Does a ''real'' cricket fan have to hate LOI and/or consider them irrelevant?

[Adders]

Thanks for the tip Hurricane, I'll keep that in mind next time I feel the urge to crack a joke.

 

[Maximas]

This is all very nice but a 'real' cricket fan has to hate Jono or consider him irrelevant

 

[the big bambino]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks jono's a ****.

 

[Adders]

This is all very nice but a 'real' cricket fan has to hate Jono or consider him irrelevant

Oi!! If your names not Benchy you've got no business making fun at Jonos expense Max. Don't get ideas above your station son.

 

[Maximas]

Oi!! If your names not Benchy you've got no business making fun at Jonos expense Max. Don't get ideas above your station son.

My joke actually got Hurricane's endorsement (unless he was being ironic), so I think I'm pretty safe on that one tbf

 

[OverratedSanity]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks jono's a ****.

Yeah but no one calls Jono a big baby

 

[Daemon]

Could this be a subtle hint from PEWS telling us to stop calling him a ****?

 

[Adders]

My joke actually got Hurricane's endorsement (unless he was being ironic), so I think I'm pretty safe on that one tbf

Perhaps you're one of the pros Max?? Hurricane should give us a list so we all know who can or can't call Jono a ****??

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah but no one calls Jono a big baby

 

[Jassy]

I think this argument is neither here nor there personally. I've seen a lot of international stars look genuinely disappointed to lose meaningless domestic t20 and IPL, BBL matches. The adverse impact either victory or defeat on their emotional state is not something one should use in an argument to justify which format of cricket is more fulfilling and rewarding in general.

Whilst I'm not trying to diminish Sangakkara or Jayawardenes reaction to the win, that emotion must be put into context with their retirements from this form. When you play your last game for your country as we've seen many times before it is a very emotional event win or lose. Of course I'm not denying that emotion wasn't vastly heightened by winning a WC final though.

Both you and Jono have adopted this line of argument "see how much it means to the players, so it must be important" And it's not really working for me. Go and watch any park cricket or football grand final and you will see the same sorts of celebrations after a win.......it doesn't matter what the level, format or contest, when you get a team of players heavily invested in it, it will mean everything to them...........that alone doesn't make it important or significant in the grand scheme of things.

I think you've pretty much got it right with your list of importance of events for Aus (Eng the same of course) and India (all sub cont sides the same with the exception of India/Pak test series) so we pretty much agree here anyway. But you can see wild celebrations in your lowest ranked contest, the jam ODI's.......check out Australia's celebrations after James Faulkners heroics in the ODI game in Brisbane this summer.

I did say no professional sportsman likes losing (not sure about Salman Butt ) and they do get disappointed even in the IPLs and BBLs as you rightly mention. I was talking about how they reacted. The only two times I've seen players get so emotional in recent years have been India after the 2011 WC and Australia after the recent Ashes win.

The last match reasoning doesn't really work for me either. The only team that seems to enjoy playing random T20Is outside of the World T20 is Pakistan. Apart from them, teams barey play international T20s. I read somewhere that India played something like 4 T20Is (IIRC) in the time period between World T20 2012-World T20 2014, so I don't think that would have been a factor.

I think we're all agreeing on a lot of points but we're trying to argue different things. It's like me saying money is not the most important factor from a player's POV and that is countered by you saying he wouldn't play if he didn't get paid. My only question is...if something means so much to the players and if the same thing draws more crowds than bilateral test series (the crowds for the recent test series between SA and Aus were dreadful in general; we're talking number 1 and number 2 going at it!) then how long are we going to say it doesn't count or it is a joke format?

As for the Aus game in Brisbane, well we were down and out in that game and England looked all set to win their first game on tour. That they lost the game from an almost unbeatable situation was an indictment of Australia's out and out dominance over their biggest rivals in that series. No doubt England's post 2005 success added to it all. I'm not saying that players don't celebrate normal ODI wins (or even IPL or BBL wins for that matter). In some cases, you even have players clearly playing to the audience...case in point Andrew Symonds equating MI winning the Champions League to Australia winning the WC!!!


Out of curiosity, would you swap the test series win in India for a WC(the proper one)? Why or why not?

 

[Adders]

then how long are we going to say it doesn't count or it is a joke format?

Just for the record I don't think that. I may not think that highly of T20 as a contest but I'm not that stuck in my ways or arrogant even to dismiss it like that. I really think this WC needs to be every 4 years though which would give it more importance and relevance.

Out of curiosity, would you swap the test series win in India for a WC(the proper one)? Why or why not?

Man that's actually a tough question. We have both agreed that the ODI WC comes next after the Ashes in importance for us, and considering England have never won a ODI WC that would be an incredible thing to achieve. But having said that winning in India I rate a bigger success than the 2010/11 Ashes win (FMD, both seem like another lifetime away now )

I think I possibly would take a ODI WC win over the test win in India but it is a ****ing close call.

How about you??, 4 ODI WC wins and only 1 recent Indian test series win.........does that change it for you??

 

[artvandalay]

They celebrated harder after they won the game against us in the last over of that match in the Asia Cup than they did in the final. What do you have to say about that?

