View Full Version : The joke that is 20/20
The Great Barry Besanko
11 Jan 2009, 10:48
Warner gets picked to represent Australia with virtually no first class experience. How long until the Aussie team is filled with burly grade cricketers?
As for the new bats why don't they just give them baseball bats?
This form od cricket is a joke. Does not test areas of players ability other than just hacking the ball.
I used to think 50 over was crap but 20/20 makes that look deep and meaningful.
Garbage game. More Tests please.
Well he's impressed in the OD games he's played for NSW and in the Twenty20 KFC Big Bash he's been impressive as well.
Nothing wrong with 50 over cricket or Twenty20 cricket.
abs_of_STEELE
11 Jan 2009, 10:58
Warner's the perfect 20/20 cricketer. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
The Reaper
11 Jan 2009, 11:04
What new bats?
some double sided shit
allows you to play the Pietersen shot with out switching hands
Extremely unfair and should be banned imo
Oh, who cares about those bats. Everyone can use them, so doesn't make it unfair. I don't see how they are similar to baseball bats though.
The Reaper
11 Jan 2009, 11:17
Oh, who cares about those bats. Everyone can use them, so doesn't make it unfair. I don't see how they are similar to baseball bats though.
Its is hell unfair to the bowlers
The bowlers are already being screwed over enough at the moment
20/20 is a batsmens game, no one wants to see low scores, so of course bowlers are 'screwed over' in this form of the game.
Warner gets picked to represent Australia with virtually no first class experience. How long until the Aussie team is filled with burly grade cricketers?
As for the new bats why don't they just give them baseball bats?
This form od cricket is a joke. Does not test areas of players ability other than just hacking the ball.
I used to think 50 over was crap but 20/20 makes that look deep and meaningful.
Garbage game. More Tests please.
It obviously carries some value to the higherups of world cricket, considering there is a World Cup to play for.
PalaceGun
11 Jan 2009, 12:03
Garbage game. More Tests please.
20/20 pays the bill so test cricket can be played.
Couldn't care less who wins the 20/20 WC as it is just a lottery.
Blue Dimension
11 Jan 2009, 12:20
Warner's the perfect 20/20 cricketer. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Exactly.
Quit your whining.
Underdog
11 Jan 2009, 12:22
20/20 pays the bill so test cricket can be played.
Indeed. 20/20 is highly lucrative and attracts more supporters to cricket.
My missus hated cricket when I met her, she since got into cricket a little, then really enjoyed 20/20 which has made her appreciate the other forms far more.
Go to a 20/20 game and see the amount of kids and females there to watch what are usually close and reasonably short and entertaining games.
It's great for the sport.
I don't mind it. I don't take it seriously like I would a test and to a lesser extent ODI, but it's fairly entertaining nevertheless.
courtjester
11 Jan 2009, 12:34
It's cricket, so I love watching it. I'd much prefer the ebb and flow of a test match, but it's good for a fix.
I'll be watching tonight. Interested to see how Tait goes. A lot of "no-name" players playing on a massive stage. If they perform, good on 'em.
I don't think it's a joke, I view it as harmless fun. Not a test of character like 5 day cricket, but more like a quick sugar fix for the fans.
Slog on tonight!
Funkalicous
11 Jan 2009, 13:20
Oh, who cares about those bats. Everyone can use them, so doesn't make it unfair. I don't see how they are similar to baseball bats though.
If they're gonna use double-sided bats, the bowlers should be able to use professionally designed "swing" balls. :cool:
Warner gets picked to represent Australia with virtually no first class experience. How long until the Aussie team is filled with burly grade cricketers?
Big deal.The selection of the T20 team has nothing to do with first class experience or form.If it did then players like Hughes,Klinger and Rogers would be in.
This form od cricket is a joke. Does not test areas of players ability other than just hacking the ball.
I used to think 50 over was crap but 20/20 makes that look deep and meaningful.
Nobody is forcing you to watch it,but I reckon you will tonight just so you can have a moan later tonight
Admiral Afterworld
11 Jan 2009, 13:27
I like it. Shorter length is convenient.
And I believe the correct way to spell it is Twenty20 :p
I don't mind it but IMO it tends to get boring very quickly as I found with the IPL.
I don't mind it but IMO it tends to get boring very quickly as I found with the IPL.I agree. While I enjoyed the first few games that started up since SA were here last time, it's the same old shit. Give me test cricket anytime thanks.
20/20 is garbage, unfortunately it's here to stay so you just have to deal with it. Some games can have their moments when they go down to the wire but in general I find the defensive bowling and swing and hope batting to be very boring.
I admit it is good to see crowds paying money to watch domestic games, though I doubt many people who are introduced to cricket through it will truly learn to appreciate the proper form of the game.
Marklar_33
11 Jan 2009, 16:07
I like it. Shorter length is convenient.
And I believe the correct way to spell it is Twenty20 :p
Thats not what she said... :cool:
T20 (as I like to spell it) is good for the game. Its a big chance to bring in revenue, and if we harness it well, we may actually be able to survive without bowing down to India all the time! Its also just fun. I can sit at home and watch a game without getting bitched at :thumbsu:
Rough_Edges
11 Jan 2009, 16:11
The bats are a disgrace.
In a day of making the pitches perfect (and if it isn't their WILL be an uproar; Sydney) and flat for the batsman.
Double sided bats.
