Aren't T20s exciting?

[maxy87]

Comparing Steve Waugh with David Warner? Let's not get silly now. If one gets the opportunity, have a look at Waughs 200 at Sabina Park dodging bumpers from Ambrose and Walsh. I think it's safe to say there wouldn't be any reverse slog sweeps being played by anyone that day.

I suggest we reserve judgement on the superior skill set of a T20 player until we see Warner successfully negotiate Anderson, Broad and Tremlett on a damp morning in Leeds or alternatively, put Steyn and Morkel to the sword in Durban.

I don't dislike T20 buts it's not my favourite form. The skill sets are different but it's hard to argue successfully that one is 'better' as the rules of limited over cricket are designed to facilitate scoring. E.g field restrictions, over quotas and rules restricting the line and length a bowler can employ. The futility of a bowlers plight is a breeding ground for cynical tactics like slow bowlers darting deliveries in at leg stump to dry up the scoring. More often than not, Batsmen just get thenselves out

 

[The Passenger]

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.

this argument doesn't make sense. how many people cycle in australia?? and how many are registered. ****en shitloads, especially in the wake of cadel evans. but how many of them have ever rode for 20 days within 25, going on average 150km a day... so why is the tour de france the pinnacle of the sport??

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.

it's more traditional for kids maybe... but so is having the entire year group in the field, and guys usually only get to bowl two balls at a time so everyone can get a go.

it's also more traditional to use garbage bins a stumps and play with an automatic keeper. maybe T20 could introduce these elements.

and having played probably around 200-250 games of organised cricket myself from age 7 to about age 22, i haven't played a game which only contained 20 over since about the under 8's when we played average cricket. after that it was 30 over matches, 36 over matches and by the under 13's, 40 or 50 over matches or two day matches with (from memory) 56 overs a day.

my old man never played a game of 20 over cricket playing every season from when he was about 5 to 35...

so this theory that we've always been playing 20 over cricket forever is just not true.

it's traditional only in the backyard....

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.

four innings over three days is long enough for me.

 

[The Passenger]

there are countless amount of sports where they are played at the top level are altered from how they are played at club and junior level, all of these relate to the time scale

- test cricket (4 - 5 days)
- ironman (hawaiian championships, distance is significantly greater than regular triathlon)
- golf (four rounds v one)
- tennis (five sets, don't know about club level but our school played best of one set)
- cycling (stage races, some up to 20 v weekend racing)
- snooker (how many people do you know have ever played best of 35 frame matches??)

even footballing codes union, league and aussie rules increase in time as you move up the grades. i know they don't get extended as much as the above sports, but juniors play 25-30 minutes a half in league and union. seniors 30-35, and top level is 40 minutes.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Oh the 2 year old concentration brain is back again I guess...my goodness I don't hate T20...but every time I see Dan26...it makes me hate T20 more.....the best cricket and the one with the prestige is TEST CRICKET! Why was Wade interviewed and said it was his dream to play TEST CRICKET...not hit and giggle T20.

T20 is a cash cow, it is a revenue raiser, but it is nothing more!

 

[R00StaR]

Its a testament to the game that it can be enjoyed over so many different formats. Tests, ODIs and t20s, then of course theres 4 day game in SS, 2 day games and 40 over ODers in club cricket. Indoor, double wicket, 5 a side, beach or the good old 3/4 tapped tennis ball road cricket and so on. Its all cricket.

People bag out the T20 much the same way they did when ODIs arrived. Now i certainly dont need dancing girls and fireworks to enjoy cricket but im not about to stop watching because they're there. Its great to see what batsmen can achieve when almost unrestricted.

Others just dont like the international t20s, again i dont see the problem. The T20 world cup was great and im sure we'll continue to see them, its stupid not to have a few played each year. I thought it was well done this summer, we had the BBL for domestic players with import internationals. Perfect time for 2-4 international t20s, reward the performances of the BB and show case the best team we can put forward. It not like it came at the cost of test matches.

World cup ODI and T20s are huge, id imagine they have ratings equivalent to or more than an AFL season. Just Indian viewers alone would probably do that. If the AFL could play 1 quarter lightening style games in a world cup, you can bet your bottom dollar they would.

Anyway i love my test matches, ODIs, T20s/ BBL and AFL. I prefer the longer forms of cricket, but easily appreciate all forms. Its not like the BBL is coming at the cost of test matches, and a healthy mix of shorter form is a good way to see out the summer and build teams for those World Cups.

 

[sherb]

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.

If you are going to post utter rubbish to support your arguments, don't bother.

I played district and park cricket from the age of 15 to 40. I think I might have once played in a limited over game of around 20 overs. Once.

All the cricket I played was 40/45/50 over games (one day) or 60/65 over games (two day).

T20 is not the way cricket has always been.

 

[The Convert]

My 13 year old son loves cricket. His comp is a mixture of 28 over one day and 50 over 2day games at club level. Some muppets running the show have decided that 2 games should be 20 over matches. What a great decision in that it means that less kids get to bat and bowl on those days. What he ans his mates enjoy are the 50 over a side matches in reps.The more cricket they play the more they like it and the better they get. Pandering to those who do not like the game is stupid.

