Langeveldt
Soutie
Replace 20/20 with ODI cricket, and I'm afraid you'd have a pointYeah...along with 20/20 .
-
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?
- Thread starter headhunter
- Start date
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
That's bollocks. If you didn't care you wouldn't bother replying to our arguments, indeed, you wouldn't bother even posting in an internet forum at all - after all, that's the point.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I was referring to thoughts on me personally, as was somewhat implied by the rest of what I said there. I'd find being vilified fairly amusing actually to be honest.
Athlai
Not Terrible
In 20/20, what it takes to be a good bowler is to not lose your head. When bowlers begin to compensate for getting hit to the boundary they usually present an even easier target. For the greater part in all the 20/20's I've seen (NZ internationals, Aus vs Eng, NZ state 20/20) the bowlers who are consistent and tight, are the ones who take wickets. Sure in this form of the game batsmen are playing dangerously, which makes it even simpler for the bowler to get them out. A level headed bowler will know that they are aiming to take around 6-8 runs an over, if I can give them less than that then I will probably get a wicket.
In that way its similar to ODI, if pressure mounts up then wickets usually come a-crashing down.
And as for lesser bowlers taking more wickets (though you may be right in the better ones not being able to play), I believe I've heard Richard say, form is temporary, class is forever.
Bowlers that can get hit out of the park will get hit out of the park. Talented bowlers just need to keep their head.
Its a similar game, if your good at the others you should be good at this one.
The rules have just changed a little is all.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
One can only hope.....Replace 20/20 with ODI cricket, and I'm afraid you'd have a point
pup11
International Coach
No batsman is waiting for a bad ball to play his shots in a Twenty20 game, whether its a good ball or a bad one in a Twenty20 game a batsman would always go for a slog (unless the batsman is Chris Martin or M.Patel because they won't be able to touch the ball).
So as a bowler you just try to pitch the ball in the right places and hope for the best!!
So as a bowler you just try to pitch the ball in the right places and hope for the best!!
Flem274*
123/5
We're getting an insight into how the mind of the infamous Scaly Piscine works.
Obviously you must find being told you're such and such amusing, otherwise you would have been beaten into submission by the "Big Name" posters.
Though Scaly, you do realize you're a "big name" poster as well don't you? For different reasons of course.
Though you do have a valid point about 20/20. It's a game where batsmen attack from the word go, so if a few dot balls are strung together in succesion the pressure builds. If the batsman canot keep his composure and plays a dumb shot it could mean the end of him. If the bowler cannot keep things tight, he gets smashed.
Though in my totally wrong NZ opinion, I don't think 20/20 will last long, sixes and fours are meant to be exciting but after a while in 20/20 they become extremely dull.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No the batsmen don't just always go for a slog, they'll usually look to play one of their favourite shots or aim for their favourite area because that way actually means you get more than 100 all out. Look at what happens when sides decide to really go for it in the power plays in ODIs, or in the last few overs - they don't just slog at every ball.
Loye goes for his sweep shot, Nixon aims for midwicket, Hayden just runs down and plays over the top straight. The experienced canny players all have their ways of going about hitting boundaries when they feel they need to. A good bowler will make them have to try something different.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You quoting from Hingston at the moment is really, really confusing.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Yeah, and he's got a Donald Avatar... If he was more succesful with the ladies, he could well be me..You quoting from Hingston at the moment is really, really confusing.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nice one mate.
Personally, I love a good game of 20:20. Though it would be better if Wellington played Heath Davis.
I did enjoy *that* game where Graeme Aldridge bowled a no-ball to Andre Adams with 10 required off one ball... Belted for four and the re-bowled ball smashed out of the park. I'm a big fan of Aldridge, but maybe that showed he doesn't have the mental cojones?
Wellington's Mark Houghton had a good debut in the 20:20 this year. Good player.
Other that that, I've seen a few games at the Rose Bowl and County Ground, Chelmsford. Good game for a laugh, very enjoyable - but hopefully the 'skills' won't transfer over into test match cricket else some piss poor batting will be exposed pretty quickly.
Fiery
Banned
Brain testicles?
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What are you implying? Do you find the idea of brain testicles confusing? Do you not have a pair of your own?
Fiery
Banned
My testicles are my brains I think
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I don't really understand how people can blast 20/20 as some sort of pervsion of the game that removes the balance between bat and ball, and then in the next breath sing the praises of ODIs, which do the exact same thing (870 runs in so called the 'greatest odi ever' played in a single day is not a perversion?).
If you don't like the format, fair enough. I personally don't care for any limited overs format because I think it's all a perversion of real cricket. But ODIs are basically 20/20 but more boring. ODIs have defensive bowling and attacking batting, except it lasts for 50 overs so they can't attack as much. The bowling is almost always still defensive.
So basically for a large period of time in ODIs, you have negative bowling coupled with negative batting. Yea, that's excitement for you....
While I agree that 20/20 removes the bowlers, people don't realize that ODI does the same thing. When the best fast bowler in the world can't even make his own ODI team (Ntini), it tells me all I need to know about the format being a 'balance between bat and ball' tbh.