Who wants to be a bowler.
stmookeyj
11 Jan 2009, 16:16
With this format of the game, if a side batting first scores more than a certain score (about 160), then they basically win in a canter, and if they score less then they generally get pantsed. The only way it gets half exciting is if the score is about the 160 mark which gives the side batting 2nd incentive to win, what incentive is there chasing 9.5-10 an over from the outset if the pitch isn't a road? Whilst I acknowledge that it's here to stay, I have not been a fan of it and won't be for a long time to come.
roostersgal4eva
11 Jan 2009, 16:24
Indeed. 20/20 is highly lucrative and attracts more supporters to cricket.
My missus hated cricket when I met her, she since got into cricket a little, then really enjoyed 20/20 which has made her appreciate the other forms far more.
Go to a 20/20 game and see the amount of kids and females there to watch what are usually close and reasonably short and entertaining games.
It's great for the sport.
I don't mind it. I don't take it seriously like I would a test and to a lesser extent ODI, but it's fairly entertaining nevertheless.
agreed
I think there should be less ODI's and more 20/20 TBH
The Fonz
11 Jan 2009, 17:00
What I don't get is the apparent extraordinary appeal of it. The TV ratings for it are equivalent to the Grand Final...Is that just because there is nothing else on TV? How much more interesting every second ball going to the boundary?
None of the internationals played in Australia have been remotely close. Batting second Australia have won twice by 9 wickets and their smallest margin of victory batting first is 54 runs.
The matches are one-offs and all completely meaningless. When they have the World Cup they will be more relevant but for now, I still wonder what all the fuss is about.
20/20 is good for the game in quite a few ways. Revenue, brings more fans to the game, and in the long term, may open up new markets for cricket.
I also see it eventually replacing ODI'S. It may not be for another 10 years or so, but I definitely think it will, due to the reasons stated in the first paragraph, and the fact that it is shorter, ODI's will simply become obsolete. Test Cricket holds a special place in my heart, and all cricket supporters, I cannot see Test Cricket dying out, simply because it is an entirely different entity and cricket is a sport proud of its past traditions.
roostersgal4eva
11 Jan 2009, 17:17
What I don't get is the apparent extraordinary appeal of it. The TV ratings for it are equivalent to the Grand Final...Is that just because there is nothing else on TV? How much more interesting every second ball going to the boundary?
None of the internationals played in Australia have been remotely close. Batting second Australia have won twice by 9 wickets and their smallest margin of victory batting first is 54 runs.
The matches are one-offs and all completely meaningless. When they have the World Cup they will be more relevant but for now, I still wonder what all the fuss is about.
shot and sweet - it starts and finishes at a family/kid friendly time
Deadly Outbreak
11 Jan 2009, 17:17
Oh, who cares about those bats. Everyone can use them, so doesn't make it unfair. I don't see how they are similar to baseball bats though.
That was not the stand the MCC took with the sticker on Ponting's bat.
He was not the only person in the world allowed to use the bat but it ended up being banned.
I don't mind T20 cricket but I don't take it seriously. It is more about luck than skill and any team can win becuase of it.
DoubleO7
11 Jan 2009, 17:21
Warner deserved his call up.
krisholio14
11 Jan 2009, 17:24
T20 is nothing more than fast food cricket.
It's a bit of hit and giggle and to top it off it's a total crap shoot as to the winner. Too much luck and not enough skill involved for mine.
Admiral Afterworld
11 Jan 2009, 17:32
The TV ratings for it are equivalent to the Grand Final
The TV ratings for it are good but I think it's a bitch of a stretch to suggest it's up there with football grand finals.
As for why it rates so well - I think it's both the appeal to the casual viewers and the shortness of it condenses the normal cricket viewers into a three hour period (compared to a six hours per day in test cricket and eight hours in one day matches).
T20 is nothing more than fast food cricket.
It's a bit of hit and giggle and to top it off it's a total crap shoot as to the winner. Too much luck and not enough skill involved for mine.
With IPL, it's certainly more lucrative in terms of money to get involved. Test matches are where it's at :thumbsu:, but T20 does have a place in cricket and won't be long before it eclipses other forms of the game (well for those that DON'T want to see Australia dominate :p).
kangaroo19
11 Jan 2009, 17:53
Warner gets picked to represent Australia with virtually no first class experience. How long until the Aussie team is filled with burly grade cricketers?
Seems to have worked so far... :D
And whice grade cricketers would smash Steyn for 2 monster 6's???
Yep it's a joke that they picked Warner.
:rolleyes:
Paddy_Mac
11 Jan 2009, 18:06
Self Pwnage? Spoke too soon mate. Warner is absolutely killing it!
roostersgal4eva
11 Jan 2009, 18:27
oh dear :o
Bourky23
11 Jan 2009, 18:35
any cricket is good mate.
Twenty20 is bloody unreal.
how can you hate sixes being smacked all around the park? it's the best part of cricket
krisholio14
11 Jan 2009, 19:17
any cricket is good mate.
Twenty20 is bloody unreal.
how can you hate sixes being smacked all around the park? it's the best part of cricket
You don't buy a hamburger just to eat the patty do you?
Essentially this form of cricket is just the equivalent of baseballs home run derby, and baseball fans tired of that soon enough.
Here's the thing. What happens when the average punter becomes ho hum about sixes being smashed all over the park? The reason it appears so exciting now is because you don't see guys going for broke all the time in the other forms of the game. Now you will see blokes going for broke all the time in T20, and it will get 'boring' just like all the other forms of cricket have become 'boring'.
Shit, in this game you may as well just have a bowling machine at one end :D
Marklar_33
11 Jan 2009, 19:27
Warner deserved his call up.
