I hate this version of God(TM)'s own sport, so I thought I copy my response on a thread called "The Death Of The Specialist Bowler" from another place and see what was thought on here.

This may be a bit paranoid, but it's one of the reasons why I loathe 20/20 cricket, and why I think it does nothing but promote the 'wrong sort' of cricket, and could indeed sound the death knell for the full length version of the game.

I know that similar concerns will have been aired back in the day, but 20/20 is nothing like a full one-day match. While the one-day match is a much condensed version of the proper game, conditions can change through a day, and while seam may well the order in the morning for instance, spin may be the preferred attack in the afternoon, or indeed the reverse!

The 20/20 game is simply about 'pinch-hitting". Preserving wickets isn't an issue, whereas it is even in a one-dayer. There are just 120 deliveries per innings, and so who cares if a few wickets go early? Chances are there will still be players who don't bat.

This to me reduces the bowler to being a 'bit part' player. If all a batsman has to do is wander out and throw the bat around, who the hell wants to be a bowler? Chances are you won't even bat, and if you do, you only get four overs to make any impression.

Now at the moment, there are many players who watch and love the longer game (even if that's a fifty over match), but with the promotion of the 'spectacular' over the 'thinking', I can only surmise that fewer cricketers will want to pick up a ball rather than a bat. Let's face it, who wants to bowl spin when batsmen will jump down the wicket and try to lift you over any boundary for six.

I also don't think it increases any sneakiness in a bowler's thought. You don't have the time.

With the ever increasing reliance on runs in many of the facets of the sport, the bowler's role is now below that of a specialist fielder, and that scares me. It's almost like rounders, or as some contend, baseball.

Do you think I'm wrong, or just resisting change?

I hate this version of God(TM)'s own sport, so I thought I copy my response on a thread called "The Death Of The Specialist Bowler" from another place and see what was thought on here.



Do you think I'm wrong, or just resisting change?

I don't see it as a question of "right or wrong." It's down to personal preference really. :)
Cricket has always been my own favourite sport. I've played the game, watched the game and stood as umpire. I thoroughly enjoy all three forms of the game...20/20, One day and Test formats. Each have their own magic.
I disagree with you about bowlers being rendered less potent by the 20/20 game. There are some fine specialist bowlers in 20/20...very fine. :thumbsup:
Those who have adapted best use variations of pace, flight, pitch, etc to fool the batsman. I can think of at least a dozen or so bowlers who I would specifically pay to watch in this code.
Having said that however, my favourite form is the Test format...5 days...deep joy! :D

Test cricket will continue...of that I am sure. :thumbsup:

I don't see it as a question of "right or wrong." It's down to personal preference really. :)
Cricket has always been my own favourite sport. I've played the game, watched the game and stood as umpire. I thoroughly enjoy all three forms of the game...20/20, One day and Test formats. Each have their own magic.
I disagree with you about bowlers being rendered less potent by the 20/20 game. There are some fine specialist bowlers in 20/20...very fine. :thumbsup:
Those who have adapted best use variations of pace, flight, pitch, etc to fool the batsman. I can think of at least a dozen or so bowlers who I would specifically pay to watch in this code.
Having said that however, my favourite form is the Test format...5 days...deep joy! :D

Test cricket will continue...of that I am sure. :thumbsup:

You still alive happyhippy? :D
This is your thread...throw something back...or commit this thread to oblivion. :hihi:

I think that 20/20 will serve a good function. It will provide enough money within the game for test cricket to continue.

I think that 20/20 will serve a good function. It will provide enough money within the game for test cricket to continue.

Mmm, not convinced it works quite like that. Test cricket, IMO, is the purest form of the game. I believe it will persist because of that very fact.

Mmm, not convinced it works quite like that. Test cricket, IMO, is the purest form of the game. I believe it will persist because of that very fact.

I agree 100%. I struggle to watch a one-dayer live, so I find 20/20 matches missing in all the things that makes cricket such an interesting and gripping sport.