Would I be happier if both the formats were removed? Yes. But unfortunately, that is not economically fesable and if I had to choose a limited overs game, it would be 20/20 over ODI simply because:
And no, going for 60 runs in 20 overs in Tests is completely different because that's usually OK for a batting side, and it is usually accompanied by aggressive bowling, which is fun to watch unlike ODI. I quite possibly watch more cricket than any other person on the forums, and my eyes still glaze over after the power play ends, because it's basically trench warfare until the 40th over.
If you don't like the format, fair enough. I personally don't care for any limited overs format because I think it's all a perversion of real cricket. But ODIs are basically 20/20 but more boring. ODIs have defensive bowling and attacking batting, except it lasts for 50 overs so they can't attack as much. The bowling is almost always still defensive.
So basically for a large period of time in ODIs, you have negative bowling coupled with negative batting. Yea, that's excitement for you....
While I agree that 20/20 removes the bowlers, people don't realize that ODI does the same thing. When the best fast bowler in the world can't even make his own ODI team (Ntini), it tells me all I need to know about the format being a 'balance between bat and ball' tbh.
Would I be happier if both the formats were removed? Yes. But unfortunately, that is not economically fesable and if I had to choose a limited overs game, it would be 20/20 over ODI simply because:
- It's over faster
- It doesn't make any bones about what it is
- It removes the boring part of ODIs (middle overs, where teams like SL just go for 20 overs for 60 and both sides kind of let it happen).
And no, going for 60 runs in 20 overs in Tests is completely different because that's usually OK for a batting side, and it is usually accompanied by aggressive bowling, which is fun to watch unlike ODI. I quite possibly watch more cricket than any other person on the forums, and my eyes still glaze over after the power play ends, because it's basically trench warfare until the 40th over.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The fact that the "best" Test bowler in The World can't make his own ODI team tells me several things, personally...
1, The two games are different - yes, we know that. What's wrong with someone being good at one and poor at another? That's just elitist nonsense on the part of the Tests-are-all-that's-worthy gang. I don't normally get on my high horse on you over this, but that pisses me off I'm afraid.
2, Ntini, if he really is the best seamer in The World, which is highly debatable, is merely the best of an average bunch. It's not exactly a big secret that the quality of seam-bowling hasn't been what it mostly is these last 6 or 7 years.
3, He was only dropped for a couple of games due to not-the-best form, FFS! Has that never happened to anyone else?
And NOT EVERYONE calls that 434-plays-438 game the best ODI ever! Quite untrue. Most, indeed, on this forum say that while it was a thrilling game (which it was) that it falls behind some of the lower-scoring ones which had equal twists and turns, plus obviously the close finish which is the basic prerequistite.
And finally - the view that end-of-powerplays = snooze-time is IMO the biggest load of nonsense ever spoken about the ODI game. What, exactly, is wrong with some good defensive bowling and field-setting, combined with batsmen trying to work their way around it? Is it an abomination to the game for a single "defensive" or "negative" thing to be done? Piss off is it. Attack and defence are all a part of the game of cricket, and there are times in ODIs - many of them - where both are neccessary on the part of both the bowler and the batsman.
1, The two games are different - yes, we know that. What's wrong with someone being good at one and poor at another? That's just elitist nonsense on the part of the Tests-are-all-that's-worthy gang. I don't normally get on my high horse on you over this, but that pisses me off I'm afraid.
2, Ntini, if he really is the best seamer in The World, which is highly debatable, is merely the best of an average bunch. It's not exactly a big secret that the quality of seam-bowling hasn't been what it mostly is these last 6 or 7 years.
3, He was only dropped for a couple of games due to not-the-best form, FFS! Has that never happened to anyone else?
And NOT EVERYONE calls that 434-plays-438 game the best ODI ever! Quite untrue. Most, indeed, on this forum say that while it was a thrilling game (which it was) that it falls behind some of the lower-scoring ones which had equal twists and turns, plus obviously the close finish which is the basic prerequistite.
And finally - the view that end-of-powerplays = snooze-time is IMO the biggest load of nonsense ever spoken about the ODI game. What, exactly, is wrong with some good defensive bowling and field-setting, combined with batsmen trying to work their way around it? Is it an abomination to the game for a single "defensive" or "negative" thing to be done? Piss off is it. Attack and defence are all a part of the game of cricket, and there are times in ODIs - many of them - where both are neccessary on the part of both the bowler and the batsman.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Well, if wanting to preserve Test cricket, and thinking that it is the highest (or the only) form of the game is elitist, then I am proud to be one TBH. I hate the limited overs format. I hate the idea of it, I hate the execution of it, I hate the fact that it has taken over the international scene at the detriment of real cricket, and I hate the fact that when a overblown, over hyped piece of ****e tournament like the World Cup rolls around, the real game takes a back seat.
Yes, I suppose that makes me an elitist and part of a very small population of people, but so be it.
2. Fair enough, he's not an all time great seamer, but he's still very good.Richard said:
3. Sure it has, but would he be dropped from the Test side right now?
There is nothing 'wrong' with it in the sense that it is what is needed to win the game. But that's precisely my point - that fact that such strategies are almost essential to win a game. It's not like it's just a couple overs here and there. It's at least 40% of the overs in every game!Richard said: