Twenty20 not Ponting's game

[Scaly piscine]

Yep, Jono has it. Far from being the weakness of ODI cricket, the middle overs are what makes the contest. The fact is that any team with some big hitters can make runs in the slog overs with nothing to lose. ODIs retain the contest between bat and ball (despite being weighted in favour of batsmen) because batsmen are forced to preserve their wicket with a mind to making more runs in the long term. The slog overs, if and when they come, are effectively a reward for intelligent batting earlier in the innings. Wickets are largely meaningless in 20/20 games unless they come at an absurdly rapid rate, thus momentum shifts and the need for thoughtful batting go out the window. It's like going into the last 10 overs of a match at 2/200, but having none of the period leading up to it.

To put it simply, a format where Andrew Symonds is a more effective bowler than Brett Lee and Shahid Afridi is a more effective batsman than Rahul Dravid does nothing for me. When it's better to go for 4 runs off an over than it is to go for 10 and take a wicket, it hardly qualifies as cricket IMO.

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.


Ponting's problem with the format is just the same as some of the other people on here, they've already decided they don't like it before they've given it a chance. Then you get this state of mind where these people feel like they've got to moan about it at every opportunity and it reinforces their dislike and others dislike.

 

[steds]

Twenty20 cricket is mainly entertainment

The whole point of cricket is entertainment. People forget that.

 

[silentstriker]

Lol I love that.

Just watching Aiden Blizzard's knock the other night, the first couple of huge 6s he hit were decent, but when he lost the ball 4 or 5 times in the match it was obvious that young fans who are brought up on this are going to struggle to appreciate the subtlety of a Donald/Athertonesque battle in test cricket.

How is that different from people who are brought up in ODI cricket and accuse Dravid of batting too slow?

 

[TT Boy]

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.


Ponting's problem with the format is just the same as some of the other people on here, they've already decided they don't like it before they've given it a chance. Then you get this state of mind where these people feel like they've got to moan about it at every opportunity and it reinforces their dislike and others dislike.

 

[Stumped]

was reading the paper this morning and glanced over an article that said "Leeman: No more 20/20"

 

[superkingdave]

was reading the paper this morning and glanced over an article that said "Leeman: No more 20/20"

Pretty sure that was Danny Leeman

He's had a few bad nights on the 20/20 recently

 

[Stumped]

Pretty sure that was Danny Leeman

He's had a few bad nights on the 20/20 recently

....couldnt rememeber how to spell his name...darren's that is

 

[howardj]

Well done to players like Ponting and Lehmann for speaking their mind on Twenty20 and, in my view, putting the long-term interests of cricket first.

 

[social]

20/20 is like sevens rugby - it has it's roots in a sport but bears little resemblance to the original version

That's not such a bad thing, when you consider its' popularity but IMO they should treat it the same as 7s - create a separate itinerary, use specialists, have festivals where the object is to drink as much beer as possible using the tournament as an excuse, etc

If I were an established test player, the only reason I'd consider going to the 20/20 WC is to receive a paid holiday to SA

 

[Stumped]

20/20 is like sevens rugby - it has it's roots in a sport but bears little resemblance to the original version

That's not such a bad thing, when you consider its' popularity but IMO they should treat it the same as 7s - create a separate itinerary, use specialists, have festivals where the object is to drink as much beer as possible using the tournament as an excuse, etc

If I were an established test player, the only reason I'd consider going to the 20/20 WC is to receive a paid holiday to SA

ah! thats a prefect comparison, i like it!!

 

[adharcric]

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.

You know, accusing someone of having all the wrong content and then refusing to show why any of it is wrong won't give you much credibility. Just some advice.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well done to players like Ponting and Lehmann for speaking their mind on Twenty20 and, in my view, putting the long-term interests of cricket first.

See, Lehmann didn't really do that. If anything he was looking out for the best interests of Twenty20, and hoping that administrators don't saturate the fans with the game, otherwise the fans and money it brings to them will soon run out.

 

[pasag]

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.


Ponting's problem with the format is just the same as some of the other people on here, they've already decided they don't like it before they've given it a chance. Then you get this state of mind where these people feel like they've got to moan about it at every opportunity and it reinforces their dislike and others dislike.

Haha where do you get off? Easily the worst post of the year for mine. Not only was it condescending and patronising, but as adharcric pointed out, you've basically told Faaip "you're wrong" without providing any reason why. Then you have the nerve to say that people agree with him because it's "written nicely". Honestly, you're infuriating.

