Twenty20 not Ponting's game

[Turbinator]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/275695.html

Ponting has said, "My problem is that I can't play a game in which I'm wearing my national team's colours, and my opponents are wearing theirs, and treat it as just being fun."

Well, I have discussed this a lot here on CW... but Ponting does have a point. 20/20s are different than ODIs, and still without a doubt in my mind ODIs are a better representation of skill and character, no matter how much Goughy or SS might beg to differ. 20/20s are not what cricket is suppose to be about, atleast in ODIs you have the middle overs in which a team has the oppurtunity to showcase its true ability and temperament.

Would you guys agree that Ponting has made a valid point, that 20/20s can be regarded as fun but it's not right when you are wearing your national team's colours?

No wonder why New Zealand went back to the old uniforms ...

 

[luffy]

For people like Ponting it must be hard. I mean he takes everything pretty hard and is just like that sort of person who takes huge pride in wearing the national colours and well batters get out in ways they shouldn't like going for it in their first couple of balls that they face.

I think there should be different uniforms for it, i may come under fire in this forum for suggesting it but it is a bit of fun not to be taken too seriously.

 

[adharcric]

Twenty20 cricket is mainly entertainment but Ponting doesn't need to get so anal about it. Twenty20 cricket still requires skill so there's nothing shameful about representing your country while playing it. He's entitled to his own opinion, obviously. Personally, 40-over cricket (my league) feels more genuine to me than 25-over cricket (my other league) but I'm not against playing the latter because of that. The competitive spirit is still there and so is the fun. Still, most cricketers probably don't care about it too much.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Generally speaking, Australian players don't seem overly fond of it. Gillespie said he wasn't interested in 20/20 before his stint with Yorkshire recently as it wasn't a format for bowlers, and usually when asked about it in interviews, they aren't particularly enthusiastic. I'm not sure if this is the case in England as well or not, but certainly the Australian guys who have played plenty of it in England don't seem to have changed their views much much.

There was an interview with David Hussey during one of the 20/20 games a week or so ago in which the interviewer enthusiastically asked him what it was like playing the new format given that he'd played plenty of it for his county side, and his response was "yeah, it's not too bad".

 

[Goughy]

The problem is that Ponting defines 20/20 as fun.

To me there should be no difference in the level of intensity between a 20/20 game and any other international cricket.

Having rugby players and fancy dress makes the game a joke, not the format. Its early days in its development. Twenty/20 is still struggling to be accepted, understood or have a clear role defined but if the players and administrators treated it like they should then the product would be special.

Let the gimmicks happen in the stands and have the players apply themselves to the difficult and intense format that is 20/20.

 

[Johnners]

Have to agree with what Goughy said. Whilst it's all fun & entertainment for the crowd, the players should still be playing the game with the same intensity as they would for a 50 over match.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's no way it can be taken seriously with all the gimmicks with nicknames and theme music and so on. I don't like the format anyway, but that makes it a hell of a lot harder to watch, and I daresay it makes it harder for the players to take seriously as well.

 

[Johnners]

I honestly can't see how having a knickname on the back of ones shirt should completely change their attitude to the game at hand. Granted about the music as it's an obvious causes for distraction, but as Adharcric mentioned above, it still requires a certain amount of skill, and therefore shouldn't be seen as shameful to represent your country at.

 

[Goughy]

There's no way it can be taken seriously with all the gimmicks with nicknames and theme music and so on. I don't like the format anyway, but that makes it a hell of a lot harder to watch, and I daresay it makes it harder for the players to take seriously as well.

A lot of people take it seriously already. It just takes time and evolving mindsets. Its amazing how the unusual and awkward soon becomes an established part of everyday life.

There is no need for nicknames etc but things are just being experimented with as its a new format finding its way.

There is certainly no excuse for any player not to take it seriously if the administrators do.

If something is treated as a joke it will be a joke. Aus (and India) are a long way behind other parts of the world in recognising the benfits and credentials of this format.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There is certainly no excuse for any player not to take it seriously if the administrators do.

I disagree there. If a player doesn't see the merit in the format and doesn't believe that it's important, obviously he's not going to take it as seriously as he would other games. I'd say a player who isn't interested in playing the format should be clear about it so that he's not a liability to the team, but when nobody is taking it seriously, as Ponting apparently feels, I don't really see how it's a problem. Administrators and players having been treating the format as a novelty, both at international level and at domestic level in Australia. It's been popular in terms of attendance and the players do seem to enjoy that, but when it comes to actual competition it's obviously a long way behind the other formats of the game.

