View Full Version : Are we watching the beginning of the end?
King Elvis
20 Apr 2008, 02:07
I'm watching the IPL, and I'm sort of enjoying it.
I say sort of, because it kinds of sickens me to see Hussey & Ponting and the like being playthings for rich Indians. Or seeing our Captain, the best Cricketer in the world, being in a team Captained by Ganguly. Or seeing Binga bowling at Huss.
The Australian XI has always been a bit sacred to us, and seeing them play for Kolkata or Chennai doesn't sit well with me at all.
Surely there is enough money in Australian Cricket that we can afford to stop any contracted players participating in this prostituted version of Cricket.
Underdog
20 Apr 2008, 02:40
I'm not bothered by that but am pretty underwhelmed with the fact the pitches are roads, the boundaries short and the outfields are fast.
It's hollow excitement when a lame push or guide races away for 4 or 6.
I turn on to see who wins the toss then I turn it off. That pretty much determines the match. Instead of 20-20 we could possibly call it 2up. :p
Admiral Afterworld
20 Apr 2008, 02:46
I don't think it's the beginning of the end but I do think a franchise/league system(s) will reduce the amount of international cricket.
Surely there is enough money in Australian Cricket that we can afford to stop any contracted players participating in this prostituted version of Cricket.I'm not sure if they'd have $_ million available without having to cut back on funding in different areas. Even if they did have the amount required stashed away somewhere, it would be much better spent on the lower/grass roots level.
hugorune
20 Apr 2008, 05:53
I turn on to see who wins the toss then I turn it off. That pretty much determines the match. Instead of 20-20 we could possibly call it 2up. :p
I don't think you know much about 20/20 then if that's how you see it :)
I don't think you know much about 20/20 then if that's how you see it :)
I've probably seen more T20 and that's pretty much correct.... Although conditions do not change much getting first use of the pitch is quite useful either way, with a smaller margin for error the toss becomes much more important
I actually think less international cricket is good, as long as the number of ODI's is reduced and not Test Cricket which provides much more drama than these slogathons.
usalion
20 Apr 2008, 08:23
Well, we are seeing the end of the beginning....somebody had to say it, right?
I've probably seen more T20 and that's pretty much correct.... Although conditions do not change much getting first use of the pitch is quite useful either way, with a smaller margin for error the toss becomes much more important
I actually think less international cricket is good, as long as the number of ODI's is reduced and not Test Cricket which provides much more drama than these slogathons.
You have the best view of all of us on the 20/20, with all the matches in England over the last few years, so I'll buy the assessment on the toss.
Agree with your last bit, but we are already starting to see some contracting of the Test series- look back just a decade ago to see the number of four and five Test series that were eld- now it is mainly England v Australia and both of thiose teams v India where we have that. In addition, the tests are starting to be really piled on top of each other- as an example, look at the Australia itinerary for England next year. And if I remember last time Down Under, it was five Tests for your guys in maybe eight weeks...might have been seven....I know there were at least three on top of one another.
If more of the one day stuff comes about, you may see more of a baseball type schedule for cricketers, with 5 and six games a week. Not a good thing, IMO
shammersting
20 Apr 2008, 12:35
This IPL will be a major bat-a-thon. By only allowing four overseas players in each team, batsmen will dominate againts a majority of little Indian bowlers who don't really present much of a threat
davey_magik
20 Apr 2008, 12:46
Watched it last night and thought it was boring.
It won't get rid of international cricket.
I'm not bothered by that but am pretty underwhelmed with the fact the pitches are roads, the boundaries short and the outfields are fast.
It's hollow excitement when a lame push or guide races away for 4 or 6.
Not to mention all the edges which go for six.
I'm watching the IPL, and I'm sort of enjoying it.
I don't care for it in the slightest, there is no contest between bat and ball at all.
It is basically contrived entertainment for people who want to switch their brains off and enjoy American style razzamatazz.
I'm not bothered by that but am pretty underwhelmed with the fact the pitches are roads, the boundaries short and the outfields are fast.
It's hollow excitement when a lame push or guide races away for 4 or 6.
That's the point, it is totally for batsmen and the conditions are tailored for that.
If this form of the game hypothetically were the future of cricket, then cricket has no future, for one simple reason - why on earth would any kid want to become a bowler?
King Elvis
20 Apr 2008, 18:21
Sherb - made that point in another thread; it's not a contest between bat and ball; it's just a slogfest.
The problem is, it appeals to the mass market.
hugorune
20 Apr 2008, 18:58
Sherb - made that point in another thread; it's not a contest between bat and ball; it's just a slogfest.
You made that point, but it's rubbish. You try telling that to McGrath, Sharma, or Maharoof. They were stars in the first three games.
The problem is, it appeals to the mass market.
Indeed. God knows why you see that to be a problem.
