marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Scaly piscine said:"There is nothing good about Twenty20 cricket. People who disagree don't know what they are talking about."
Hmm, sounds familiar to me...
Scaly piscine said:"There is nothing good about Twenty20 cricket. People who disagree don't know what they are talking about."
haha, or reality TV? Or Britney?Swervy said:you never heard of Robbie Williams then???
Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!FaaipDeOiad said:Interesting. I saw an interview with Michael Clarke after he won the AB medal the other night, and he was asked about playing 20/20 cricket in England. He said that it was very popular and so on, and then said that he thought it was the sort of game the fans would enjoy a lot more than the players, who would rather play the longer forms of the game. Then he said that it would be good because it would bring new fans into the game etc etc.
I simply asked because I've heard quite a few players saying this sort of things, and in all the positive commentary on it of late I hadn't read anything saying that it was actually fun to play.
Looks like another format where SA is doomed to failure then... every game has a real chance of a another Kabir Ali last over type event - now who seriously wouldn't want to see that apart from the dozen or so Saffie fans and Langeveldt?Neil Pickup said:Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!
Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.
For once I tend to agree with you.Scaly piscine said:Looks like another format where SA is doomed to failure then... every game has a real chance of a another Kabir Ali last over type event - now who seriously wouldn't want to see that apart from the dozen or so Saffie fans and Langeveldt?
Yes I was wrong there is popular rubbish, I cant bloody stand reality TV.Son Of Coco said:haha, or reality TV? Or Britney?
With due respect, West Indies no longer deserve a 5 Test Series against Australia unless all other teams get one.Mr Mxyzptlk said:When it starts pushing Test matches out of the picture (see WI in Aus), it's a problem.
Top bowlers like being spanked for 8-10 runs an over? And like having 2 over spells, where they have no time to 'work out' a batsman, which is what cricket is about.Neil Pickup said:Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.
remember that the general consensus from the guys who played it in grade cricket was that it was fantastic but most of that seemed to come from the batsman. then when i played it as a bowler, i realise that there is no way that, from a bowling point of view, you can enjoy the challenge of twenty20. it takes the brain out of cricket. good on michael holding for speaking out. i can go down to the local park and watch guys slog, i cant watch them graft hundreds of pure class. get rid of the bubblegum.Neil Pickup said:Clarke's just bitter that he struggled all summer!
Most of the things I've read and heard from the players is that they enjoy it and relish the cerebral challenge.
Sir Redman said:I tend to agree with Holding here. Cricket is not meant to be a fast-food, short-and-sweet game. The nature of it encourages long, toughly fought matches...thats what makes it appealing to some people.
Just because so many in the general public have the attention span of a fish doesn't mean we have to bow to their cluelessness and dumb down cricket so Joe Moron and Jane Ignoramus can watch it without being bored
EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry
You obviously missed Ian Harveys 100 in last years Twenty20 Cup, every shot was hit clean and were proper cricket shots. Big hitting doesn't have to mean slogging.vic_orthdox said:remember that the general consensus from the guys who played it in grade cricket was that it was fantastic but most of that seemed to come from the batsman. then when i played it as a bowler, i realise that there is no way that, from a bowling point of view, you can enjoy the challenge of twenty20. it takes the brain out of cricket. good on michael holding for speaking out. i can go down to the local park and watch guys slog, i cant watch them graft hundreds of pure class. get rid of the bubblegum.
I dont think its about attention span with most people its about time, and most people dont even have time to sit around for an ODI these days let alone a 5 day Test Match.Sir Redman said:I tend to agree with Holding here. Cricket is not meant to be a fast-food, short-and-sweet game. The nature of it encourages long, toughly fought matches...thats what makes it appealing to some people.
Just because so many in the general public have the attention span of a fish doesn't mean we have to bow to their cluelessness and dumb down cricket so Joe Moron and Jane Ignoramus can watch it without being bored
EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry
don't be sorry. a goldfish has an attention span of only three seconds. it wanders to one side of the fishbowl, then forgets whats on the other side, so thats why it swims back, and continues to do so for hours on end.Sir Redman said:EDIT: I apologise if I offended any fish who happen to be reading...I was searching for a suitable simile and couldn't think of one so sadly fish took the hit. I dont know they average attention span of each type of fish and it was foolish of me to think that fish are less attentive than humans. Really, Im sorry
yeh, i probably used to term "slogging" too freely. my point is, as a batsman in a twenty20 game, once a bowler builds up pressure on you, its your job to try and play a big shot, and if you throw away your wicket, it is not nearly as big a deal as there are only 20 overs to bat out. even in a 50 over game, the batsman has to battle against the bowler to keep his wicket for the benefit of the team, in a twenty20 he is doing the right thing by the team by getting out.one dayer said:You obviously missed Ian Harveys 100 in last years Twenty20 Cup, every shot was hit clean and were proper cricket shots. Big hitting doesn't have to mean slogging.
Yes the batsmen are trying to keep their wicket in the 50 over game mostly so they can slog their way through the last 10 overs.vic_orthdox said:yeh, i probably used to term "slogging" too freely. my point is, as a batsman in a twenty20 game, once a bowler builds up pressure on you, its your job to try and play a big shot, and if you throw away your wicket, it is not nearly as big a deal as there are only 20 overs to bat out. even in a 50 over game, the batsman has to battle against the bowler to keep his wicket for the benefit of the team, in a twenty20 he is doing the right thing by the team by getting out.
Well there is a battle, just a different kind of battle. In this form of cricket its still the bowlers that win matches.vic_orthdox said:but there is an initial battle between bat and ball, even if it is for the intent of slogging later on. there is no (or very minimal) battle between bat and ball in a twenty20 game.
Come to India and watch the TV soaps from Balaji Telefilms of Ekta Kapoor.one_dayer said:How can it be 'rubbish' if it is so popular? I've never heard of popular rubbish.