Jury's still out on that one
:p
Tyberious Funk
11 Jan 2009, 19:49
Sure, it's about scoring runs. But because the batsman are so attacking, there also tends to be quite a lot of wickets. In fact, really attacking bowlers probably have more of a roll to play in Twenty20 than in a 50 over match.
My main concern is the impact on spinners. Successful Twenty20 spinners tend to be low and flat, without much turn. Botha was almost bowling medium pace. Obviously, there's a certain skill to that sort of bowling, but it isn't going to help us develop any bowlers to play in Test matches.
Marklar_33
11 Jan 2009, 19:58
Sure, it's about scoring runs. But because the batsman are so attacking, there also tends to be quite a lot of wickets. In fact, really attacking bowlers probably have more of a roll to play in Twenty20 than in a 50 over match.
My main concern is the impact on spinners. Successful Twenty20 spinners tend to be low and flat, without much turn. Botha was almost bowling medium pace. Obviously, there's a certain skill to that sort of bowling, but it isn't going to help us develop any bowlers to play in Test matches.
Well let them develop in the Sheffield Shield, like they have been doing for 130 years! If a guy makes a conscious decision to bowl low, flat spin, then forget about your chances at Test level. But if he can differentiate between all forms of the game, then he will represent his country far more often, and cash in as well!
PalaceGun
11 Jan 2009, 20:14
Shit, in this game you may as well just have a bowling machine at one end :D
AB De Villiers would be agreeing with you at the moment...
The Great Barry Besanko
11 Jan 2009, 20:38
Yep it's a joke that they picked Warner.
:rolleyes:
I couldn't care less if he scores 20 100s in a row. My point is a player that is not even a first class player yet can represent Australia. It just shows what an utterly insignificant game it is.
20/20 pays the bill so test cricket can be played.
Rubbish, Test cricket would continue regardless
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Not that simple. It's actually having/will have a negative impact on Test cricket. Already seen with more chance of player burn out. Pakistan seems it doesn't care about Test cricket anymore, just happy with $$$ from 20/BS. Even reports that some Sri Lankan players were thinking of puuling out/ delaying arrival of England tour to play IPL.
It's great for the sport.
See above
we may actually be able to survive without bowing down to India all the time!
Quite the opposite, is and will make Indian cricket even more dominant.
Eat your words you whiney piece of poo
Well done, you're learning to write. Keep it up
Ill Chicken
11 Jan 2009, 20:51
Besanko why don't you go back to the 19th Century and ban left armed bowlers. Why is Twenty20 great? Not because it's picked up dollars at the top end of the cricket world, it is doing it in the middle and the grass roots. Grade cricket clubs struggle enough with supporting themselves and their facilities and T20 has pulled in cash, crowds and interest from the local community in district cricket. I've played in front of a couple thousand people in a grade T20 game, where you would struggle to get that for four days of shield cricket. Yet now the state sides are getting crowds of 10'000+ to their domestic T20 matches.
While the funds could certainly be filtered through to club level by cricket boards in a larger amount from the countries reaping the rewards, it has added viability and sustainability to cricket in the long term and opened itself up to new markets.
To say that Warner isn't a first class player is a joke. It is an old school mentality like yours that is more than likely keeping him out of the four day side.
Underdog
11 Jan 2009, 21:04
I couldn't care less if he scores 20 100s in a row. My point is a player that is not even a first class player yet can represent Australia. It just shows what an utterly insignificant game it is.
I don't understand this gripe, it's 20/20, not a test. What does his 4/5 day ability have to do with his 20/20 ability? :confused:
RedWhiteBlack
11 Jan 2009, 21:08
I'm neither here nor there with Twenty20. I just got home from the game and was also at the Victoria v WA game earlier this week. It's ok for a bit of fun but cannot see it entertaining me long term on a regular basis.
The worst thing about Twenty20 IMO is the crap they bring in to add "atmosphere". The hokey pokey and YMCA at the MCG? Seriously... it's almost as embarrassing as having Jessica Mauboy as "entertainment" in the innings break.
The Great Barry Besanko
11 Jan 2009, 21:15
Besanko why don't you go back to the 19th Century and ban left armed bowlers.
I tried, believe me.
To say that Warner isn't a first class player is a joke. It is an old school mentality like yours that is more than likely keeping him out of the four day side.
It's actually a fact.
I don't understand this gripe, it's 20/20, not a test. What does his 4/5 day ability have to do with his 20/20 ability?
Nothing, that's my whole point!!!
Bowlers are nothing in 20/20, insignificant. Just find a spinner or a medium paced trundler who bowls as flat as Keira Knightley's chest. It's just a batter's game. There's no real cut and thrust between batter and bowler, just more luck.
And oh so predictable. As someone else pointed out, bat first if you score > 160-180 you win. Ho hum.
krisholio14
11 Jan 2009, 21:17
I tried, believe me.
It's actually a fact.
Nothing, that's my whole point!!!
Bowlers are nothing in 20/20, insignificant. Just find a spinner or a medium paced trundler who bowls as flat as Keira Knightley's chest. It's just a batter's game. There's no real cut and thrust between batter and bowler, just more luck.
And oh so predictable. As someone else pointed out, bat first if you score > 160-180 you win. Ho hum.
Yeah but dude, you get to see blokes hitting huge sixes!!!!!!
The worst thing about Twenty20 IMO is the crap they bring in to add "atmosphere". The hokey pokey and YMCA at the MCG? Seriously... it's almost as embarrassing as having Jessica Mauboy as "entertainment" in the innings break.