And regarding the progress of the format becoming "established as part of everyday life" is concerned, I think it's telling that the Australian players who have played a lot of 20/20 cricket in England (where it is apparently taken seriously) still don't seem particularly enthusiastic about it. Obviously it's come on well in England, but that doesn't mean that it will become popular with players in other parts of the world. I imagine it will always be popular with crowds and administrators, though.

 

[Butterteeth]

Just a thought but I wonder if 20/20 might eventually become a bit like Rugby 7's?
Played in front of substantial crowds at tournaments around the world with a bit of a carnival atmosphere (Hong Kong 7's as an example) but rarely if ever played by the top players.
A chance for players who may otherwise not get the opportunity to play a test or ODI to have some international exposure?
Alot will depend on whether the novelty will wear off for the crowds that are showing up now I suppose.

 

[Johnners]

A lot of people take it seriously already. It just takes time and evolving mindsets. Its amazing how the unusual and awkward soon becomes an established part of everyday life.

Whilst i agree that players should try and treat it just as the would a 50 over match, i hope International Twenty/20 cricket doesn't become an established part of everyday life. Keeping it at 1 game per tour is enough imo. Anything more regular, and not only will it lose it's appeal to the crowds, but it could well have adverse affects on the other forms of the game.

 

[luffy]

When i think of a 20/20 match i automatically think, "awesome can't wait to see it" and an odi or test match "who are we playing, can we win". It is just a bit more less competitive. It is just an awesome game imo but ODI and Test matches still are better.

 

[_Ed_]

Just a thought but I wonder if 20/20 might eventually become a bit like Rugby 7's?
Played in front of substantial crowds at tournaments around the world with a bit of a carnival atmosphere (Hong Kong 7's as an example) but rarely if ever played by the top players.
A chance for players who may otherwise not get the opportunity to play a test or ODI to have some international exposure?
Alot will depend on whether the novelty will wear off for the crowds that are showing up now I suppose.

That's what I'd like to see happen.

 

[_Ed_]

There's no way it can be taken seriously with all the gimmicks with nicknames and theme music and so on. I don't like the format anyway, but that makes it a hell of a lot harder to watch, and I daresay it makes it harder for the players to take seriously as well.

Definitely.

Especially when they do things like having players wired for sound and having the commentators talk to them while they're on the field. That must really make it hard to focus on the game.

 

[Jono]

Go Ricky! Go Ricky! Go Ricky!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Definitely.

Especially when they do things like having players wired for sound and having the commentators talk to them while they're on the field. That must really make it hard to focus on the game.

Yeah, I forgot about that one. Probably the worst of the lot.

 

[TT Boy]

The problem is that Ponting defines 20/20 as fun.

To me there should be no difference in the level of intensity between a 20/20 game and any other international cricket.

Having rugby players and fancy dress makes the game a joke, not the format. Its early days in its development. Twenty/20 is still struggling to be accepted, understood or have a clear role defined but if the players and administrators treated it like they should then the product would be special.

Let the gimmicks happen in the stands and have the players apply themselves to the difficult and intense format that is 20/20.

Nailed it, and Jason Gillespie saying its not a format for the bowlers well maybe for over the hill cricketers such as yourself but just look at players such as Tyron Henderson and there ridiculously good performances with the ball in 20/20. If he use your brain or have one, you will take wickets. Andrew Flintoff played a 20/20 last year and sent down four overs 4 for 3, hardly figures which suggest its solely a batsman’s game.

Edit- Though I agree Australia’s approach to 20/20 doesn’t evoke the same intensity or professionalism that is evident in England, South Africa, Pakistan et cetera. Where the fun or stupid gimmicks are located primarily in the crowds not on the pitch.

 

[silentstriker]

Anytime you wear your teams colors, you do need to give 100%. I think both ODI and Twenty20 are 'fun', but that doesn't mean I would accept someone not giving 100%. You're getting paid a lot of money and you have the honor of representing your country in a sport. There should be enough pride there to give it your all (and Ponting does IMO).

 

[Matt79]

If something is treated as a joke it will be a joke. Aus (and India) are a long way behind other parts of the world in recognising the benfits and credentials of this format.

Probably something to do with the fact that support for traditional cricket (tests and ODIs) has gone from strength to strength in those two markets anyway, so there's not been any need for a bastardised version of the sport...

I think the comment about it being like the Rugby 7s is spot on. I think a 20/20 World Cup is a dire idea, and hope that good players don't waste too much time on it. Why not roll a quadrennial 20/20 tournament into the Commonwealth Games if the ICC feels it must have one?