Very funny Anushka.

 

[Howe_zat]

This might be surprising from someone many here might consider a Test/FC cricket snob, but I actually do disagree with that. It's doesn't require more skill; it just requires different skills - skills that are more admirable perhaps, and skills that are more applicable to the traditional ethos of cricket definitely, but not necessarily more.

The difference between the best and worst players in Test cricket is not really any bigger than the difference between the best and worst players in international T20 cricket for mine, indicating the amount of skill required is pretty similar. Some of the world's best Test players are terrible T20 players for no lack of trying to improve their games; it's just a matter of different demands for different games.

I don't think that's really true. The skills are different, sure, but they have to be deployed over a shorter time period and as so much less consistently in order to be successful. You must agree that it's far more likely for an upset to occur in T20 than Tests? I think that shows that skill between the best players and the average players is smaller.

As for the latter point - I'm struggling to think of any. Established Test players are often a bit less less effective in T20, and can get overlooked in favour of somewhat better suited (usually just younger) options, but is there really a Test player who was outright terrible in the format?

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think that's really true. The skills are different, sure, but they have to be deployed over a shorter time period and as so much less consistently in order to be successful. You must agree that it's far more likely for an upset to occur in T20 than Tests? I think that shows that skill between the best players and the average players is smaller.

I don't think it shows that at all; I just think it shows the games are shorter. It's not harder to be a good Test player than it is to be a good T20 player. It's easier to fluke a good one-off performance in T20 cricket, but that's not quite the same thing. A Test is about the length of eleven T20 matches, so a fairer comparison in terms of "likelihood of upset" would be to see how often an underdog won an eleven-game T20 series as opposed to how often an underdog won a Test.

As for the latter point - I'm struggling to think of any. Established Test players are often a bit less less effective in T20, and can get overlooked in favour of somewhat better suited (usually just younger) options, but is there really a Test player who was outright terrible in the format?

Michael Clarke, Che Pujara, VVS Laxman, Vernon Philander and James Anderson spring to mind immediately - world class Test players who aren't/weren't anywhere close to making their nation's T20 sides once the dust settled. Chris Rogers is not quite a world class batsman either, but he's the second best Test opener in Australia and can't get himself selected in an eight-team domestic T20 competition even when the limited overs international players aren't available for it and he's contracted to the worst side is the competition.

 

[Spark]

I don't think it shows that at all; I just think it shows the games are shorter. It's not harder to be a good Test player than it is to be a good T20 player. It's easier to fluke a good one-off performance in T20 cricket, but that's not quite the same thing. A Test is about the length of eleven T20 matches, so a fairer comparison in terms of "likelihood of upset" would be to see how often an underdog won an eleven-game T20 series as opposed to how often an underdog won a Test.

There's an argument that the compressed, random nature of T20 does make it easier to be a good T20 player, though - lower skill ceilings and all that.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's an argument that the compressed, random nature of T20 does make it easier to be a good T20 player, though - lower skill ceilings and all that.

Oh, there's an argument? Well that's my mind changed.

 

[Jassy]

How about you??, 4 ODI WC wins and only 1 recent Indian test series win.........does that change it for you??

This may sound like a bit of a cop out but because I support both Ind and Aus, their matches don't really interest me in that I don't really bother about the result. I'd take a WC over series wins in SL and Pak though.

 

[Jassy]

Prince Ews, if it's easier to fluke a good performance in T20 doesn't it logically follow that it is therefore easier to succeed in that format?

 

[Prince EWS]

Prince Ews, if it's easier to fluke a good performance in T20 doesn't it logically follow that it is therefore easier to succeed in that format?

It's easier to succeed on a one-off basis. I don't think it's easier to actually be a good player over any sort of sustained period though; over time we've seen the gap between the best and worst players in terms of average performance or frequency of outstanding performance be quite similar to that in Test cricket IMO.

I think it's fair to say you need to play more games of T20 cricket for it to be considered a "meaningful sample" so to speak, but you do get there. I don't think the skills themselves are easier/harder than in Test cricket; just less likely to translate into results over the course of one match because it's shorter.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think we're at cross-purposes at bit. Limiting the amount of overs so significantly changes the game from Test cricket to T20 cricket in two ways:

1. It literally just makes it shorter.
2. The shortness of it fundamentally changes the way the game is played (ie. we don't just see 40 overs of Test cricket in a T20).

Obviously, #1 makes upsets and fluke one-off performances more likely because good cricket doesn't have to be sustained for as long. The more games you play, the less this 'problem' exists, but there's no doubt resutls and personal performances are less predictable due to the shortness of the game.

My point, however, is that #2 does not make T20 easier, just different. Raina isn't a vastly superior T20 player to what he is a Test player because T20 is easier or more prone to flukes, but because his skillset is far more suited to it. He's really not intrinsically a worse cricketer than someone like Pujara unless you give much greater importance to Test cricket - which most of us do, but not because it really is harder, but because we like or value the skills it rewards more. This is probably because they adhere more greatly to the ethos of cricket and why most of us are cricket fans, and not because they're actually more difficult to develop.