From the point of view of someone watching it on tv, I struggle to cope with the commentators.
It seems clear to me that they have been directed to hype up the concept as much as possible, to the point of overkill.
They sound as much like advertising or marketing men as they do cricket commentators.
krisholio14
11 Jan 2009, 21:21
From the point of view of someone watching it on tv, I struggle to cope with the commentators.
It seems clear to me that they have been directed to hype up the concept as much as possible, to the point of overkill.
They sound as much like advertising or marketing men as they do cricket commentators.
Well we got to see the most amazing shot ever played at least 3 times tonight going by the commentary.
Well we got to see the most amazing shot ever played at least 3 times tonight going by the commentary.
And thank God they told me repeatedly that Warner has not played a first-class match yet.
I may have forgotten otherwise. :rolleyes: :p
Black Thunder
11 Jan 2009, 21:24
It's actually a fact.
the fact Dave Warner hasn't played first class cricket yet isn't due to the fact he's not up to the standard. In fact, most NSW supporters have been screaming for him to come into the side.
He has been klling it in first grade cricket for some time now, and this season has been in extraordinary form. i don't expect you to follow the sydney grade scene, but his name has been around the underage and second XI scene for some time and he's been on the eye of the national selectors since he was about 17 or 18.
if he doesn't get called up for the ODI's, he is a must for the next sheffield shield game.
Black Thunder
11 Jan 2009, 21:27
as for my thoughts on 20/20... i'm a purist but i prefer it to the 50-over game.
i actually think there are far more tactic's involved in the 20-over game, and you have to get them spot on otherwise you're gone.
the 50-over game is just so formulated, and is boring as shit if you ask me.
but we all know it's all about test cricket. there is nothing like it is there.
Selective Retention
11 Jan 2009, 21:32
Tonight's game was a typical 20/20.
Team bats first scores 180. Opposing team loses early wickets, have no chance to win and then just limp to 120 odd.
Good knocks by Warner and Duminy, a fierce spell by Tait and the rest was uninspiring.
Ideally both teams score 180+ and you get a heartstopping finish, it just rarely happens, it's a one in 20 occurrence unless you are playing on postage stamp grounds.
RedWhiteBlack
11 Jan 2009, 21:32
the 50-over game is just so formulated, and is boring as shit if you ask me.
The one thing 50 over cricket will always have over Twenty20 is that the match usually stays alive for much longer. As someone else said, if you are chasing a target of 170+ and lose a couple of early wickets, you're pretty much screwed. At least the 50 over game gives the batting team some time to find their composure rather than be forced to play shots from the word go.
as for my thoughts on 20/20... i'm a purist but i prefer it to the 50-over game.
i actually think there are far more tactic's involved in the 20-over game, and you have to get them spot on otherwise you're gone.
the 50-over game is just so formulated, and is boring as shit if you ask me.
but we all know it's all about test cricket. there is nothing like it is there.
Completely agree BT. Love test cricket, dislike ODI, and really enjoy watching T20.
Hopefully the glut of meaningless ODI games are replaced by T20 in the future. Still doesn't hold a candle to test cricket, but is infinitely more enjoyable and interesting to watch than the tedium of 50 over rubbish.
The Fonz
11 Jan 2009, 21:49
I'm neither here nor there with Twenty20. I just got home from the game and was also at the Victoria v WA game earlier this week. It's ok for a bit of fun but cannot see it entertaining me long term on a regular basis.
The worst thing about Twenty20 IMO is the crap they bring in to add "atmosphere". The hokey pokey and YMCA at the MCG? Seriously... it's almost as embarrassing as having Jessica Mauboy as "entertainment" in the innings break.
The irony of this is the ridiculous over the top security which took place during the Test series especially at the SCG.
Ill Chicken
11 Jan 2009, 21:55
It's actually a fact.
So by your reasoning, List A cricket runs come second when deciding to pick a ODI/T20 batsman and you think they should really be picking the side going on their current four day form.
carntheroos4eva
11 Jan 2009, 21:59
The only joke around here are those who don't like change. That's what the joke is.
As for the game of Twenty/20 it is awesome, it is like watching a footy match and it is popular
chrisjie
11 Jan 2009, 22:06
Tonight's game was a typical 20/20.
Team bats first scores 180. Opposing team loses early wickets, have no chance to win and then just limp to 120 odd.
Good knocks by Warner and Duminy, a fierce spell by Tait and the rest was uninspiring.
Ideally both teams score 180+ and you get a heartstopping finish, it just rarely happens, it's a one in 20 occurrence unless you are playing on postage stamp grounds.
Sounds like a typical one day game except it lasts a lot longer and is even more boring!!!
r dub 19
11 Jan 2009, 23:17
I'd rather watch 20/20 than ODI and to those who say it's a batsman's game basically every sport suits certain types of players. It's like saying the 100m sprint is a black man's race, AFL is a forwards game etc.
DoubleO7
11 Jan 2009, 23:55
I'd rather watch 20/20 than ODI and to those who say it's a batsman's game basically every sport suits certain types of players. It's like saying the 100m sprint is a black man's race, AFL is a forwards game etc.
No, that's just racist.
r dub 19
12 Jan 2009, 00:24
so your saying it isn't?
The Great Barry Besanko
12 Jan 2009, 07:35
So by your reasoning, List A cricket runs come second when deciding to pick a ODI/T20 batsman and you think they should really be picking the side going on their current four day form.
In 10-15 yrs (maybe earlier) if this crap form of the game is still popular (very much doubt it) you will have batsmen who look like the big baseball sluggers, massive builds who will like Warner just be clubbing the crap out of the ball. Like someone else here said like the "home run challenge" at baseball All Star games.
