Aren't T20s exciting?

[Marklar_33]

The BBL has a place, to create opportunities for State cricketers to earn coin. International T20s do not, unless they become structured into qualifying for a large (even 32 team) World Cup to grow the game globally

Besides this, it's pretty dull!

 

[Blessed]

More meaningless cricket to fleece punters.

It was $90 for a seat on Friday.

$360 for a family of 2 adults and two kids plus another $50 for food and the game was over after 5 overs in the Australian innings when they were 4 wickets down already. Australia refused to play an attacking shot for the rest of the match.

You can have your Bollywood dancers back thanks. Yuk!

You can have your fireworks (More fire than works). Brett Lee giggling as he bowled wides in the smoke at the start of the indian innings cause he couldn't see the other end of the pitch.

Oh yes, and the Gay Dancing Spiderman.

Every 5 minutes in the Stands.

Yuck, Yuck Yuck....

Is that what Cricket Australia is flogging these days.

Plz...

 

[Keys]

$90 a seat

Is that standard or premium seating. Makes it tough to take a family.

What's a seat at an odi or test worth?

 

[Blessed]

Tests are about $50 for 7 hours play.

You can get cheaper at about $70 for the T20 game.

But still prices a lot of people out.

Talk about the golden goose.

If they have more t20s, they are not necessarily going to get more people at those prices.

 

[Tiff]

I really miss the old days of packed houses at all ODI games. Thrilling finishes, with all the legends.

It really saddens me to see ODI become what it has.

Growing up in Perth I went to all available international cricket, it was like the meaning to life as a kid.

My dreams were going to the boxing day test, and going to an ODI at the G for a friday D/N.

I've done the boxing day test, unfortunately I'll never live out my dream of the ODI at the G. Well, I could, but I might be the only person there.

 

[Dan26]

If I want to watch a game of cricket where their are no repercussions for losing your wicket I would watch indoor cricket

There are repurcussions for losing your wicket in Indoor Cricket. You lose 5 runs. Often this is a major repurcussion.

They could always introduce a rule in T20 cricket where you lose runs when you go out. And I don't mean that as a gimmick either. I mean it as an actual logical extension of giving more meaning to taking a wicket.

Obviously in Test Cricket wickets are vital, because the only way you can win is by taking 20 of them.

In 50 over cricket, wickets technically aren't "necessary" to win, but it is important to not take stupid risks as a batsman, because there is a possibility of being bowled out in 50 overs. Wickets still "matter."

But in T20, it is "nearly" impossible for a team to get bowled out. When a wicket falls in the later overs, it is no more noteworthy than the fact it was also a dot ball.

I think a loss of 5 runs when the batsman loses his wicket in a T20 game is actually something that warrants consideration. It forces bowlers to try to take wickets (rather than just contain) and forces batsman to protect their wicket as there is actually a consequence for going out.

 

[Tulip]

Bastardise cricket more Dan, please

 

[Dan26]

I really miss the old days of packed houses at all ODI games. Thrilling finishes, with all the legends.

It really saddens me to see ODI become what it has.

Well back then, T20 didn't exist. So, the "new" 50 over game was seen to be the best and most exciting way to play the game.

But since T20 has been invented, it has become obvious to the silent majority that the 50 over game just doesn't stack up. It goes for 8 hours FFS. Eight!

Once you've consumed T20 cricket over 3 hours, why would you back to the inferior and more boring 50 over game? The fans are voting with their feet. The fans are not going back to the 50 over game because they prefer T20. You might not want that, but you are the vocal minority. The people on this forum (cricket traditionalists) are also the vocal minority. Very vocal. But a minority none the less.

And as I've argued before, T20 is really the traditional form of the game anyway. Who in the hell plays defensive shots and lets balls go through to the keeper in the backyard or on the beach or in the schoolyard? Short form cricket is what gets played at school, in backyards and on the street.

The quicker the 50 over game dies, the better. Just put it out of its misery. It has been totally usurped by T20. Totally.

 

[Dan26]

Bastardise cricket more Dan, please

Just think about it for a second.

No one is bastardizing cricket. It's actually a legitimate idea to give more meaning to taking wickets in T20.

Isn't that what people want? More meaning for wickets? After all, isn't that the one major criticism of T20? That wickets don't matter?

Well, MAKE wickets matter. DO something about it. A loss of runs for going out makes bowlers strive to get someone OUT.

If you don't like that idea for T20, explain to me the negatives of introducing it.

 

[Simple Jack]

Bastardise cricket more Dan, please

T20 is already a bastardisation of real cricket. As far as I'm concerned it's just 'jazzed up' backyard/indoor cricket anyway.