But, around the world 20/20 is what is bringing in the big bucks. So I feel the money earned from 20/20 will take the pressure off test cricket to chase after the much needed money, and allow it to concentrate on what makes test cricket the ultimate for of the game.

there was a huge outcry in the 70's when the Limited Overs format became popular - and was more or less considered a laughing stock by puritans when the coloured uniforms came out.
Once Kerry Packer got a hold of the idea - he ran with it, changing cricket from a mulit-day bore fest to something vibrant and exciting. (IMO)
I have been to test matches (ie, the Boxing Day Test) but thats only because I was introduced to cricket as something worth watching via the One Dayers.

I have not yet seen a 20/20 game - or even know a great deal about it, but there was a lot of people eager to tell me about it at the BDT.

You still alive happyhippy? :D
This is your thread...throw something back...or commit this thread to oblivion. :hihi:

Er ...... just about! Been rather busy watching the 1st Test if nothing else! I can only think of Graham Napier who is a sort of specialist 20/20 bowler, butr as I look at 20/20, I just see an awful lot if injudicious strokes and wickets which fall fortuitously as a result.

Maybe it's because I speak as a bowler (I was a real rabbit with the bat!), but you only have 24 deliveries to try and hone any attack against a pinch hitting machine. The responsibilities are so different even from the 50 over game. I suppose that's where my concerns lie; cricket to me is about responsibilities and strategy, even in the one day game. They just don't exist in this form of baseball.

I think that 20/20 will serve a good function. It will provide enough money within the game for test cricket to continue.

If the cash were to get to the grass roots to be able to teach kids how to play the longer game, fair enough, but I fear they will simply fuel salaries, viz. the IPL.

I'm a cynical old swine at times!

there was a huge outcry in the 70's when the Limited Overs format became popular - and was more or less considered a laughing stock by puritans when the coloured uniforms came out.

I completely agree, which is why I asked people if they thought I was being paranoid, or simply resistant to change.

Once Kerry Packer got a hold of the idea - he ran with it, changing cricket from a mulit-day bore fest to something vibrant and exciting. (IMO)
I have been to test matches (ie, the Boxing Day Test) but thats only because I was introduced to cricket as something worth watching via the One Dayers.

You've got a point, but did it make you want to pick up a bat or a ball? This is one of my real concerns. If players think that swatting a bat around with little control, and that the bowler's role is simply to be despatched to the boundary delivery after delivery, if they do decide to play, they'll copy that style.

That can be difficult to get rid of!

I have not yet seen a 20/20 game - or even know a great deal about it, but there was a lot of people eager to tell me about it at the BDT.

Which is great if you understand the game, but this seems to be a cash cow, which is for selling merchandise and getting players much richer. It certainly isn't about forwarding a truly majestic game.

I was thinking more along the lines of playing techniques and such. Who the hell would watch 20/20, and want to be a bowler?

You've got a point, but did it make you want to pick up a bat or a ball? This is one of my real concerns. If players think that swatting a bat around with little control, and that the bowler's role is simply to be despatched to the boundary delivery after delivery, if they do decide to play, they'll copy that style.

I was thinking more along the lines of playing techniques and such. Who the hell would watch 20/20, and want to be a bowler?

The game has evolved greatly over time. They used to bowl underarm until the over arm style and fast bowling became popular (they never made it a rule until the Aussies exploited the fact against the Kiwis in 1981).

LOI have also created - or popularised other styles of bowling for more variety. I can only imagine that the 20/20 bowlers will try their hardest NOT to be hit to the boundry and come up with some new and exciting deliveries.

Er ...... just about! Been rather busy watching the 1st Test if nothing else! I can only think of Graham Napier who is a sort of specialist 20/20 bowler, butr as I look at 20/20, I just see an awful lot if injudicious strokes and wickets which fall fortuitously as a result.