And which kid raised on this crap will ever want to be a bowler?
Not that it matters. Just grab the flatest medium pacer from grade cricket who bowls a reliable boring full length every crap ball.
Ill Chicken
12 Jan 2009, 09:14
What has bowling got to do with it? You're saying that Warner is a club cricketer because he hasn't played four day cricket yet he has played List A and T20 and he got selected in the Australian T20 side for these performances. You are saying that his credentials aren't enough and that any club cricketer could have gone out and done that. You're then assuming that he wouldn't be able to adjust his game to the longer version when selected.
The Great Barry Besanko
12 Jan 2009, 10:48
What has bowling got to do with it? You're saying that Warner is a club cricketer because he hasn't played four day cricket yet he has played List A and T20 and he got selected in the Australian T20 side for these performances. You are saying that his credentials aren't enough and that any club cricketer could have gone out and done that. You're then assuming that he wouldn't be able to adjust his game to the longer version when selected.
I never said any club/grade cricketer could have done that. I'm just pointing out that one day quite a few grade cricketers may form the majority of the T20 team.
Warner could well adjust his game to 4 day cricket and I hope he becomes a great player but surely in any sport the best represent their country. The fact that a grade cricketer is one of the best T20 players in the country suggests the game itself is a farce and a poor imitation to the REAL thing.
It's like creating a hybrid version of any other sport that allows inferior players to be selected above the tried and true pros. In the end people see it for what it is, a joke.
As for the bowling, well the hybrid game just happens to make a big part of the game insignifcant. It has everything to do with it.
krusden
12 Jan 2009, 10:52
I never said any club/grade cricketer could have done that. I'm just pointing out that one day quite a few grade cricketers may form the majority of the T20 team.
Warner could well adjust his game to 4 day cricket and I hope he becomes a great player but surely in any sport the best represent their country. The fact that a grade cricketer is one of the best T20 players in the country suggests the game itself is a farce and a poor imitation to the REAL thing.
It's like creating a hybrid version of any other sport that allows inferior players to be selected above the tried and true pros. In the end people see it for what it is, a joke.
As for the bowling, well the hybrid game just happens to make a big part of the game insignifcant. It has everything to do with it.
:thumbsu: - Unlike many people i agree with you Barry. T20 is okay to watch and I enjoyed the game. I am especially concerned after the commet i heard last nite where there's a young QLD bloke who is warner-like who said his goal is an IPL contract. In front of a baggy green.
How many kids are growing up like this and are excited by the money of the IPL rather than the opportunity to represent their country?
Martyn_30_
12 Jan 2009, 10:52
Why wouldnt you like test cricket more than 20/20s, you get to see enthralling cricket with batsmen going along pushing the ball around at 2.5 - 3 an over for five days, where most games only one team can win after the first 2 days, days of cricket knowing a draw is a certainty and bowlers keeping it wide outside off stump for entire spells without threatening the stumps. It really suprises me with all the excitement they cant get more 1 to 2k to matches outside of the traditional countries of Australia and England
ManWithNoName
12 Jan 2009, 11:11
Why wouldnt you like test cricket more than 20/20s, you get to see enthralling cricket with batsmen going along pushing the ball around at 2.5 - 3 an over for five days, where most games only one team can win after the first 2 days, days of cricket knowing a draw is a certainty and bowlers keeping it wide outside off stump for entire spells without threatening the stumps. It really suprises me with all the excitement they cant get more 1 to 2k to matches outside of the traditional countries of Australia and England
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're just an idiot.
The Great Barry Besanko
12 Jan 2009, 11:14
Why wouldnt you like test cricket more than 20/20s, you get to see enthralling cricket with batsmen going along pushing the ball around at 2.5 - 3 an over for five days, where most games only one team can win after the first 2 days, days of cricket knowing a draw is a certainty and bowlers keeping it wide outside off stump for entire spells without threatening the stumps. It really suprises me with all the excitement they cant get more 1 to 2k to matches outside of the traditional countries of Australia and England
Well in most T20 games it's virtually over in the first hour or so.
Won't even bother highlighting why Tests shit on T20 as a sport other than to say there's a hell of a lot more to cricket than just hitting sixes.
PalaceGun
12 Jan 2009, 11:28
:thumbsu: - Unlike many people i agree with you Barry. T20 is okay to watch and I enjoyed the game. I am especially concerned after the commet i heard last nite where there's a young QLD bloke who is warner-like who said his goal is an IPL contract. In front of a baggy green.
How many kids are growing up like this and are excited by the money of the IPL rather than the opportunity to represent their country?
That was Nathan Reardon, makes sense because he'll never be good enough to wear the baggy green, an IPL contract isn't out of the question.
Martyn_30_
12 Jan 2009, 11:36
Well in most T20 games it's virtually over in the first hour or so.
Won't even bother highlighting why Tests shit on T20 as a sport other than to say there's a hell of a lot more to cricket than just hitting sixes.
Ive seen a lot of 20/20 games go to the last over, definetly most arnt over early and please highlight why tests are so much better.
:thumbsu: - Unlike many people i agree with you Barry. T20 is okay to watch and I enjoyed the game. I am especially concerned after the commet i heard last nite where there's a young QLD bloke who is warner-like who said his goal is an IPL contract. In front of a baggy green.
How many kids are growing up like this and are excited by the money of the IPL rather than the opportunity to represent their country?
