marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Bit of tautology there Jono...
-
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.
Twenty20 not Ponting's game
- Thread starter Turbinator
- Start date
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
That's so ridiculous.
If I'm a fast bowler, I want slips and a gully for more than 2 overs. To call 20/20 more of a bowlers game is baseless, and its no surprise you didn't make an argument to back yourself up.
adharcric
International Coach
Absolute bull****. Mind you, the rest of the post didn't have any substance either.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oh dear, look at how agressive people are getting when they don't know squat about the format...
I've followed Twenty20 since the start, followed dozens of games on the radio, looked at hundreds of scorecards. Bowlers play roughly an equal part with batsmen in the format. Bowl badly and you'll get creamed for 10+ an over with little or no wicket-taking threat. Bowl well and players can (and regularly do) keep it below 6 an over and take wickets. There's a huge difference. Compare this to ODIs where even the most extreme difference, such as Mahmood and Murali there's only an extra 2 runs an over in it and it'll only have a small impact on the game because players have plenty of time to make the run rate up against someone else. Quiet overs in Twenty20 matter, they don't make much difference in ODIs - plus the wickets are generally flat in ODIs so bowlers are mostly reliant on the batsman to do something stupid. In Twenty20 the batsmen have to keep scoring and so the bowlers always have a chance even on flat wickets.
I've followed Twenty20 since the start, followed dozens of games on the radio, looked at hundreds of scorecards. Bowlers play roughly an equal part with batsmen in the format. Bowl badly and you'll get creamed for 10+ an over with little or no wicket-taking threat. Bowl well and players can (and regularly do) keep it below 6 an over and take wickets. There's a huge difference. Compare this to ODIs where even the most extreme difference, such as Mahmood and Murali there's only an extra 2 runs an over in it and it'll only have a small impact on the game because players have plenty of time to make the run rate up against someone else. Quiet overs in Twenty20 matter, they don't make much difference in ODIs - plus the wickets are generally flat in ODIs so bowlers are mostly reliant on the batsman to do something stupid. In Twenty20 the batsmen have to keep scoring and so the bowlers always have a chance even on flat wickets.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Watched the game last night and enjoyed it
People I was with, though not really cricket fans, loved it
Most of the people in the pub loved it
The girl who makes the coffee in the cafe I go to every morning hates cricket but loved the game last night and couldnt stop talking about it.
I think it's safe to say that it's here to stay
However, to those who talk about the subtelties of 20/20 - CRAP!!!
Oz piled up the highest total in 20/20 international history by slogging from ball one - no science, no building of momentum, no consideration to field placings, no working to build partnerships. Just pure and simple swinging for the bleachers.
The bowlers, who have not got a hope because they dont have anyone in a catching position, basically have to treat every ball as it's the last couple of overs in an ODI - go for the yorker so batsmen cant get under the ball and mix your pace.
Andrew Symonds summed it up best when asked by Michael Clarke (who'd just arrived at the crease) what the bowlers were doing, "Who cares"
Certainly entertaining but about as subtle as a car smash
People I was with, though not really cricket fans, loved it
Most of the people in the pub loved it
The girl who makes the coffee in the cafe I go to every morning hates cricket but loved the game last night and couldnt stop talking about it.
I think it's safe to say that it's here to stay
However, to those who talk about the subtelties of 20/20 - CRAP!!!
Oz piled up the highest total in 20/20 international history by slogging from ball one - no science, no building of momentum, no consideration to field placings, no working to build partnerships. Just pure and simple swinging for the bleachers.
The bowlers, who have not got a hope because they dont have anyone in a catching position, basically have to treat every ball as it's the last couple of overs in an ODI - go for the yorker so batsmen cant get under the ball and mix your pace.
Andrew Symonds summed it up best when asked by Michael Clarke (who'd just arrived at the crease) what the bowlers were doing, "Who cares"
Certainly entertaining but about as subtle as a car smash
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah it certainly seems to reach out to people who wouldn't usually watch cricket. Especially the way the Aussies just slogged thw whole way through.
Australia pick a team of good batsmen who can all hit the ball well and England had no answers. Pietersen and Flintoff would have been dangerous if they had lasted but neither did.