 

[TigerCraig]

My 13 year old son loves cricket. His comp is a mixture of 28 over one day and 50 over 2day games at club level. Some muppets running the show have decided that 2 games should be 20 over matches. What a great decision in that it means that less kids get to bat and bowl on those days. What he ans his mates enjoy are the 50 over a side matches in reps.The more cricket they play the more they like it and the better they get. Pandering to those who do not like the game is stupid.

Same with my boy - plays a mix of 30 over a side 1 dayers, and 50 overs a week 2 dayers. Then he also plays 50 over a side rep cricket on Sundays.

Problem with T20 in juniors is that kids will get to bowl 2 overs each and half won't get a bat. The school comp is T20 and my boy hasn't had a bat in 3 games, and has bowled a total of 5 overs.

As my boy is mainly a bowler he gets 7 to 10 overs in reps, 8 overs in 2 dayers and 4 or 5 overs in club one dayers.

Having said that, in reps on Sunday he went in at 11, needing 22 for the last wicket and played a ramp shot over the keepers head for 3 (not bad for a 13 year old) - went on to win, so maybe T20 is good for something

 

[The Convert]

Could be twins! The only extra is we have 2 school teams and whilst one is20 overs the other is 50 overs and they have won 4 in a row on turf so that is a big benefit. Also 6 of the school teams are in the rep team so they are building a strong comradeship for the future. Hope your young bloke enjoys the rest of the season.

 

[TigerCraig]

Could be twins! The only extra is we have 2 school teams and whilst one is20 overs the other is 50 overs and they have won 4 in a row on turf so that is a big benefit. Also 6 of the school teams are in the rep team so they are building a strong comradeship for the future. Hope your young bloke enjoys the rest of the season.

My boy is at state school so they don't get much school cricket - 4 week round robin, then semi and final. All (except the final) on astroturf.

Last round robin game today - hopefully they got on. Last rep game this Sunday.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

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.

Knowing when to leave a ball alone is skill. Knowing your own game well enough to the point of omitting a stroke altogether is a skill that can be honed over years!! Who gives a shit how that would go down in T20?

Ed Cowan is not a basher, doesn't make him any less a skilled batsman.

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.

What about Hayden?Gilchrist in IPL? Hogg is all well to contain bashers in T20 but that doesn't mean he could take wickets at Test level.

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.

Once again, the best bowlers are restricted to 4 overs each, restricted fields etc etc.

Foolowing your argument why don't players simply try and hit at 1.5 runs per ball in Tests? Just go for the big bash?

Look at the windies at their best. Batsmen struggled at Test level against their great bowlers but could hit them at 5-6 runs an over in one day format.

Michael Bevan, chronically deficient to short ball in long form, yet a great one day player.

Batting is harder at Test level and requires more skill. Simple.

 

[The Passenger]

the list of good one day players who struggled in longer form cricket is pretty long. brad hogg is a good one that springs to mine. great ODI bowler. first class bowling average of 40, test bowling average of 50.... he's just simply not skilled enough to play longer form cricket hey dan??

michael bevan - great ODI record, great first class record. got found out at the top level of long form cricket... just not skilled enough hey dan??

JP Duminy is one of south africa best ODI and T20 players yet may not ever play test cricket again cause he just wasn't skilled enough hey dan??

 

[Ghostwriter]

The thing about cheerleaders is that in NFL they only dance when there is a lull in the game, but if its true that they prance about when a six is hit in T20 then the powers that be have got it wrong, the six getting hit is the entertainment, at a drinks break or end of an over is when the cheerleaders should strut their stuff, as for Nicholas, I think he points too much, I think it is rude to point at people and he does it quite a lot on the ground during prematch, as for t20, its garbage and I don't watch it.

 

[Tiff]

Played one 20 over game and didn;t really find it to my fancy..

Great to hear about your guy's boys loving their cricket! Well raised boys

 

[Marklar_33]

Have played quite a number of T20s. It seems to suit my array of cutters and slower balls, but it's a shit concept to have kids playing. Has to be all about participation. Twilight cricket down here used to be a winner. Bat 4 overs and bowl 2, regardless of wickets etc. Scoring was runs/wickets. So a team total of 1/40 would beat 5/199

 

[Ill Chicken]

Back when I was a boy, to hit a six, you really had to middle it. Only rarely were sixes hit back in my day, you see the bats they've got going around these days are so much better, why the wickets are flatter because you know ozone layer is heating up or something, I mean back in my day, a good summers day was 22 degrees, like the mother country.

Back then kids listened to their elders as well, back in my day, if a kid played a shot like that Warner, he'd never play 1st grade again. Cricket isn't about having fun as a child, it's about discipline and everyone knows kids aren't allowed to have fun. Back when I was a boy, we had 30 over games and you were only allowed to bowl 5 overs each. T20 just makes a mockery of this format. It's not real cricket, its fast food cricket, people with low IQ's and ADD. It's just like those idiots that follow football, aussie rules and rugby, anybody who watches a sport that doesn't go for five days is a complete moron. How anyone enjoys watching a football game that goes for only 100 minutes is beyond me, they must have the smallest brains in the world.