That comment was from Gilly and it was about Nathan Reardon, and you have completely mis-quoted there. He said he would like to get an IPL contract he never said anything about not wanting play for Australia.
If you put an IPL contract and a baggy green cap in front of an Australian player, they will pick the baggy green every time.
chaddles
12 Jan 2009, 12:00
I really don't see why everyone is getting so upset about T20 cricket... It is just a bit of fun and a good chance for younger players to get an opportunity to smash the crap out of the ball in front of a good crowd. I'm not a huge fan but still enjoyable to watch especially when you see a young player like Warner going absolutely ape. Not as good as one dayers, but still better than anything that is on TV at the moment.
Test cricket is still number one for me, purely because it is a true contest and is such a mental game.
krusden
12 Jan 2009, 12:06
That comment was from Gilly and it was about Nathan Reardon, and you have completely mis-quoted there. He said he would like to get an IPL contract he never said anything about not wanting play for Australia.
If you put an IPL contract and a baggy green cap in front of an Australian player, they will pick the baggy green every time.
.... In regards of the section in bold, he hasn't said anything about not wanting to play under the baggy green that's true. However the changing face of cricket is that he didn't mention the baggy green automatically/first.
However, as another poster mentioned he's probably not going to be good enough to play Tests anyway. So it's a moot point on Reardon.
Why wouldnt you like test cricket more than 20/20s, you get to see enthralling cricket with batsmen going along pushing the ball around at 2.5 - 3 an over for five days, where most games only one team can win after the first 2 days, days of cricket knowing a draw is a certainty and bowlers keeping it wide outside off stump for entire spells without threatening the stumps. It really suprises me with all the excitement they cant get more 1 to 2k to matches outside of the traditional countries of Australia and England
Bahahahahaha. Good one mate :thumbsu:
Vampire013
12 Jan 2009, 12:40
I went to the Games Last night and David Warner made my night.
It was awesome to watch. Even the commentators who have actually played for Australia loved the match and his innings.
I don't know what people are whinging about.:confused::confused::confused:
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
I went to the first 3 days of boxing day test and the 3rd day was some of the most boring cricket I have seen.
I had a much better time last night.
It was entertaining. :thumbsu:
ManWithNoName
12 Jan 2009, 12:49
I went to the Games Last night and David Warner made my night.
It was awesome to watch. Even the commentators who have actually played for Australia loved the match and his innings.
I don't know what people are whinging about.:confused::confused::confused:
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
I went to the first 3 days of boxing day test and the 3rd day was some of the most boring cricket I have seen.
I had a much better time last night.
It was entertaining. :thumbsu:
You've got no clue about cricket.
Marstermind
12 Jan 2009, 13:40
The argument that not many games go down to the wire is stupid and irrelevant. Most AFL games are done by well before the end, most horse races won by more than a nose, most tennis matches don't go to fifth set 10-8.
Comparing Tests and T20 isn't the argument either. I've yet to hear of any player who is capable of getting a game in both Tests and T20 say they'd rather play T20. Test cricket has been around over 130 years, it isn't going anywhere (but probably needs to have a think about some aspects of it).
The 50 over game is under huge pressure. Too many meaningless games that meander to pointless conclusions. Unfortunately, so much of it was played in the 90s that basically teams carved out a "script" on how a match should progress leading to 30 overs an innings of just pushing balls into gaps. It's unpredictability, which it was reliant on during its early days in WSC, has completely disappeared. As for its marketability to the masses, T20 has shot it to ribbons. T20 doesn't require a full day's commitment to watch and has no time for sustained flat spots. If I want to take my kids to a game or my wife (who accepts cricket but doesn't like it), I could take them to 3 hours of T20 but would struggle with 8 hours. (The 10.45 Sunday night finish would be a drawback though)
Both truncated forms of the game have similar problems though. Some here have correctly pointed out that if you bat first and score 180, you win. But the same applies in the 50 over game - bat first score 300 and you hardly ever lose, you just have to wait longer for the inevitability to unwind. Both forms of the game lack any real significance (outside World Cups). So Australia won last night. I'm sure there was little soul-searching in the Saffers rooms. T20 is pure sporting eye candy. I'd say the teams take the 50 over game more seriously, but only because they treat them as 3 years of scratch matches between World Cups.
Both forms of the game survived in their formative years by their sheer novelty value. Unfortunately the novelty of the 50 overs game is wearing off, and the same will probably happen to T20 unless it is programmed more carefully than 50 cricket was. Test Cricket has survived because it is pure cricket which tests all skills and temperaments in a range of conditions. No cricketer, not even Dave Warner, will ever be considered a great cricketer unless he can play Test Cricket.
As for Warner's selection last night it was fair enough. He was selected for a T20 game on the back of some outstanding form in both types of limited overs cricket at state level. And despite not yet playing in the Shield, he hasn't exactly come from nowhere. He's played for Australia in Under 19s and once fielded for Australia in a Test match against South Africa. He isn't some bum a selector saw for 2 minutes in a park match whilst he was stopped at some traffic lights. I heard Rodney Hogg suggest on radio that he should be considered for Test Cricket now...utter rubbish. But he's earned his stripes in this form of the game at state level and therefore deserved his selection. When he gets a go for NSW in a 4-day game he'll get his chance to carve out a career in the baggy green.
Ummm...that's all.
Black Thunder
12 Jan 2009, 14:15
agree 100% with you there mastermind on everything.
a lot of people think Warner has come out of nowhere but he has been around the underage and second XI scene for some time now and has been a part of the high performance academy.
i'm actually hoping he plays out the season for NSW in the Sheffield Shield rather than in the ODI's. It would be far better for him as a cricketer.
goalpie
12 Jan 2009, 17:04
Warner gets picked to represent Australia with virtually no first class experience. How long until the Aussie team is filled with burly grade cricketers?