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
Haha, what's there to know? Bowler/Fodder delivers, batsman tries to flog the ball over the ropes. Wickets, when they come, are usually skied catches. Pfft.
McKanga
School Boy/Girl Captain
I enjoyed it and have no trouble appreciating it as a game allied to Test and One Day cricket. What better practice could you have for the situation Australia found itself in for the second innings of the recent Adelaide Test?
Twenty/20 amplifies the need for superb batting and bowling skills. It's fine enough for detractors to say just slog, but it's pointless to do that if you are going drop it a metre inside the boundary and there's a fielder standing there like Collingwood did last night. Tactics are limited by the format but are certainly there.
As a limited duration sporting spectacle there is clearly a demand. I think the 'woohoo party' aspect could be toned down a bit. I cringed when they shot off fireworks during the innings change. But otherwise the music and carnival aspect went down well with me.
Twenty/20 brings kids to the game. It brings money to the sport. It enables selectors to give opportunities to upcoming players.
Twenty/20 amplifies the need for superb batting and bowling skills. It's fine enough for detractors to say just slog, but it's pointless to do that if you are going drop it a metre inside the boundary and there's a fielder standing there like Collingwood did last night. Tactics are limited by the format but are certainly there.
As a limited duration sporting spectacle there is clearly a demand. I think the 'woohoo party' aspect could be toned down a bit. I cringed when they shot off fireworks during the innings change. But otherwise the music and carnival aspect went down well with me.
Twenty/20 brings kids to the game. It brings money to the sport. It enables selectors to give opportunities to upcoming players.
Saqqy Mush
Banned
Watching England bat in last nights game was embarrassing.
To see weak guys with zero power like Joyce, Collingwood, try to be Australian and hit big shorts and getting nowhere near it. It was like men against little boys. I cringed when Joyce charged down and lofted it only a few meters away.
Bell just nudging it around pathetically and being bowled by a full toss, attempting another nothing shot.
The silly new wicket keeper with too much to say for himself, making a constant effort to reverse sweep it for none to fields set for the shot etc, and still achieving nothing with 4 lives.
Flintoff getting bossed as usual, this time by a countryboy state bowler who can't even catch a ball.
It was a great format in the sense that England couldn't get away with being boring like they were in Adelaide. Not quite the same now, is it Collingwood?
I agreed with Hussain when he said how Twenty20 is certainly a game which is in favor of natural talent. Which is why Pakistan are also good.
To see weak guys with zero power like Joyce, Collingwood, try to be Australian and hit big shorts and getting nowhere near it. It was like men against little boys. I cringed when Joyce charged down and lofted it only a few meters away.
Bell just nudging it around pathetically and being bowled by a full toss, attempting another nothing shot.
The silly new wicket keeper with too much to say for himself, making a constant effort to reverse sweep it for none to fields set for the shot etc, and still achieving nothing with 4 lives.
Flintoff getting bossed as usual, this time by a countryboy state bowler who can't even catch a ball.
It was a great format in the sense that England couldn't get away with being boring like they were in Adelaide. Not quite the same now, is it Collingwood?
I agreed with Hussain when he said how Twenty20 is certainly a game which is in favor of natural talent. Which is why Pakistan are also good.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
How does "if you keep it tight it makes a difference" mean it is a bowler's format? ODI cricket is more of a bowler's format because wickets matter. If you come in and take 2/30 in your opening 5 overs, you will make a significant difference to the outcome of the match above and beyond the fact that you went for a run a ball. If your opening partner does the same, the opposition is 4/60 after 10 overs and in deep trouble. They'll then have to play defensive cricket through the middle overs to preserve wickets, thus reducing the run rate beyond what you yourself went for. Wickets are the aim of the game for bowlers, not merely keeping it tight.
If you actually needed evidence for why it's not a bowler's format, look at the field placings last night. The third over of the innings had no slips. How is a bowler supposed to strive for wicket taking deliveries when even with the brand new ball they can't be given any field support?
And have a look at the sorts of players who have success with the ball in 20/20 cricket. Of the 8 players with more than 5 wickets in Australian 20/20 this year, half of them have less than 10 FC wickets, and only two of them have a FC average under 40. Dighton, who took 6 for 20 odd in the opening game for Tasmania, didn't have a single wicket in any other form of the game for his state beforehand. In internationals, Andrew Symonds and Paul Collingwood are the leading wicket takers. It's simply a format which offers nothing for bowlers. They can't bowl a lengthy spell, can't have an attacking field and can't work out a batsman.
