***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Swervy]

Which would be okay IMO - at the moment it's trying to be a World Cup but isn't...

absolutley...at the moment that tournament is a waste of time esp with the likes of USA in there.

The shorter the game, the higher the possibility of the lesser teams pulling off an upset, which would actually encourage more people in those countries to think they have a chance of competing

 

[Jamee999]

Haha, well spotted. Something Australia has never achieved.

And, if Faaip had his own way, they'd never be able to

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So, anyone else think the ICC Match Fixing commision will be sniffing around this game?

They might sniff, but they won't find anything. Australia just played poor cricket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't know if will have any bearing on the ODIs & tests to come, but I really can't imagine any Australian player will have enjoyed that one iota.

You don't get to be the premier team in any form of cricket by enjoying the feeling of being thrashed.

As for the format, I enjoy it. It's no substitute for the real thing (tests), but it does away with the overs from 15-40 in ODIs which I personally find interminable.

 

[tooextracool]

A bowler can get a decent spell in and have an extended battle with a single batsman..

it depends on what you call a 'decent' spell. fact is that when bowlers were getting tonked around at 4 and 5 an over in ODI cricket, people would have thought the same, given that 2 or 3 an over was the norm in test match cricket. likewise, if you raise the level and say that 6 or 7 an over is a job well done, a bowler can still have bowled well.

There is a chance for batsmen who are not big hitters to play match-turning innings (a player like Michael Bevan would never have existed in 20 over cricket, for example). None of these things are true of 20/20.

really?
because as far as im concerned bevan was more than capable of scoring quickly when the situation demanded him to do so. he might have been a lot less effective, but if you told me that the likes of collingwood is good enough for 20-20 and bevan isnt, id think you were out of your mind.

 

[Scaly piscine]

fair enough

However I do think that Twenty20 is probably of more significance to a player than ODI's were when they first started, simply because of the money involved.

This form of the game will evolve, i think we will start to see in the next 5 years a new type of player emerging, new tactics will develop and new skills will be required, I think its very exciting for the game as a whole...and that includes test cricket

Yea, we'll see more shots invented or played - you might not see these shots as often in Tests but there will be a situation where you will see them (a bit of Twenty20 against Bangladesh not too recently, there are lots of occasions when say someone bats with a hopeless no.11 at the other end, times when scoring runs quickly to set a target or to reach a target or trying to stop runs for the same reason). Some purists might not like these 'shots', but if we wanted to see reward for nice looking authentic shots they'd do away with 6s and bring in a judging panel to award runs and wickets for artistic impression.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

really?
because as far as im concerned bevan was more than capable of scoring quickly when the situation demanded him to do so. he might have been a lot less effective, but if you told me that the likes of collingwood is good enough for 20-20 and bevan isnt, id think you were out of your mind.

Err, of course. Bevan was a great player can could score very rapidly when necessary. The point is though that what Bevan was best at, and better than any other player has ever been at, was turning over the strike and shepharding the tail to get Australia out of trouble, particularly in chases. He played some of the greatest ever ODI innings doing this. He simply wouldn't have been able to do that in 20/20 cricket, because the format only lends itself to one sort of play.

And with regard to bowling a "decent spell", I was referring simply to the length available. A bowler in 20/20 cricket cannot bowl any more than 4 overs, which isn't even a standard length spell in and of itself, and if they are wanted at the death they can only bowl two or three. In ODIs, 10 overs is a fairly lengthy spell and gives a bowler plenty of a time to work to a plan. And in fact, it's a legitimate complaint about ODIs that the over limitation reduces the effectiveness of quality bowlers and limits their ability to "work out" a batsman, but that problem is obviously much, much worse in 20 over cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, of course. Bevan was a great player can could score very rapidly when necessary. The point is though that what Bevan was best at, and better than any other player has ever been at, was turning over the strike and shepharding the tail to get Australia out of trouble, particularly in chases. He played some of the greatest ever ODI innings doing this. He simply wouldn't have been able to do that in 20/20 cricket, because the format only lends itself to one sort of play..

yes he would have been quite clearly less effective, but to say that a player like bevan wouldnt have even existed is taking it a bit too far.