Extra hitting zones, tip and run, one hand one bounce, 'roofs or flats' for the 'coin toss', whatever. As far as I'm concerned you could add pretty much any backyard cricket rule to it other than 6 and out and it wouldn't affect the legitimacy or seriousness of the game.

 

[Dan26]

T20 is already a bastardisation of real cricket.

What's "real" cricket? Test cricket?

How many registered cricketers are there in Australia? 200,000? Well, whatever the number is, how many of them has ever played a 5 day game or a 4 day game?

The only people that have ever played a a 4 or 5 day game are those who have played Test or Shield cricket.

I would estimate there are no more than 1000 living Australians who have ever played a 4 or 5 day game, maybe even less. It's simply not normal.

T20 cricket is far more traditional, in terms of how we play cricket socially. Its how we played cricket in Primary school with the time constraints. It's traditional. It's the way cricket has always been. The only people who do it differently are the 1000 or so unique Australians who have played the rare 4 or 5 day game.

Real cricket? What you regard as "real" cricket (4 or 5 day games) is a form of cricket I'm guessing you have never played and I dare say no one on this forum has ever played.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Slater attributing Wade's good knock the other night to 'the confidence he would have gained from seeing Warner's switch hit' made me want to ferociously self-harm. Slater is an ignorant, class-less fool. Somebody should play him a tape of Richie Benaud in his prime: *action unfolds*; *pointed pause*; *sage, articulate, informed observation*.

Not this mind-numbingly inane "AAAAAAAAAAH ZOMG DAAAAVVVEEEY WAAAAAAAAAAARNNNNNNNNAAAA SWITCH HIT HOW GOOD IS T20 CRICKET ZZZZZOOOOOMMMGGGGG T20 CRICKET IS DEFINITELY HERE TO STAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Nicholas isn't much better. He should be locked up for public masturbation the way he constantly carries on (something about Nicholas screams swinger/nudist to me by the way, which is an extremely disturbing image. I apologise.).

As for the T20's themselves, I've been trying to enjoy them but they are an essentially hollow contest. The only positive re: the bombardment of facile shit constantly forced down our throats by the peanuts in the commentary box is that it can help distract the viewer from the fact that nothing of any genuine substance is taking place on the field.

 

[Marklar_33]

What's "real" cricket? Test cricket?

How many registered cricketers are there in Australia? 200,000? Well, whatever the number is, how many of them has ever played a 5 day game or a 4 day game?

The only people that have ever played a a 4 or 5 day game are those who have played Test or Shield cricket.

I would estimate there are no more than 1000 living Australians who have ever played a 4 or 5 day game, maybe even less. It's simply not normal.

T20 cricket is far more traditional, in terms of how we play cricket socially. Its how we played cricket in Primary school with the time constraints. It's traditional. It's the way cricket has always been. The only people who do it differently are the 1000 or so unique Australians who have played the rare 4 or 5 day game.

Real cricket? What you regard as "real" cricket (4 or 5 day games) is a form of cricket I'm guessing you have never played and I dare say no one on this forum has ever played.

Two days, one innings develops same skillset as 4 days two innings

 

[Dan26]

Two days, one innings develops same skillset as 4 days two innings

From a batters point of view, does the "longer form of the game" really develop their skill set?

Take David Warner. He is known as a T20 specialist. So, he already has all the shots. His main adjusment he needs to make for Test cricket is patience. But patience isn't a skill - it's a mental adjustment. And nearly anyone can mkae the mental adjustment if they have the physical skills. And he does have those skills.

And as I said in another thread, take Ed Cowan. Known as a specialist in the longer form of the game. He has the mental game, no doubt. But his skill set? How does the longer form of the game develop his skill set? Surely playing T20 cricket and being forced to score runs off good balls, being forced to not defend and being forced to play a wider range of shots, will do more for your skill set.

Ed Cowan simply isn't good enough to play T20. It's too hard for him. It requires too much skill. That form of the game is beyond him.

But Test cricket is not beyond David Warner. The skill set required for a batter in T20 is far more than test Cricket.

Look at Steve Waugh. For the last half of his career he basically got away with not hooking or pulling in Tests. If he tried that in T20, he'd never survive.

 

[Tassieboy]

Yes, Dan, that's why Pollard makes such as good first-class batsmen; even Gayle, Afridi, ect aren't exactly stars in the longer format.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Ah ****, looks who's here. Just close the thread now, save us all a lot of anguish.

 

[thecatattack]

Yes, Dan, that's why Pollard makes such as good first-class batsmen; even Gayle, Afridi, ect aren't exactly stars in the longer format.

Gayles got a pretty good test record. Just sayin'.

