Why is everyone so against 20/20?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hahaha, this is a mess.

 

[Jamee999]

I like Twenty20.

 

[SJS]

Hahaha, this is a mess.

Everyone loves a good post. Its just that each likes to read in it the meaning that best approximates their own views

 

[Matt79]

I must be slow cus i missed that. Mind you its been a while since i've read Fuller posts in CC in much depth, so its not surprising his jest in that post would go over my head. Mind you it seems Matt and Dale missed it as well.

Nah, I laughed at the time. But there's an old saying about "Many a true word's spoken in jest"...

 

[pup11]

So guys lets get back on track.... , ok then who are your favourites to win the Twenty20 WC.


And do you guys see lots of Twenty20 specialists making it into every teams squad rather than their regular odi players??

 

[chaminda_00]

So guys lets get back on track.... , ok then who are your favourites to win the Twenty20 WC.


And do you guys see lots of Twenty20 specialists making it into every teams squad rather than their regular odi players??

I've back three or four sides to send experimental sides, rather then Twenty20 specialist. Also outside England is there any Twenty20 specialist, most countries haven't played enough domestic matches to have specialist yet.

 

[Richard]

And, not that I'm especially concerned, but I'd back our selectors to leave such players out and simply pick a ODI side.

 

[Piper]

I think 20/20 Cricket is good for the sport. It's entertaining. It's fast and anything can happen with only having 20 overs to play with. I know a lot of people who don't watch test match cricket because they think it's boring, but watch 20/20 for it's more exciting and not as long.
I personally haven't seen a 20/20 match because they always seem to be on sky (grrr) but yeah I think I would like it

 

[BoyBrumby]

That post was actually a joke, I thought that was fairly clear.

I must be slow cus i missed that. Mind you its been a while since i've read Fuller posts in CC in much depth, so its not surprising his jest in that post would go over my head. Mind you it seems Matt and Dale missed it as well.

Yep, waaaay too subtle for me. Try a knob-gag next time.

 

[Swervy]

Go on then... gimme 'em.

well from memory..the final was a great game to watch..as were the semis

also, England vs WI part I (Walshs tears)
Aust vs India at the start of the tourny
Houghtons hundred vs NZ

etc etc

 

[Richard]

etc. etc.?

You've given me 3 games - there were 3 decent games this tourney (albeit out of more).

I asked you a genuine question (I've barely seen anything from that Cup, other than THE reverse-sweep and 1 or 2 other bits and pieces), and you give me an etc. etc....

 

[Dick Rockett]

as usual because it's a long-winded post by a 'big name' people say great post....

Have you ever wondered why, given that both you and Fuller have posted many thousands of times, people take his views far more seriously?

 

[Swervy]

etc. etc.?

You've given me 3 games - there were 3 decent games this tourney (albeit out of more).

I asked you a genuine question (I've barely seen anything from that Cup, other than THE reverse-sweep and 1 or 2 other bits and pieces), and you give me an etc. etc....

I am just going from memory.

There were loads less games in 87, and probably (again from memory) a quarter were close games, and another 50% were in the balance, probably only a few blow outs.

Also, the scoring rate for that tourny was a revelation for back then. It was great to see 'high' scoring where 250 was par.

 

[marc71178]

etc. etc.?

You've given me 3 games - there were 3 decent games this tourney (albeit out of more).

I can count 6...

 

[Scaly piscine]

Have you ever wondered why, given that both you and Fuller have posted many thousands of times, people take his views far more seriously?

People don't like hearing/reading the blunt truth. If you're long-winded enough, have a good writing style and mostly have opinions that a good few others agree with then you'll get idolised on here regardless of how poor your arguments, logic etc. are generally. People see the style and flair rather than the substance.

People don't have the time to read through stuff properly, can't be bothered to read them properly or aren't able to read through them properly. So you just get this 'great post' stuff and people repeat it when people have a quick skim over the original.

 

[adharcric]

People don't like hearing/reading the blunt truth. If you're long-winded enough, have a good writing style and mostly have opinions that a good few others agree with then you'll get idolised on here regardless of how poor your arguments, logic etc. are generally. People see the style and flair rather than the substance.

Don't assume that people don't see substance in other members' posts simply because they don't see any in yours.

 

[Richard]

Haha, is all there is to say, TBH. All else has been said or would be pointless saying. Probably both.

 

[SJS]

People don't like hearing/reading the blunt truth. If you're long-winded enough, have a good writing style and mostly have opinions that a good few others agree with then you'll get idolised on here regardless of how poor your arguments, logic etc. are generally. People see the style and flair rather than the substance.

People don't have the time to read through stuff properly, can't be bothered to read them properly or aren't able to read through them properly. So you just get this 'great post' stuff and people repeat it when people have a quick skim over the original.

Amusing

 

[Dick Rockett]

People don't like hearing/reading the blunt truth. If you're long-winded enough, have a good writing style and mostly have opinions that a good few others agree with then you'll get idolised on here regardless of how poor your arguments, logic etc. are generally. People see the style and flair rather than the substance.

People don't have the time to read through stuff properly, can't be bothered to read them properly or aren't able to read through them properly. So you just get this 'great post' stuff and people repeat it when people have a quick skim over the original.

Hahaha, is there are weekly award for "most deluded poster"?

 

[adharcric]

Hahaha, is there are weekly award for "most deluded poster"?

Just sent in a nomination.