And with regard to bowling a "decent spell", I was referring simply to the length available. A bowler in 20/20 cricket cannot bowl any more than 4 overs, which isn't even a standard length spell in and of itself, and if they are wanted at the death they can only bowl two or three. In ODIs, 10 overs is a fairly lengthy spell and gives a bowler plenty of a time to work to a plan. And in fact, it's a legitimate complaint about ODIs that the over limitation reduces the effectiveness of quality bowlers and limits their ability to "work out" a batsman, but that problem is obviously much, much worse in 20 over cricket.

but 'working' out a batsman isnt really necessary in 20-20.the skill required at this level is of course being able to restrict batsmen using subtle variations. and as you've already said, if working out a batsman barely exists in ODI cricket then why worry about it not existing at the 20-20 level?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

but 'working' out a batsman isnt really necessary in 20-20.the skill required at this level is of course being able to restrict batsmen using subtle variations. and as you've already said, if working out a batsman barely exists in ODI cricket then why worry about it not existing at the 20-20 level?

Because it exists even less. In 20/20 cricket, if a bowler has it all over you, all you do is have to see out a few deliveries and they are out of the attack. In ODIs, you have to face them far longer, and if you keep stuggling against them you will either get out or severely hamper your team by being unable to score.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And in fact, it's a legitimate complaint about ODIs that the over limitation reduces the effectiveness of quality bowlers and limits their ability to "work out" a batsman, but that problem is obviously much, much worse in 20 over cricket.

I actually think quality bowlers can have a bigger impact on 20 over cricket than 50 over cricket. Every over is important in Twenty20 for a start (ignoring the odd complete hammering when one teams win by 100 runs...) and often you can't really decide to let even the best bowlers get 4 cheap overs in. Also the difference in a bad bowling display and a good one is more exaggerated in Twenty20, someone bowling really well might take 4-24 off 4 etc. in Twenty20 and someone bowling badly 1-49 off 4 - in 50 overs you can quietly hide a rubbish bowler in the 15-40 over range and at worst he might go for 1 run per over more than someone else.

 

[Langeveldt]

Time for people to start taking it seriously, because this will be a major source of income for the game

Don't see how the amount of money it "generates" has any bearing as to whether I should take it seriously or not.. Would far rather watch a county championship game between two strong sides than this.. Still, I guess money talks, so we'd better put up with it

 

[Swervy]

Don't see how the amount of money it "generates" has any bearing as to whether I should take it seriously or not.. Would far rather watch a county championship game between two strong sides than this.. Still, I guess money talks, so we'd better put up with it

the amount of money that the players will get for playing these games will be quite tidy pretty soon, so it would be in the players interests to perform consistantly at a high level in 2020..the players will be taking the game seriously, when that happens I think the game will be taken more seriously by the cricket followers

 

[Langeveldt]

the amount of money that the players will get for playing these games will be quite tidy pretty soon, so it would be in the players interests to perform consistantly at a high level in 2020..the players will be taking the game seriously, when that happens I think the game will be taken more seriously by the cricket followers

I was not taking this seriously because of the format.. I don't think, for example (and I hope I'm right) that Zimbabwean cricketers take test cricket any less seriously than English ones because of the difference in their paycheques? I hope money isn't a factor

 

[Kasper]

Twenty20's...who really cares?

 

[marc71178]

Gee, Collingwood really is playing well. This is going to be a very, very tough chase.

Not a bad knock for someone who's supposedly only "the finisher"

He's had a few knocks like that for Durham as well as the odd occasion for England - which is why he has to be in the team at number 6.

 

[marc71178]

What odds on KP having a bowl?!

I think Grizzly Adams summed it up when he said "Kevin's very much an ordinary bowler"

 

[marc71178]

yep, but i was just worried Aus would go through the tour unbeaten

Failed at the first hurdle

 

[marc71178]

Uh, because its a rather pointless format that bears no relation to proper cricket? Still, its quite interesting to see Australia 31/7, even if it is a knockabout.. If the criminals are humiliated it might quiet some of their "experts" down a little

No doubt the official line will be that it's meaningless.

I wonder if that would've been the same line had they taken 7 English wickets for 8 runs?

 

[marc71178]

Anyone particularly enjoy it (aside from Jamee)?

I was absolutely loving it, although I only had it on the radio.

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't read that much into the actual result.. Aus were laughing on the sidelines wen they were 31/7.

I did love the bit when Chris Cairns was summarising at about 60-7 and he asked the commentator to repeat the score as even though he was impartial he liked to hear it!