Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

by Lara Lara Laughs Thu 01 May 2008, 00:55

Best article I've read about the issue.

Exciting times - but dangerous too

It's amazing how fast the already frenetic world of Twenty20 is moving at the moment.

New proposals of exciting and staggeringly rich new tournaments are being mooted, while, in India, the Indian Premier League continues its impressive debut.

I have been in Chennai to witness the event for myself, and this visit culminated in the match between the Chennai Super Kings and the Mumbai Indians which was won, for the record, by Chennai.

It was an entertaining evening with the cricket played in overwhelming heat and humidity, and the crowd enjoyed it in much the same way as every crowd I have seen enjoys a Twenty20 game.

The only difference for me was the knowledge that some players on view were earning sums of money that previous generations of cricketers could only dream of - and the fact there were no Englishmen to be seen.

Chennai Super Kings cricketers Jacob Oram, Stephen Fleming and Michael Hussey

Shaun Pollock asked me where they were and Muttiah Muralitharan joked they should be part of the tournament.

I left Chennai with two clear conclusions. One: that the IPL is here to stay and this is not a bad thing by any means, and it needs to be embraced in a radically restructured international programme.

Which leads me to my second conclusion - Twenty20 cricket is entertaining, but shallow.

It commands nothing like the depth or enduring interest of Test cricket and, one day, will run its course in which case we will have a Ten10, and then a Five5.

The point being that Test cricket has to be nurtured and protected, and Twenty20 can sit along side it, but in its proper place and, crucially, without over exposure.

Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

So what about the offers by Sir Allen Stanford, the mega rich Texan, who fancies bankrolling, among other things, a franchised Twenty20 in this country?

The idea of City-based teams fills me with dread and I really can't see that generating the necessary interest.

Any tournament here has to involve the long-established counties who might have to play a qualifying round in order to thin down the numbers a bit - perhaps the first division of the new domestic T20 might be the way to go.

I also hate the notion of an 'All Star's XI'. Those teams are merely benefit XIs with no real unity or purpose, and would surely devalue any tournament.

These are exciting times, but potentially dangerous too, and the administrators must show responsibility for the game as they rush to cash in its sudden popularity.

So:

a) Test cricket must be protected at all costs.

b) 20/20 is shallow but good fun.

c) Any English 20/20 tournament must be based on counties rather than cities.

d) ODI cricket is dull, predictable and has had it's day.

e) We need to organise an international program that suits everybody.

I think Aggers has all five conclusions spot on. Those five things pretty much sum up my opinion. Anyone else agree, particularly with point d?

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 01:02

It could be that the 50 over per side format is toast. Mark Newton (Pears Chief Exec) expects it to go - along with the Pro 40, leaving us with a season long 20/20 league.

Personally, I think we'll need 2 such tournaments - one to keep county supporters happy, who have bought into 20/20 so far in their thousdands, and whose support should not be discounted lightly.

Secondly - a high profile competition attracting overseas players and, therefore, much moolah from sponsors and broadcasters.

by horace Thu 01 May 2008, 01:27

i thought your T20 matches already have overseas players playing alongside the locals..

i think aggers is spot on in his key points...

jamodis are way past interest factor - save for the world cup...and even the last one was too long and dreary (aside from the farcical ending)...

the market has been galvanised by T20 and galloped away from the 50 over comps...

maybe the cashing up of players from 2 or 3 annual T20 comps - india, england and maybe saffies or Oz would relieve some of the pressure on the less cashed up national boards, provided Tests are given primacy in the schedule - 10 months per year for T20 comps

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 01:29

Same rules apply to 20/20 as for other domestic competitions, i.e. one overseas player.

Counties can of course recruit an unspecified number of Kolpaks, Lurpaks or whatever you want to call the feckers!

by horace Thu 01 May 2008, 01:45

rofl...must be heaps of 'kolpaks' as most teams seem to field more one international

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 01:49

horace wrote:rofl...must be heaps of 'kolpaks' as most teams seem to field more one international

Tell me about it: Leicestershire in their current game against Warwickshire are fielding 6 Saffies and an Aussie - leaving 4 England qualified players. That will kill the game over here.

by embee Thu 01 May 2008, 01:54

Bas

Does Allenby qualify as a pom?