Maybe it's because I speak as a bowler (I was a real rabbit with the bat!), but you only have 24 deliveries to try and hone any attack against a pinch hitting machine. The responsibilities are so different even from the 50 over game. I suppose that's where my concerns lie; cricket to me is about responsibilities and strategy, even in the one day game. They just don't exist in this form of baseball.



If the cash were to get to the grass roots to be able to teach kids how to play the longer game, fair enough, but I fear they will simply fuel salaries, viz. the IPL.

I'm a cynical old swine at times!



I completely agree, which is why I asked people if they thought I was being paranoid, or simply resistant to change.



You've got a point, but did it make you want to pick up a bat or a ball? This is one of my real concerns. If players think that swatting a bat around with little control, and that the bowler's role is simply to be despatched to the boundary delivery after delivery, if they do decide to play, they'll copy that style.

That can be difficult to get rid of!



Which is great if you understand the game, but this seems to be a cash cow, which is for selling merchandise and getting players much richer. It certainly isn't about forwarding a truly majestic game.

I was thinking more along the lines of playing techniques and such. Who the hell would watch 20/20, and want to be a bowler?

I played competitive cricket (at local league level) for 40 odd years and like you I was a bowler. I never batted higher than 9...except for one memorable occasion in Nottingham when we turned up with 4 players and were put in to bat. Thankfully the rest of the side eventually turned up, but not before I was at the crease. :hihi:
I would relish playing 20/20 were I still fit enough. It's just a different challenge with the opportunity to add to your "armoury" as a bowler IMO.
As I said in my first post this format has produced some excellent bowlers. Vettori, Afridi, both Morkels, Warne, Muchachuckalot, etc. I could go on. :)

20/20 World Cup in England this summer...and I'm very much looking forward to it. It's also (first and foremost) the Ashes. "Aussie" is in something of a transitional stage right now...
...it's going to be the "Mother of all Summers" for us cricket lovers. :banana:

Forgive the cliche, but it just isn't cricket.

I am not a fan of cricket, but given the choice of a test match or a 20/20 game then the latter will win everytime. 20/20 is as exciting as cricket gets and it is needed in the game to stop it becoming stale. I think without the 20/20 then cricket would really struggle to appeal and thus struggle to attract a younger fan base.

I am not a fan of cricket, but given the choice of a test match or a 20/20 game then the latter will win everytime. 20/20 is as exciting as cricket gets and it is needed in the game to stop it becoming stale. I think without the 20/20 then cricket would really struggle to appeal and thus struggle to attract a younger fan base.

Summer 2005...packed out test grounds at all 5 venues...breathtaking duels between the likes of Flintoff and Lee, Warne and Mcgrath against anyone with a bat in their hand...and some heart stopping finishes. And the happiest of endings (not for Scozzy though :D) as we took the Ashes.

Test cricket boring?...Nay lad...nay. :P :hihi:

Summer 2005...packed out test grounds at all 5 venues...breathtaking duels between the likes of Flintoff and Lee, Warne and Mcgrath against anyone with a bat in their hand...and some heart stopping finishes. And the happiest of endings (not for Scozzy though :D) as we took the Ashes.

Test cricket boring?...Nay lad...nay. :P :hihi:

And the EWCB sold the TV rights to SKY and interest has since plummeted.

I much prefer the 5 day game, I see 20-20 as pyjama cricket, it's not real and it doesn't encourage correct cricketing shots. Call me a boring old fart but I'd have preferred Pieterson to have reached his century with an orthodox drive through the covers rather than getting out flailing like a blacksmith on a village green

And the EWCB sold the TV rights to SKY and interest has since plummeted.

I much prefer the 5 day game, I see 20-20 as pyjama cricket, it's not real and it doesn't encourage correct cricketing shots. Call me a boring old fart but I'd have preferred Pieterson to have reached his century with an orthodox drive through the covers rather than getting out flailing like a blacksmith on a village green

Wow...:wow:...blacksmiths in pyjamas...and you still say it's boring. :hihi:
I will forego the invitation. ;)

20/20 is a great addition to the cricket world. Making it far more exciting for the younger generations. It's definitely having an impact on the test scene. The tests I watched in the summer barely made it to the final day.

