• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why is everyone so against 20/20?

pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Scaly piscine said:
There was more than one poster who said 'great post' to Fuller's self-confessed bit of a joke...
Click to expand...
No you idiot, the post was making fun of you more than anything. That's why it was so good. He imitated your idiotic 'simplifying' style to, pretty much show how dumb your initial post really was. I thought that was pretty clear and part of why his post was so good.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
Scaly piscine said:
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.
Click to expand...
So ****ing insufferable sometimes.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
pasag said:
No you idiot, the post was making fun of you more than anything. That's why it was so good. He imitated your idiotic 'simplifying' style to, pretty much show how dumb your initial post really was. I thought that was pretty clear and part of why his post was so good.
Click to expand...
This whole thing is hilarious :laugh:
Also a bit tragic I think. :mellow:
No its a fiasco...but its fun. :)
 
sideshowtim

sideshowtim

Banned
I'm not too worried about 20/20. It has the ability to become very tired very quickly. I think people are already starting to get sick of it. One match per tour is fine in my books, yet It's when they start expanding it into series when I think it's silly. It won't take over the game.
 
The Big Cheese

The Big Cheese

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
pasag said:
Haha, actually the few times I've spoken to him in a group MSN convo or regarding battrick he's pretty good. But when one of his pet topics like this, Ricky Gervias, Pakistan or New Zealand come up, he turns into an absolute monster.
Click to expand...
Whats he got against Ricky Gervais? I love that guy!
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
TBH Scaly has a point when he says you get players out alot more in 20/20, but most of the other posts going on about "Big Name" posters is just crap, otherwise all the members that aren't "big names" wouldn't ge tpeople agreeing with them would they?
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
FaaipDeOiad said:
90% of 20/20 dismissals are skied slogs ffs. How is that "getting a batsman out"?
Click to expand...
b Bowler c Catcher
Usually.

If you bowl well, chances are that when they do attempt a risky stroke you will be rewarded. Its not the same as in the other forms of cricket but it won't be rewarding crap bowlers in the long term and I think eventually we will be able to discern what is good, in this game.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
FaaipDeOiad said:
90% of 20/20 dismissals are skied slogs ffs. How is that "getting a batsman out"?
Click to expand...
See, this is the calibre of 'argument' from the Twenty20 haters...

Apart from it being wrong, it's no worse than the way ODI players get out - such as batsmen smack it to an infielder, they try to clear a fielder and don't quite get it - they're regular dismissals that happen in ALL limited overs cricket. Some of them happen because you deceive the batsmen or put pressure on them, some are just random and have nothing to do with the bowler.

In Twenty20 there's usually some bounce and movement with the new ball throughout the innings, bowl well you'll beat the bat and get people out because batsmen nearly always have to be aggressive against all bowling - at worst you'll have a much better economy rate compared to lesser bowlers. Good bowling is well rewarded far better in Twenty20 than in ODs.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Flem274* said:
TBH Scaly has a point when he says you get players out alot more in 20/20, but most of the other posts going on about "Big Name" posters is just crap, otherwise all the members that aren't "big names" wouldn't ge tpeople agreeing with them would they?
Click to expand...
Err yes they would because it's unusual for an opinion to be held by just the odd person and then even more unusual for them to express it (because they don't want to look like an arse by breaking away from the herd of sheep, probability comes into the overall situation as well). Me, I couldn't give a toss what you lot think.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Athlai said:
b Bowler c Catcher
Usually.

If you bowl well, chances are that when they do attempt a risky stroke you will be rewarded. Its not the same as in the other forms of cricket but it won't be rewarding crap bowlers in the long term and I think eventually we will be able to discern what is good, in this game.
Click to expand...
Well that's a bit different, and yes obviously there are forms of "good" and "bad" bowling in 20/20, it's merely that the standards and requirements are totally different, and the traditional idea of dismissing a batsman through quality bowling is pretty much irrelevant in 20/20, mainly because of the batting tactics adopted and the lack of significance of wickets when they do come. A batsman charging a part-time medium pacer and getting caught at deep midwicket is still a dismissal, but I certianly don't see how it is "getting a batsman out" in any but the most literal interpretations. A form of the game where slips are a liability even in the first half a dozen overs of the match is never going to encourage attacking cricket or good bowling.

Anyway, as far as not rewarding crap bowlers is concerned, I don't really know what you're on about. The best bowling figures in domestic 20/20 in Australia this season went to a batsman who had never taken a wicket in domestic cricket before. He took 6. The equal "all-time" leading wicket takers in international 20/20 are Andrew Symonds and Paul Collingwood. I'd say that says quite a bit about the format.

Though it should be noted that a lot of the better bowlers in Australian domestic cricket didn't play all the 20/20 fixtures, so that does make a difference to the stats.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
FaaipDeOiad said:
Well that's a bit different, and yes obviously there are forms of "good" and "bad" bowling in 20/20, it's merely that the standards and requirements are totally different, and the traditional idea of dismissing a batsman through quality bowling is pretty much irrelevant in 20/20, mainly because of the batting tactics adopted and the lack of significance of wickets when they do come. A batsman charging a part-time medium pacer and getting caught at deep midwicket is still a dismissal, but I certianly don't see how it is "getting a batsman out" in any but the most literal interpretations. A form of the game where slips are a liability even in the first half a dozen overs of the match is never going to encourage attacking cricket or good bowling.
Click to expand...
You do not have a clue about Twenty20. Seriously.

It's not even worth bothering going through all that as it'd take forever because it's so fundamentally wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top