Also **** off Dan, no one wants to hear your shit.

 

[Blackout]

What's "real" cricket? Test cricket?

How many registered cricketers are there in Australia? 200,000? Well, whatever the number is, how many of them has ever played a 5 day game or a 4 day game?

The only people that have ever played a a 4 or 5 day game are those who have played Test or Shield cricket.

I would estimate there are no more than 1000 living Australians who have ever played a 4 or 5 day game, maybe even less. It's simply not normal.

T20 cricket is far more traditional, in terms of how we play cricket socially. Its how we played cricket in Primary school with the time constraints. It's traditional. It's the way cricket has always been. The only people who do it differently are the 1000 or so unique Australians who have played the rare 4 or 5 day game.

Real cricket? What you regard as "real" cricket (4 or 5 day games) is a form of cricket I'm guessing you have never played and I dare say no one on this forum has ever played.

It is what everyone playing cricket seriously aspires to, to have both the temperament and technique to play test match cricket... Take your short attention span elsewhere.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

From a batters point of view, does the "longer form of the game" really develop their skill set?

Baseball has "batters".

Cricket has batsmen.

I guess when you are talking about T20 though, it's not hard to get the two mixed up.

 

[Blackout]

Baseball has "batters".

Cricket has batsmen.

I guess when you are talking about T20 though, it's not hard to get the two mixed up.

I wonder when 'batters' became an acceptable term, it's something I've picked up on in the last year or so. I've always referred to them as 'batsmen' and recently it seems they've become 'batters'. When did this happen?

 

[swingdog]

And nearly anyone can make the mental adjustment if they have the physical skills.

And yet so many don't.

 

[Simple Jack]

I wonder when 'batters' became an acceptable term, it's something I've picked up on in the last year or so. I've always referred to them as 'batsmen' and recently it seems they've become 'batters'. When did this happen?

Not that it needs to be stated but Slats is a braindead tool, and he's been pushing it alot.

I have no problem with it being used in the context of the womens game, but when the guys play, they are batsmen.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

From a batters point of view, does the "longer form of the game" really develop their skill set?

You obviously know **** all about cricket. You have to develop your "skill set" if you want to survive in the longer form. There's no hiding, your weaknesses will be found out in 4-5 day cricket. The opposition's best bowlers are not restricted to 4 overs each, no convoluted field placings, having to adapt to changing conditions etc etc.

That's why it's is nearly impossible for over 40 retired players to ever come back, unlike T20. i.e players with diminished skills can play T20 only.

 

[Tulip]

Slater attributing Wade's good knock the other night to 'the confidence he would have gained from seeing Warner's switch hit' made me want to ferociously self-harm. Slater is an ignorant, class-less fool. Somebody should play him a tape of Richie Benaud in his prime: *action unfolds*; *pointed pause*; *sage, articulate, informed observation*.

Please tell me he didn't say that...

 

[Dan26]

You obviously know **** all about cricket.

Nah, only played it all my life, what the hell would I know. Seriously is that what this has come to? Personal attacks? Stick to the topic. Don't worry about the person (me) making the argument. Ignore who they are, and concentrate on WHAT they are saying.

You have to develop your "skill set" if you want to survive in the longer form.

Oh really? Like Steve Waugh totally taking the pull shot and hook shot out of his game. How is that developing your skill set? How would that tactic have gone in T20? I agree the mental part of the game is a part that needs to be developed for Tests, but if a player has the physical shot-making and hand-eye coordination (like Warner) he should be able to adapt.

Someone like Ed Cowan who is more limited with his skills, will never make it in T20 cricket. Tests are more his go. He is not good enough to play a form of cricket where you have to score of GOOD balls and score at 1.5 runs per ball.

That's why it's is nearly impossible for over 40 retired players to ever come back, unlike T20.

Who are you referring to? Brad Hogg? He was the only over 40 in the T20 international. And with his superb form in the Big Bash (no one could pick his wrong-un) he would theoretically be more than capable of playing in the test side and performing well if the sleectors wanted to go down that path.

. i.e players with diminished skills can play T20 only.

Is this where I get to say "You obviously know nothing about cricket"

I mean seriously do you have any idea of the hand-eye coodination needed to play the ramp shot? Do you know how hard it is to score at 1.5 runs per ball?? You act like anyone can do it. They can't. In Tests, many players hardly score runs off good balls. They let them through to the keeper or defend them. They score of the loose balls primarily.

To suggest only "diminished skills" are suitable for a game where you need to score twice as fast, is totally ignorant.

Just explain to me, on what planet will Ed Cowan's "long form of the game batting skills" adapt to T20?