I much prefer the 5 day game, I see 20-20 as pyjama cricket, it's not real and it doesn't encourage correct cricketing shots. Call me a boring old fart but I'd have preferred Pieterson to have reached his century with an orthodox drive through the covers rather than getting out flailing like a blacksmith on a village green

Are you my long lost brother?

Couldn't agree more.

I was there a couple of summers back at Headingley to witness Vaughan reach his ton on his comeback (after injury). Stirring stuff, played on a glorious summer's day.

I also recall watching Graham Gooch take over one hour to score a run at Lords some time back (this on TV). That should be the ultimate in boredom but it was nothing of the sort.

My only wish is that the 5 day game could be more flexible in that when days are lost to rain they could be added on at the end (within reason).

Leave the pyjamas and the hit-it-at-all-costs game to the Yanks. They even have a name for it there: it's called baseball.:thumbsup:

Call me a boring old fart but I'd have preferred Pieterson to have reached his century with an orthodox drive through the covers rather than getting out flailing like a blacksmith on a village green

And if he'd have had the temperament and correct technique that the 5 day game teaches he may have batted on for another few hours and England wouldn't have been humiliated.......there again they probably would have been

Ideally there is a place for both, and a full county cricket programme in a five month summer.

But, now it's all about run conservation, rather than taking wickets; which reduces the armoury especially of spinners, and it's the latter that is needed in test matches.

But what really is needed more than anything, is time in the middle in 3 day plus warm up games, before test matches; not just throwing players straight into the test arena with no preparation.

It's perhaps good in the sense that it's accessibility makes it more appealing to youngsters but, in a tactical sense it's pretty poor and the rampant commercialism surrounding it is to my mind ruining the image of cricket and putting top cricketers in the same bracket as overpaid premadonna premier league footballers - which is a shame.

This is clear reflection of today's fast pace life. The swift changes in clubs/associations and huge money matters has led to this change.

Cheers

No! What's not to like about inventive shot making, thoughtful field settings, economical bowling, the return of specialist wicketkeepers, etc.

Hugely enjoying the Twenty20 world cup so far!

Yes the cheerleaders are a bit silly though.

I've never been much of a fan of 20/20 or even one day cricket.

I much prefer the Test Cricket! Is 20/20 bad for cricket, I don't think so. Even in tests, there are times where big shots and fast scoring are what is needed.

It could be said that 20/20 games attract people to the sport as they're shorter and you can watch the whole match in a few hours.

I think there's room for both 20/20 and test cricket as they're so vastly different (and I enjoy both). Limited overs cricket however, I think, will suffer.

can anyone tell me how malinga is not called for throwing,i think 20/20 is just a version of baseball.you can in no way call it cricket it is entertaining and i am in favour,but i do not see how it improves the longer game.

can anyone tell me how malinga is not called for throwing,i think 20/20 is just a version of baseball.you can in no way call it cricket it is entertaining and i am in favour,but i do not see how it improves the longer game.

It's because he keeps his arm above waist height, and he doesn't bend his elbow. Slow him down, add a bit of spin, and I'm reminded of Carl Hooper who also had a very unorthodox action.

Twenty20 cricket has done a lot to bring the spectators back to cricket. It`s fast and exciting. I think it`s done a lot of good, though the other forms of the game need to continue of course. :)

What has warmed to me is the amount of spin in this tournament. Even though players are still being smashed around, and I really fear for the longer games, the fact that spin has been a major factor (which I never would have expected) increases this game's dimensions for me.

What's been good about this International 20/20 tournament, is that genrally batsmen have scored rapidly by generally playing good cricket shots, and recognising the areas to exploit.

Well I must admit that I've found myself watching quite a lot of this Twenty20 series and have actually enjoyed doing so. (The fact that oft times it's been in my local boozer might have something to do with it.)