You made that point, but it's rubbish. You try telling that to McGrath, Sharma, or Maharoof. They were stars in the first three games.
Indeed. God knows why you see that to be a problem.
It is spot on, good bowling can make the difference by restricting the opposition. While McGrath was excellent, Warne's team was missing some of their better batsmen, had a lot of kids who wouldn't be playing normally.
If I was putting a team together I would look to get 2 flawlessly accurate bowlers and one king hitting batsmen, you really only need one exceptional one-day batsman to get big scores but you need two very good bowlers to restrict the scoring in the first 6 overs when the field is up.
McGrath helped to do that, was able to restrict the scoring against a young batting lineup and it was a rare win to the side that bats second, it is very hard to win a game from batting second unless the opening team just screws up royally.
Indeed. God knows why you see that to be a problem.
Because that's not cricket. Cricket is supposed to be a battle between bat and ball.
King Elvis
20 Apr 2008, 22:30
You made that point, but it's rubbish. You try telling that to McGrath, Sharma, or Maharoof. They were stars in the first three games.
Indeed. God knows why you see that to be a problem.
They were the stars? What about Hussey and McCullum?
It's not rubbish - the game is designed to favour batsmen, because that's what appeals to Twenty20 watchers, not cricket fans. McCullum and Hussey are the stars so far, because the casual watcher doesn't care about the bowlers, they just care about whose hit the most sixes.
If you don't think it's a problem that it's a slogfest where technique, concentration and determination is secondary, then I don't really care what you say.
bossman111
21 Apr 2008, 15:20
I'm watching the IPL, and I'm sort of enjoying it.
I say sort of, because it kinds of sickens me to see Hussey & Ponting and the like being playthings for rich Indians. Or seeing our Captain, the best Cricketer in the world, being in a team Captained by Ganguly. Or seeing Binga bowling at Huss.
The Australian XI has always been a bit sacred to us, and seeing them play for Kolkata or Chennai doesn't sit well with me at all.
Surely there is enough money in Australian Cricket that we can afford to stop any contracted players participating in this prostituted version of Cricket.
County cricket? Pura Cup? Heard of it?
King Elvis
21 Apr 2008, 19:28
County cricket? Pura Cup? Heard of it?
Sure.
And there have been dozens of players who jeopardised their International Careers to play Pura Cup, haven't there?
Knob.
retroparty
21 Apr 2008, 20:46
Test Cricket is way better.
But I think 20/20 cricket is better than the 50 over format. I'm thinking that in the future, we will have Aussie Cricketers who either play test cricket or 20/20 cricket. They won't play in both because the 2 forms of the game are so different.
I think we should leave 20/20 cricket to IPL and Aussie domestic and have the heavy weights playing test cricket at the international level.
bossman111
22 Apr 2008, 13:23
Still not seeing how they are jeopardising their international career by playing T20
rusdid24
22 Apr 2008, 14:14
We'll know in about 11 months time, when the squad is announced to tour Pakistan and it clashes with the IPL again. I think a few will choose the IPL unfortunately, and if they do, I'm all for never picking them again.
Jesus Christ, they earn enough money as it is. Article in the paper the other day about all of Ponting's endorsements, crack the calculator out and it's about $2.5m on top of his CA contract and match payments :eek:
If they would prefer to play for some soulless Indian franchise rather than play for Australia, then at the soulless Indian franchise they can stay IMO.
We'll know in about 11 months time, when the squad is announced to tour Pakistan and it clashes with the IPL again. I think a few will choose the IPL unfortunately, and if they do, I'm all for never picking them again.
Jesus Christ, they earn enough money as it is. Article in the paper the other day about all of Ponting's endorsements, crack the calculator out and it's about $2.5m on top of his CA contract and match payments :eek:
If they would prefer to play for some soulless Indian franchise rather than play for Australia, then at the soulless Indian franchise they can stay IMO.
Which is why i don't want the England players to join, they're probably amongst the best paid from their own boards (Probably don't deserve it sometimes and there are less marketing opportunities, you wouldn't see KP advertising Weetabix for example.)
Which is why i don't want the England players to join, they're probably amongst the best paid from their own boards (Probably don't deserve it sometimes and there are less marketing opportunities, you wouldn't see KP advertising Weetabix for example.)
KP deserves every extra quid he earns though. He would be #1 on every sponsor's list one would imagine.
Abba Lonie
23 Apr 2008, 17:00
Will cricket go the way of soccer, with the league system being the dominant form and test match 'friendlies' becoming the norm?
(that wasn't meant to rhyme)
Power21
23 Apr 2008, 19:00
You made that point, but it's rubbish. You try telling that to McGrath, Sharma, or Maharoof. They were stars in the first three games.
Indeed. God knows why you see that to be a problem.
If you have the attention span of a goldfish then 20-20 is great, but if ball dominates bat in 20-20 and can be the worst game possible.