As for the new bats why don't they just give them baseball bats?
This form od cricket is a joke. Does not test areas of players ability other than just hacking the ball.
I used to think 50 over was crap but 20/20 makes that look deep and meaningful.
Garbage game. More Tests please.
Ouch! :D:p;)
Anyone else think Albie Morkel looks exactly like Graham Polak?
DoubleO7
12 Jan 2009, 18:34
Anyone else think Albie Morkel looks exactly like Graham Polak?
It has been suggested before.
Carl Spackler
12 Jan 2009, 19:18
Twenty20 will be the death of Test Cricket.
Just like ODI's were the death of Test Cricket.
Ill Chicken
12 Jan 2009, 19:52
I never said any club/grade cricketer could have done that. I'm just pointing out that one day quite a few grade cricketers may form the majority of the T20 team.
Warner could well adjust his game to 4 day cricket and I hope he becomes a great player but surely in any sport the best represent their country. The fact that a grade cricketer is one of the best T20 players in the country suggests the game itself is a farce and a poor imitation to the REAL thing.
It's like creating a hybrid version of any other sport that allows inferior players to be selected above the tried and true pros. In the end people see it for what it is, a joke.
As for the bowling, well the hybrid game just happens to make a big part of the game insignifcant. It has everything to do with it.
Name one member of the Australian team that isn't a grade cricketer?
Vampire013
12 Jan 2009, 21:50
You've got no clue about cricket.
No, I don't. I need you to teach me.
So you would call watching Duminy block the ball all day and the Australian Bowlers trying all day without success to knock over the tailenders exciting cricket?
ManWithNoName
12 Jan 2009, 21:58
No, I don't. I need you to teach me.
So you would call watching Duminy block the ball all day and the Australian Bowlers trying all day without success to knock over the tailenders exciting cricket?
I call an 8th (or was it 9th) wicket partnership that turned the series around exciting cricket.
Adelaide Hawk
13 Jan 2009, 04:39
Warner's the perfect 20/20 cricketer. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
He didn't say he DID watch it. He was saying the game is an abomination .. which it is. It has bugger all to do with a good hard game of cricket.
I wish they'd just stick to calling it 20/20 instead of 20/20 cricket. Apart from the odd similarity it has nothing to do with cricket whatsoever.
"Rounders" would be a good name for it.
I just wonder how annoyed baseball must be that cricket has stolen all it's ideas ... played at night, coloured clothing, white ball, round bat, batters throwing the bat at everthing .... Muralitharan :)
bengoudie
13 Jan 2009, 04:45
I can understand where you are coming from, being a total cricket purist myself. However, you have to look at how many new people this is bringing to our game. I think it is exciting, but I do hope it will never take over cricket. That will be the end of our great game.
Carl Spackler
13 Jan 2009, 05:33
He didn't say he DID watch it. He was saying the game is an abomination .. which it is. It has bugger all to do with a good hard game of cricket.
I wish they'd just stick to calling it 20/20 instead of 20/20 cricket. Apart from the odd similarity it has nothing to do with cricket whatsoever.
There are people out there still bitter about Kerry Packer and WSC. 30 years later they're still bagging the pajama game. 30 years from now they will still be bagging Twenty20. And using the same arguments they have always used.
Cricket is a contest between bat and ball. In one breath critics say that the Twenty20 game is heavily weighted in favour of the batters and that it is unfair on the bowlers... and in the next breath they complain that the games aren't close enough often enough because one team always gets skittled.
krisholio14
13 Jan 2009, 05:58
There are people out there still bitter about Kerry Packer and WSC. 30 years later they're still bagging the pajama game. 30 years from now they will still be bagging Twenty20. And using the same arguments they have always used.
Cricket is a contest between bat and ball. In one breath critics say that the Twenty20 game is heavily weighted in favour of the batters and that it is unfair on the bowlers... and in the next breath they complain that the games aren't close enough often enough because one team always gets skittled.
Have a look at the front of todays Age. Makes my comment about the game being like a Home Run Derby even more relevant.
And to consider the amount of print there has been about Warner just because he can hit a few out of the ground in a Mickey Mouse game. Unfreaking believable.
Ill Chicken
13 Jan 2009, 06:51
Ha. You're saying this like the T20 matches aren't meant to produce more sixes and fours. Graham Napier's 16 sixes in the ET20 last season was far more of indication than Warner's innings. The reason why Warner's innings was special, because it was his debut and Australian crowds haven't seen anything like it so far.
The whole solid base/balance/limited footwork technique has been going around for most of this century. It has to be done because bowling in modern cricket is at it's all time quickest. This approach is being taken regardless the format of the game.
krisholio14
13 Jan 2009, 07:03
Ha. You're saying this like the T20 matches aren't meant to produce more sixes and fours. Graham Napier's 16 sixes in the ET20 last season was far more of indication than Warner's innings. The reason why Warner's innings was special, because it was his debut and Australian crowds haven't seen anything like it so far.
The whole solid base/balance/limited footwork technique has been going around for most of this century. It has to be done because bowling in modern cricket is at it's all time quickest. This approach is being taken regardless the format of the game.
Absolute frog shit. Why do you think tests rarely last 5 days anymore? Because skills such as patience, concentration and shot selection are going out the door so blokes can go the tonk non stop.