Last night's WIndies versus India match was superb.

But come on, it's baseball with guys in pyjamas and slog-the-ball-at-any cost 'cricket', innit?!

It's because he keeps his arm above waist height, and he doesn't bend his elbow. Slow him down, add a bit of spin, and I'm reminded of Carl Hooper who also had a very unorthodox action.

Agreed. However, those South African spinners are both a bit dodgy aren't they?

As for 20/20 being bad for cricket, I don't think so. I'm a test match man myself, but this tournament has been fantastic. It is a shame that it isn't on terrestrial tv as I think that it would have really fired the nation in a similar way to the 2005 ashes. I went to Trent Bridge the other night to watch England V SA. It wasn't a contest, but the atmosphere was brilliant and some of the fielding was absolutely stunning. I really enjoyed it. I suspect that 20/20 will kill off the 50 over game at some point, but test cricket will survive.

I'm enjoying it and who would have thought that spin would play a big part in 2020

Forgive the cliche, but it just isn't cricket.

:thumbsup:

I cant see a five a-side football league or short tennis tournaments taking off so why a condensed form of cricket.

its just a money making entertainment,how many sixes do you want to see.as for normal cricket shots when did you see a batsman flick a ball over is head.the sad part is i watch a fair bit of youth cricket and some of these shots are attempted in these games.also when you see the one day series if they are not playing outrages shots you can hear sections of the crowd saying how boring it is.its all to placate india who rule world cricket and see it as an easy way to get the big crowds in.

I would say it actually brings cricket out to the younger generation. The younger generation like fast action and 20 20 creates this with 6's and 4's..

I disagree, I think for the "young ones" to learn cricket properly they have to appreciate the longer game.

Speed chess is fun too - but nobody really takes that as a serious pursuit.

I disagree, I think for the "young ones" to learn cricket properly they have to appreciate the longer game.

Speed chess is fun too - but nobody really takes that as a serious pursuit.

I agree and can't take 20/20 seriously as a proper game.

The problem is that for all the people enthusing about the 4 or 5 day game, hardly anyone attends county cricket matches anymore and the counties have to make money by targeting whatever market they can.

Also, because Sky has ruined TV coverage of cricket by taking it away friom terrestrial channels, most people's experiences of watching test cricket on TV is just seeing a 30 minute highlights programme, which just looks like 20/20 anyway as they only show the big hits and wickets!

Unfortunately, now cricket has effectively been banned from people who don't have a SKY subscription I have not seen any 20 20 cricket. As I don't like watching football there is no way I would ever subscribe to such a channel. I enjoy watching cricket and I would love to join in the debate about this form of the game, but I just haven't seen it. I don't even know what many of the current England cricketers look like.

its good, more people are fans of cricket because of 20/20, i know alot of my friends enjoy watching 20/20 and one days etc but get bored of test matches, whereas i like all forms, probs like test match better. but alot of people enjoy the day out drinking dancing and having fun that a 20/20 match day can offer, you even get kids going which can only be good for the game.

I think 20/20 is good for cricket.

thanks

t-20 to me looks very entertaining , full of excitement and one can experience all cliff hanger in just 3 hours. what more can u expect?

Well, as much as I initially disliked the 20/20 format; I think it is not bad for cricket at all. The fact is, except two or may be three series in a year, there is a serious dearth of nerve-biting moments in test or even in One Day games. But with 20/20, every other match that we see turns out to be really thrilling one, something like 12 runs needed on last over with one wicket in hand. This actually works well for people who are otherwise not interested in cricket. My girl now sits with me and watch these games but that never happen during test matches. Today, everyone likes short duration things, and 20-20 provides just that.

It may not be as par the cricketing standards set by the legends of the field but it is certainly not bad for Cricket.

well I don't think so that It harms the image of cricket..
Well I think that it inspire those cricket fans who are sometime tired of Long test cricket or have no time for watching those matches.