They weren't stars they made the farce less entertaining to the people over there because they want to see a six everyball, not pidgeon hitting a dime on the corridor everyball.
Will cricket go the way of soccer, with the league system being the dominant form and test match 'friendlies' becoming the norm?
(that wasn't meant to rhyme)
There is already effectively a test match "League"
hugorune
23 Apr 2008, 23:45
There is already effectively a test match "League"
Only problems with that being that the 'league' isn't competitive - the disparity between the countries in terms of playerbase and investment is simply too great. That, and its too time-consuming to watch.
20/20 leagues are basically the natural evolution of the game - people have less time and need more entertainment crammed into a smaller window of time. They get that delivered in spades. And the salary cap and similar rules ensure that the teams are, more or less, on a level playing field - it comes down to which franchise has the best structured team, gets the best commitment out of their players, and employs the best strategy and tactics.
There are elements of the IPL that piss me off - primarily the blatant commercialism that the commentators appear to be roped into - I mean, when the batsmen hits the ball into the crowd the call is: 'Sixer!' not 'And that's another DLF!' And the constant cuts to the commentators drinking clearly branded cans of Pepsi - give me a break!
But aside from that, the cricket has been very good. I know there are a lot of people upset about it, and we hear the usual calls of 'its a slogfest, its a batsman game only' - I think they have been proved convincingly wrong. Last night's winner Delhi won the game because of their bowlers and there's a lesson in that. They look at this early stage to have the strongest bowling attack, and that may end up winning them the tournament - it will get them into the final for sure.
DeadlyAkkuret
24 Apr 2008, 01:54
I think we're watching the middle of the beginning.
TigerCraig
24 Apr 2008, 08:22
Scarily I actually found myself watching some baseball the other day - a game I've never had much time for.
The level of strategy and tactics involved, while nowhere near real cricket, was a mile ahead of this slather and whack rubbish.
One match I watched went to 22 innings and was as engrossing as a test match.
The excitement in seeing a 6 is that they don't happen often. If every ball gets hit for 6 what is the point?
hugorune
24 Apr 2008, 09:18
Scarily I actually found myself watching some baseball the other day - a game I've never had much time for.
The level of strategy and tactics involved, while nowhere near real cricket, was a mile ahead of this slather and whack rubbish.
One match I watched went to 22 innings and was as engrossing as a test match.
The excitement in seeing a 6 is that they don't happen often. If every ball gets hit for 6 what is the point?
If every ball was getting hit for six, sides would be scoring 720. That's not happening - not even close - so your argument's kind of flawed.
I think its worth noting that while you seem to think drawn out test cricket and four-day first-class games are somehow innately superior to 20/20, because they differ in the tactics & strategy required (I'm not going to say they require more, because that's not correct - there are skills that are needed in 20/20 but not in test cricket, and vice versa), the numbers of people attending those games are absolutely minimal. Test cricket still has a following of passionate Australian fans - albeit a rapidly diminishing one - but 20/20 cricket is selling out our stadiums. And domestic 20/20 cricket actually gets people through the gate. OTOH in the case of domestic ODI cricket, you're lucky to get 1000 people to watch in the major cities. As for the slower form of domestic first-class cricket, its even less.
People are voting with their feet, and with their dollars - the long form of cricket is too time-consuming and not exciting enough to provide a viable form of entertainment for the vast majority of people today with busy lives. 20/20 packs as much excitement as a five-day test into three hours, without the thousands of front foot defensives and leaves outside the off stump.
I think what really bothers a lot of traditionalists is that they always were proud of the fact that they're fans of such an elite and inaccessible sport. There's not many people who can watch a test cricket match without being put to sleep. Now that 20/20 cricket is here, many more people find it exciting to watch and the exclusivity of being a cricket fan is disappearing. Some resent that.
TigerCraig
24 Apr 2008, 11:20
Of course every ball isn't hit for 6 - it was a slight exaggeration.
Not saying there isn't a place for 20/20 or that it doesn't entertain some people. I went to a domestic game this year and it was a fun night, but I didn't really give a toss whether NSW won or lost. It's a bit like 7's rugby - a bit of fun that is instantly forgotten.
But, I still can't see the strategy side of it. Just go out and swing. Maybe if you lost 5 or 10 runs for every wicket lost it might even things up between bat & ball.
Also, once a team gets behind, unlike in 2 innings cricket there is no way back.
I love test cricket (would rather watch a good forward defensive than a top edge slash for 6), but then again I like gridiron too.
Test Cricket is way better.
But I think 20/20 cricket is better than the 50 over format. I'm thinking that in the future, we will have Aussie Cricketers who either play test cricket or 20/20 cricket. They won't play in both because the 2 forms of the game are so different.
I think we should leave 20/20 cricket to IPL and Aussie domestic and have the heavy weights playing test cricket at the international level.