 

[adharcric]

The whole point of cricket is entertainment. People forget that.

The whole point of cricket is different at different levels. Sometimes it's entertainment, sometimes it's competition, sometimes it's national pride, sometimes it's appreciating the subtleties of strategy, momentum shifts or uncertainty. Perhaps you can call these various forms of entertainment, but that varies from fan to fan and that's why some fans feel that one-day cricket is entertaining while test cricket is boring and others feel quite the opposite. In the end, a format that is popular with fans will survive and one that is not will not.

 

[adharcric]

All three formats have their respective strengths and weaknesses. In twenty20 cricket, batsmen don't put a high price on their wicket, shifts in momentum are less likely to occur and bowlers often aim to restrict runs rather than take wickets; yet, scoring quickly and bowling economically also require skills. In one-day cricket, the middle overs offer an opportunity for batsmen and bowlers alike to recover the advantage and the powerplay and slog overs virtually entail twenty20 cricket; for this reason, I consider one-day cricket superior to twenty20 cricket. In test cricket, a higher degree of strategy comes into play and there are lengthy contests between bat and ball. Each format offers varying degrees of aggression in run-scoring and wicket-taking and varying opportunities for shifts in strategy and momentum; additionally, each format dictates varying temperaments.

Perhaps we will see innovations in twenty20 cricket just like we have in one-day and test cricket (for example, Kaluwitharana in the one-day format). Furthermore, I'm not sure you can call a format bad just because Dravid or Kallis doesn't excel in it. That's a matter of personal preference IMO. I'm actually looking forward to the twenty20 World Cup. Time and fans will tell which format is ideal and popular.

 

[Goughy]

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.

Ponting's problem with the format is just the same as some of the other people on here, they've already decided they don't like it before they've given it a chance. Then you get this state of mind where these people feel like they've got to moan about it at every opportunity and it reinforces their dislike and others dislike.

Haha where do you get off? Easily the worst post of the year for mine. Not only was it condescending and patronising, but as adharcric pointed out, you've basically told Faaip "you're wrong" without providing any reason why. Then you have the nerve to say that people agree with him because it's "written nicely". Honestly, you're infuriating.

No doubt the tone of Scaly's post may be infuriating to some but there is an underlying point.

I suspect that the point is, Twenty/20 (as a format) is in its infancy in Australia. In the UK there has been much more time for the format and its role to settle down and for people to feel comfortable with it. As the shock and novelty has worn off, people are increasingly appreciating it for its challenges and competition. You have to remember that 20/20 tactics have changed massively in a relatively short period of time as the nuances have become increasingly understood and the game has been taken more seriously.

I suspect the reason why he phrased his response in the way he did is that the voices coming out of Australia and India are similar to many of those those that came from the UK a few years ago. Things have changed in the UK over the past few years but the massive numbers of critics in the beginning should never be forgotten. Their numbers have lessened as they have witnessed and experience more of the format. So it is with the additional years of exposure and experience to 20/20 that he is commentating.

20/20 is new and different and it takes some getting used to by all. I do not think it is unfair to suggest that members of the English cricketing public are further down the lines of this evolution and can look back and recognise issues that were raised, pointed out but ultimately successfully overcome from their recent 20/20 past being brought up elsewhere.

 

[adharcric]

Goughy, I think you misunderstood the objection a few of us have with scaly piscine's post. The final portion is quite valid and he actually makes a decent point.
Here's the part that is pathetic IMO ...

I'm afraid you're just displaying your complete ignorance of the Twenty20 game here (and as usual because it's written nicely a bunch of people say it's a good post regardless of content...)

Basically everything you say is wrong in so many contexts, I've bolded the only bit that's actually right.

He rubbishes the content in Fuller's post and then fails to address that content at all. Perhaps you should address the points (made by Fuller) that scaly piscine called "wrong".

 

[Jono]

I suspect the reason why he phrased his response in the way he did is that the voices coming out of Australia and India are similar to many of those those that came from the UK a few years ago.

He phrases all his patronising posts like that.

 

[ash chaulk]

best format going around ole 20/20

 

[James90]

Twenty20 is great as an exhibition match or as a pre-season carnival. I'm yet to warm to it as a tournament like the World Cup or Big Bash. It really isn't a bad game though and having attended the game against South Africa last year it's fantastic for the spectators.

I agree with Fuller when he explains why it's not a great contest and for that reason I don't want to see it taken too seriously.