty/20.
12-09-2007, 06:50 AM
FaaipDeOiad

It didn't take as much gloss off it as all the other bull****. Teams play poorly from time to time, and it wasn't that much worse than I've seen the West Indies play at other times.

But yeah, it was kind of dismal seeing Ntini bowl two overs while the mighty Philander sent down the 20th. Says a lot about the format.
12-09-2007, 06:52 AM
Perm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

But yeah, it was kind of dismal seeing Ntini bowl two overs while the mighty Philander sent down the 20th. Says a lot about the format.

Philander was bowling better. Obviously he isn't the better bowler, but in terms of Twenty20 and this particular game then I think he is. It does say a lot about the fromat, that you have to have different skills and abilities as you do to be a successful ODI or Test bowler.
12-09-2007, 06:59 AM
FaaipDeOiad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perm

Philander was bowling better. Obviously he isn't the better bowler, but in terms of Twenty20 and this particular game then I think he is. It does say a lot about the fromat, that you have to have different skills and abilities as you do to be a successful ODI or Test bowler.

Didn't you just say he was "obviously" not a better bowler? What you say is true, you do need different skills to be successful in 20/20, but the aims and desired skillset for bowlers in particular is far divorced from what is traditionally considered cricketing skill. Certain moments where that becomes particularly apparent leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Seeing a bowler of Ntini's class first bowl to a completely defensive field with a new ball and then be overlooked in favour of a medium pacer at the death was one of those moments.
12-09-2007, 07:04 AM
Xuhaib

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perm

Philander was bowling better. Obviously he isn't the better bowler, but in terms of Twenty20 and this particular game then I think he is. It does say a lot about the fromat, that you have to have different skills and abilities as you do to be a successful ODI or Test bowler.

That says a lot about this format, it basically encourages rubbish bits n pieces take pace of the ball and then slog like mad cricketers over the more classical ones.
12-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Xuhaib

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Didn't you just say he was "obviously" not a better bowler? What you say is true, you do need different skills to be successful in 20/20, but the aims and desired skillset for bowlers in particular is far divorced from what is traditionally considered cricketing skill. Certain moments where that becomes particularly apparent leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Seeing a bowler of Ntini's class first bowl to a completely defensive field with a new ball and then be overlooked in favour of a medium pacer at the death was one of those moments.

AWTA
12-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Perm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Didn't you just say he was "obviously" not a better bowler? What you say is true, you do need different skills to be successful in 20/20, but the aims and desired skillset for bowlers in particular is far divorced from what is traditionally considered cricketing skill. Certain moments where that becomes particularly apparent leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Seeing a bowler of Ntini's class first bowl to a completely defensive field with a new ball and then be overlooked in favour of a medium pacer at the death was one of those moments.

Understandable, and I certainly see it from your point of view. In the same regard I like to see bowlers who are able to adapt to Twenty20 cricket and who can defeat the batsman, or do the job for their team.
12-09-2007, 07:07 AM
Perm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

That says a lot about this format, it basically encourages rubbish bits n pieces take pace of the ball and then slog like mad cricketers over the more classical ones.

Twenty20 isn't Test cricket, so there will be aggressive sloggers who are successful in this format of the game. Equally, we have seen in the past that those players willing to play genuine cricket strokes and ooze aggression can also be successful. You don't have to be a slogger to succeed, you just have to be able to play your shots.
12-09-2007, 07:12 AM
Poker Boy

Gayle, of course can make good bowlers look crap in Test cricket too (CT 2004, Hoggard hit for 24 in an over at the Oval in 2004) and no one says Test cricket is crap. If you don't like 20 20 don't watch it (and this is coming from someone who was against it before it started in 2003). It's not Test cricket and one will struggle to remember it a week later but its good fun on the night - and anyway Polock (definately) and Ntini (maybe?) aren't as good as they were...
12-09-2007, 07:27 AM
TT Boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

But yeah, it was kind of dismal seeing Ntini bowl two overs while the mighty Philander sent down the 20th.

Why would South Africa bowl Ntini at the death considering he doesn’t have that responsibly anymore in fifty over cricket? And Philander isn’t as slow as you would think, his quickest ball last night was clocked considerably faster than anything Ntini had sent down.
12-09-2007, 07:36 AM
TT Boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

That says a lot about this format, it basically encourages rubbish bits n pieces take pace of the ball and then slog like mad cricketers over the more classical ones.

Last nights best bowlers bowled at 90mph plus (Powell, Edwards, Morkel, van der Wath), it was your supposedly 'bits n pieces take the pace of the ball' champions, Dwayne Bravo and Smith who were smashed into Pretoria. Also I can’t recall neither Justin Kemp or Gibbs playing too many slogs, Kemp played an aesthetically pleasing innings as did Gayle for that matter.
12-09-2007, 07:56 AM
TT Boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poker Boy

Gayle, of course can make good bowlers look crap in Test cricket too (CT 2004, Hoggard hit for 24 in an over at the Oval in 2004) and no one says Test cricket is crap. If you don't like 20 20 don't watch it (and this is coming from someone who was against it before it started in 2003). It's not Test cricket and one will struggle to remember it a week later but its good fun on the night - and anyway Polock (definately) and Ntini (maybe?) aren't as good as they were...

Precisely.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page