Craig
World Traveller
As stupid as it may sound, why don't teams pick specialists for these games? Ok fair enough the likes of England and other touring teams as it costs extra money, but for Australia, why not pick the likes of Aiden Blizzard and Brad Hodge since they do very well in this format or even Gerald Denton who 6/24 last week or so and give the likes of Ricky Ponting a break, he's earnt it IMO.
We have players who are Test specialists (like Stuart MacGill) and players who are more suited to ODI cricket (like Nick Knight or Michael Bevan were when they played ODIs) and get picked respectively so why not pick more players who are suited for Twenty20? Just because you pick them in the Australian (or insert another counrty) Twenty20 team doesn't mean you have to consider them for Test or ODI cricket.
We have players who are Test specialists (like Stuart MacGill) and players who are more suited to ODI cricket (like Nick Knight or Michael Bevan were when they played ODIs) and get picked respectively so why not pick more players who are suited for Twenty20? Just because you pick them in the Australian (or insert another counrty) Twenty20 team doesn't mean you have to consider them for Test or ODI cricket.
adharcric
International Coach
Yeah, I agree. Twenty20 cricket should be treated like the other formats and there is definitely going to be something like a "twenty20 specialist", as pathetic as it sounds to some. That will also give some time off for high-profile test or one-day cricketers who aren't especially fond of this format. That said, twenty overs of cricket shouldn't tire you out.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah of course. If the format is taken seriously in all nations, you'll see specialist players like that emerge. The main reason Australia hasn't picked a specialist team is because the format is viewed as a hit and giggle sort of affair by crowds, administrators and players at the moment, so bringing in specialists would rather defeat the purpose. And of course, also because most of Australia's players are pretty well suited to the format anyway. The players who might naturally struggle in 20/20 like Lee were already out of the team last night anyway.
Resting Ponting on merit for a home match would be a pretty curious call, as he's obviously going to be a pretty good 20/20 player. I do think though that when it comes to long 20/20 tours overseas, Australia would be better off resting key players and sending over a secondary squad. It'd give the format a purpose in offering opportunities to young players and also give players who might prefer the rest a break. Players who do well in the format would be the obvious choices.
Resting Ponting on merit for a home match would be a pretty curious call, as he's obviously going to be a pretty good 20/20 player. I do think though that when it comes to long 20/20 tours overseas, Australia would be better off resting key players and sending over a secondary squad. It'd give the format a purpose in offering opportunities to young players and also give players who might prefer the rest a break. Players who do well in the format would be the obvious choices.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Given the points that Gilchrist raised, one of the interesting things about this World Cup scheduling is that even the backers of 20/20 admit that it has some way to go before it catches on in all nations as it has in England. The format is still treated as a novelty in Australia at this point in time, and has scarcely been played at all in some other nations, and yet they're planning a major international tournament in the format starting this year.
Anyway, I imagine we can expect a few more complaints of this nature as the tournament draws closer. Peter Roebuck will get ulcers.
Anyway, I imagine we can expect a few more complaints of this nature as the tournament draws closer. Peter Roebuck will get ulcers.
Craig
World Traveller
Not physically, but mentally it could as it would feel as a chore in that youy are being forced to play a game you couldn't give a rat's tail about. I guess even for professional crickets they need to throw their cricket bat's into a corner and say 'I don't want to know about you' every now and then.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Fascinating thread.
My personal opinion as it stands is that I’m well and truly in the anti-20/20 brigade, my view being that it is cricket for people who don’t like or aren't into cricket, the latest attempt by the suits to Americanise my beloved game into an in-your-face-instant-gratification-ooh-look-at-all-the-big-home-runs-by-the-batters-woohoo kind of event that takes away the subtleties, intricacies and flat-out character that I love about cricket.