Have a look at the front page of the Age as I said to the other bloke.
All 20/20 does is prove my theory that the majority of todays population have the attention span of a goldfish.
Ill Chicken
13 Jan 2009, 07:27
You're talking about something completely different. I'm talking about technique. You're talking "skills such as patience, concentration and shot selection". I'm not even sure you know what you're talking about.
You're also talking rubbish when it comes to matches not going the distance. If any matches haven't been making it to five days it is because it is a one sided affair such as the recent Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh or it's been an adverse pitch.
scottywiper
13 Jan 2009, 08:07
The dumbing down of cricket continues unabated.
Underdog
13 Jan 2009, 11:13
Absolute frog shit. Why do you think tests rarely last 5 days anymore? Because skills such as patience, concentration and shot selection are going out the door so blokes can go the tonk non stop.
From memory, Australia just finished 2 series' against SAF and India where all games went to 5 days.
I don't think they did against New Zealand. But that's more because they are a crap test side regardless.
Where is the evidence suggesting tests are not reaching 5 days as often as they used to and where it's due to this mindset?
Even before 20/20 I'd suggest games were shorter due to the evolving nature, but I don't think 20/20 would have had a dramatic impact. For example, Australia found long long ago that the power hitting of Gilchrist had a big role to play in test cricket.
Cricket is a contest between bat and ball. In one breath critics say that the Twenty20 game is heavily weighted in favour of the batters and that it is unfair on the bowlers... and in the next breath they complain that the games aren't close enough often enough because one team always gets skittled.
The 20/20 form of cricket is not a contest bat and ball. The only reason the bowlers are there is to deliver the ball so the batsmen can have a slog. As someone else mentioned, you may as well have bowling machines there, they would perform the same function.
Sides get skittled because the batsmen are chasing large totals in a small amount of overs. They get themselves out in doing so and rarely because the bowlers have bowled them out. (This would be the case if bowling machines were in place too might I add :D).
I acknowledge that this form of the game is in place and won't be going away. But to me it is nothing more than ridiculously hyped razzamatazz, a very much Americanized form of entertainment, aimed at those who need instant gratification in their sport.
And that's fine, it just holds little interest for me.
I'm not really a big fan of 20/20 cricket. I still watch the odd game, mind, but the slogfests just become tiring after a while. It does improve fielding standards, but it may make bowlers more defensive and may marginalise batting techniques in favour of sheer power. I'm not so sure whether that's a good thing.
I prefer 50/50 cricket and Tests, personally. 50/50 cricket has lead to bowlers becoming more defensive, but there is still substantial room for batting technique and structuring an innings in that form of the game. By the same token, there is the odd novel bowling change in 50-over cricket. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about 20/20.
Still, if Twenty20's your thing, then go knock yourself out. Don't let my misgivings lessen your enjoyment of the game. :)
Carl Spackler
13 Jan 2009, 14:45
The 20/20 form of cricket is not a contest bat and ball. The only reason the bowlers are there is to deliver the ball so the batsmen can have a slog. As someone else mentioned, you may as well have bowling machines there, they would perform the same function.
Sides get skittled because the batsmen are chasing large totals in a small amount of overs. They get themselves out in doing so and rarely because the bowlers have bowled them out. (This would be the case if bowling machines were in place too might I add :D).
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.
The game is unfairly weighted in favour of the batters because they score quickly, smash the ball everywhere and the bowlers are basically cannon-fodder.
AND the game is often difficult for batters because the run rate required is so high that they need to take unnecessary risks and get out.
About right?
I don't enjoy watching twenty twenty as much as test cricket because it makes a boundary almost worthless.
Of course when batsmen go for their shots, hit 5 fours then depart, there's going to be a lot of boundaries. It makes them almost mundane. I don't get a raging stiffy just from watching a ball belted into the crowd - I prefer a good shot, preferably a cricket shot. Sure I enjoyed Warner's heroics but will that sort of slogging ever stack up to a Michael Vaughan cover drive or a VVS Laxman back foot shot? Nope.
And the thing about test cricket is that if a batsman hits three fours in an over, that's spectacular. In 20/20 it's so commonplace that there really isn't much fun from it. And bowlers are relegated to doing what Bracken does which is bowl a medley of balls designed to be dot balls.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.
The game is unfairly weighted in favour of the batters because they score quickly, smash the ball everywhere and the bowlers are basically cannon-fodder.
AND the game is often difficult for batters because the run rate required is so high that they need to take unnecessary risks and get out.
About right?
The bowlers are indeed cannon fodder, they are simply there to provide the means for the entertainment to occur. And they can hardly thrive when they only get four overs each.
It is a game for slogging and that approach really has to start from the outset. When this comes off, all well and good and you will get a score approaching 200 (eg Tassie last night).
However, slogging has inherent risks as well and it makes you more likely to lose your wicket. So seeing sides skittled (or rapid loss of wickets) is not an unusual outcome, moreso when the pressure is on with a run chase.
So each side slogs it around for 20 overs, hopefully it will all come off and the crowd will be happy. The bowlers are only bit players in the whole episode, with the batsmen largely getting themselves out rather than the bowlers doing so. In fact, you may as well play 11 specialist batsmen on each side and pick your bowlers from that lot.
You could also improve the game by having the batsmen run around a diamond instead of up and down a wicket and also maybe if they don't score a run in three deliveries they are considered to be "struck out". I think it would also be good to call the bowler the pitcher, we certainly need far more Americanized terminology in the game that's for sure.
(Yes, some of that was tongue in cheek. :) ).