In this instance who would play Test cRICKET WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH MONEY IN 20/20 (not shouting just caps lock)
hugorune
24 Apr 2008, 19:51
Of course every ball isn't hit for 6 - it was a slight exaggeration.
Not saying there isn't a place for 20/20 or that it doesn't entertain some people. I went to a domestic game this year and it was a fun night, but I didn't really give a toss whether NSW won or lost. It's a bit like 7's rugby - a bit of fun that is instantly forgotten.
That's how ODI cricket was seen initially as well - but teams have been taking that seriously for a long time now, and the same is happening now with 20/20.
But, I still can't see the strategy side of it. Just go out and swing. Maybe if you lost 5 or 10 runs for every wicket lost it might even things up between bat & ball.
It's a fair question. There are times when a batsman can go out and hit sixes from the first ball - but that doesn't come off every time, as Gilchrist will tell you. There is more than one way to play a 20/20 innings. You'll see batsmen taking an over or so to get their eye in and then accelerating, other times you'll see batsmen just swinging from the first ball and either getting a bit lucky or getting out. It will be situational as to what the best approach will be.
Regarding bowling, its about accuracy, and variation. Bowlers who excel at that - like Warne, Maharoof, McGrath, to name three off the top of my head, are going to be exceptional at this format. Other bowlers are going to learn and we are going to see skills improve. The criteria for rating a good bowling performance is going to change - a good economy rate is going to be 7 RPO or below, and any bowler who can achieve that with consistency is going to be highly regarded. Bowlers who can exploit swing and seam while maintaing accuracy, as we have seen a few do so far, will be particularly valuable.
Also, once a team gets behind, unlike in 2 innings cricket there is no way back.
That's not entirely true. Mumbai last night needed 14 RPO, had lost wickets, with several overs to go. One of their middle order batsmen played out of his skin, and came desperately close to chasing down what had looked like an impossible task.
Yes, there are times when the game is over and there is no way back. But that usually comes late in the piece. We will see some astonishing comebacks and rearguard wins in this format, as we nearly witnessed last night (for those who choosed to watch it, anyway)
I love test cricket (would rather watch a good forward defensive than a top edge slash for 6), but then again I like gridiron too.
Different strokes for different folks.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
24 Apr 2008, 20:01
Of course every ball isn't hit for 6 - it was a slight exaggeration.
Not saying there isn't a place for 20/20 or that it doesn't entertain some people. I went to a domestic game this year and it was a fun night, but I didn't really give a toss whether NSW won or lost. It's a bit like 7's rugby - a bit of fun that is instantly forgotten.
But, I still can't see the strategy side of it. Just go out and swing. Maybe if you lost 5 or 10 runs for every wicket lost it might even things up between bat & ball.
Also, once a team gets behind, unlike in 2 innings cricket there is no way back.
I love test cricket (would rather watch a good forward defensive than a top edge slash for 6), but then again I like gridiron too.
Off course 20/20 is not going to entertain everyone, the same as Test cricket doesn't entertain everyone.
There is a place for 20/20 and there are tactics involved. THe decisions to bat first or second, fielding placements, bowling, there are defintely tactics involved.
20/20 will feed more money and interest into wider forms of cricket, there is no need to keep slagging it off. Accept it, but you don't have to watch it. Test cricket will be around forever and a day.
Going out and swinging is selling the format short, i can show you numerous examples of teams who try that and don't get into triple figures. This form of the game will improve fielding and running between the wickets, 2 areas of the game that are lacking at the moment.
Cricket has to keep with the times if it wants to survive, 20/20 will allow that while still perserving the finest level of the game, TEST cricket.
krisholio14
26 Apr 2008, 02:39
20/20 is like the Mc Donalds of cricket. It's fast, it's initially exciting, but ultimately forgettable and generally unfulfilling.
Grimwood
26 Apr 2008, 04:25
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/347587.html
It's not looking good folks...
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/347587.html
It's not looking good folks...
"Meanwhile the best players in the world are preparing to grab whatever cash comes their way in their all-too-brief careers, and hang the consequences."
Yep.
Bond,ShaneBond
26 Apr 2008, 17:28
Sad days indeed. I may be looking for a new favourite sport soon...
Sad days indeed. I may be looking for a new favourite sport soon...
cough afl cough
Bond,ShaneBond
27 Apr 2008, 02:27
cough afl cough
maybe...though with the admin of the afl almost being as bad as crickets i should spare myself the frustration
OzBomber
27 Apr 2008, 13:27
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/347628.html
Good article from Ian Chappell. I thought it was a good read.
Skeppersap
5 May 2008, 01:25
I have been a cricket fanatic since the day I was born, but I can honestly say I do not give a shit about the IPL. It makes a joke of cricket.
Thanks India, you have now stuffed up cricket.
I just cant wait till the competition is over.