That being said though, I’m also the first to admit that I’m not who 20/20 is aimed at, certainly not in Australia. I’m a traditionalist – Test cricket is and always will be the ultimate form of the game for me, to the point where even the pinnacle of the ODI game, the World Cup, still ranks lower in my priority list than a Test series victory against pretty much anyone bar Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. I’m the kind of person who gets annoyed with someone when they say they’re a HUGE cricket fan, only to qualify it with “Well, not Tests, but I love one dayers!” so I’m hardly likely to be enamoured with 20/20. Cricket Australia has not even attempted to market or promote 20/20 as a serious contest to date, a feeling which has flowed on to the attitudes of the players, who seem to consider it about equally credible with a game of indoor cricket, which has in turn manifested itself in many of the “traditional” fans, the opinions of which can be seen simply by reading posts on here.
However, where 20/20 does find a market is twofold – 1) people who don’t understand, or more likely don’t care about traditional cricket and really do just want to see a fast paced game with lots of action and incident and big hitting, and 2) those who don’t really have the time or opportunity to follow the longer forms of the game. For example, I knew people back home who would finish work, pick the kids up from home or school and just head down to the SCG/Gabba/whatever to watch the 20/20 game that night. They’d be there for a few hours, have a night of international or interstate sport entertainment as a family, and then be home at a reasonable hour having been thoroughly entertained. And I can’t begrudge them that.
England has obviously embraced 20/20 far more welcomingly than Australia (and most other countries) has so far, and it remains to be seen whether the rest of the world develops the game to catch up, or is happy to just consider it a “Rugby 7s” style novelty, with its own specialists and carnival-style events that don’t intrude on the more serious cricketing calendar. This is the direction I hope it will take, and where I feel the game belongs, but sadly until I get off my a*se and get myself elected to the Presidency of the ICC my opinions will continue to hold less weight in these matters than I’d like.
My personal opinion as it stands is that I’m well and truly in the anti-20/20 brigade, my view being that it is cricket for people who don’t like or aren't into cricket, the latest attempt by the suits to Americanise my beloved game into an in-your-face-instant-gratification-ooh-look-at-all-the-big-home-runs-by-the-batters-woohoo kind of event that takes away the subtleties, intricacies and flat-out character that I love about cricket.
That being said though, I’m also the first to admit that I’m not who 20/20 is aimed at, certainly not in Australia. I’m a traditionalist – Test cricket is and always will be the ultimate form of the game for me, to the point where even the pinnacle of the ODI game, the World Cup, still ranks lower in my priority list than a Test series victory against pretty much anyone bar Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. I’m the kind of person who gets annoyed with someone when they say they’re a HUGE cricket fan, only to qualify it with “Well, not Tests, but I love one dayers!” so I’m hardly likely to be enamoured with 20/20. Cricket Australia has not even attempted to market or promote 20/20 as a serious contest to date, a feeling which has flowed on to the attitudes of the players, who seem to consider it about equally credible with a game of indoor cricket, which has in turn manifested itself in many of the “traditional” fans, the opinions of which can be seen simply by reading posts on here.
However, where 20/20 does find a market is twofold – 1) people who don’t understand, or more likely don’t care about traditional cricket and really do just want to see a fast paced game with lots of action and incident and big hitting, and 2) those who don’t really have the time or opportunity to follow the longer forms of the game. For example, I knew people back home who would finish work, pick the kids up from home or school and just head down to the SCG/Gabba/whatever to watch the 20/20 game that night. They’d be there for a few hours, have a night of international or interstate sport entertainment as a family, and then be home at a reasonable hour having been thoroughly entertained. And I can’t begrudge them that.
England has obviously embraced 20/20 far more welcomingly than Australia (and most other countries) has so far, and it remains to be seen whether the rest of the world develops the game to catch up, or is happy to just consider it a “Rugby 7s” style novelty, with its own specialists and carnival-style events that don’t intrude on the more serious cricketing calendar. This is the direction I hope it will take, and where I feel the game belongs, but sadly until I get off my a*se and get myself elected to the Presidency of the ICC my opinions will continue to hold less weight in these matters than I’d like.
Last edited:
Craig
World Traveller
I onced posted up the best description of Test and ODI cricket, comparing Test cricket to fine Italian food, and ODI cricket to something you would get from McDonalds or another fast food place. So I guess Twenty20 would be like going through the drive through at McDonalds then?
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Mate, not afraid of giving yourself a wrap!