He's an "OK" player in wozzie club cricket but apart from a single 20/20 game I havent heard talk of him being a chance for selection for the wozzies ...seems to have a decent FC record

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 02:02

embee wrote:Bas

Does Allenby qualify as a pom?

He's an "OK" player in wozzie club cricket but apart from a single 20/20 game I havent heard talk of him being a chance for selection for the wozzies ...seems to have a decent FC record

I could be wrong, but he's not England qualified.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 01 May 2008, 02:14

Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

by embee Thu 01 May 2008, 02:18

Boeta is listed as the overseas player ...

Allenby probably has a pommy parent / grandparent ...

by furriner Thu 01 May 2008, 02:20

Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Seconded.

The old saw about 'why don't they do away with the middle 20 overs of a 50 over ODI if it's so boring' is coming true.

by tac Thu 01 May 2008, 02:21

Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Phurt, I'd much rather a 50 over game than a stupid T20 hit around. You lose 2 or 3 early wickets in T20 and you're pretty much farked . . . no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure. 50 over games just need 10 overs of fielding restrictions in the middle overs to break up the pace.

by Geoffrey Trueman Thu 01 May 2008, 02:40

tac wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Phurt, I'd much rather a 50 over game than a stupid T20 hit around. You lose 2 or 3 early wickets in T20 and you're pretty much farked . . . no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure. 50 over games just need 10 overs of fielding restrictions in the middle overs to break up the pace.

'no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure.'

Doesn't smashing 20+ off an over and the introduction of spinners change the ebb and flow and exert pressure?

by tac Thu 01 May 2008, 02:43

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:
tac wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Phurt, I'd much rather a 50 over game than a stupid T20 hit around. You lose 2 or 3 early wickets in T20 and you're pretty much farked . . . no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure. 50 over games just need 10 overs of fielding restrictions in the middle overs to break up the pace.

'no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure.'

Doesn't smashing 20+ off an over and the introduction of spinners change the ebb and flow and exert pressure?

Sorry, GT, I meant sustained pressure . . . (pressure in T20 is bowling 2 dots balls) . . . . the 50-over game still has plenty of room for bowlers to show their skills. In the T20 on display, mishits are regularly going for 6 FFS

by Mick Sawyer Thu 01 May 2008, 02:47

furriner wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Seconded.

The old saw about 'why don't they do away with the middle 20 overs of a 50 over ODI if it's so boring' is coming true.

Cheers furry. You may have read this before from me but........... if television demands that we must have 7 hour games with the result determined that day then I'd prefer 2 x 25 over matches.

by tac Thu 01 May 2008, 02:48

Mick Sawyer wrote:
furriner wrote:
Mick Sawyer wrote:
Meanwhile, the 50-over game has to go. It is now dull and predictable, and although that creates a headache for the ICC as far as the World Cup is concerned, it has had its day.

Aggers - you got that right mate!

Seconded.

The old saw about 'why don't they do away with the middle 20 overs of a 50 over ODI if it's so boring' is coming true.

Cheers furry. You may have read this before from me but........... if television demands that we must have 7 hour games with the result determined that day then I'd prefer 2 x 25 over matches.

by Mick Sawyer Thu 01 May 2008, 03:00

Phurt, I'd much rather a 50 over game than a stupid T20 hit around. You lose 2 or 3 early wickets in T20 and you're pretty much farked . . . no chance for ebb and flow, or for teams to exert pressure. 50 over games just need 10 overs of fielding restrictions in the middle overs to break up the pace.

tac, I don't expect to turn you around on this but fwiw;

Among a couple of mates I call 50 over cricket "cunis". Not a true cricket match with ample scope for ebb/flow, yin/yang & not an all out action packed, succinct cricket flavoured entertainment either.

You said "You lose 2 or 3 early wickets in T20 and you're pretty much farked". Two things -is that based on fact or presumption - well sheeet ay! The bowling team takes wickets - isn't that their intention, does that not create intention & intrigue around how the match might play out?

My big problem with 50 over cricket is that "conditions" can change too much through an afternoon into evening & the team losing the toss can be farked before a ball is bowled.

by Geoffrey Trueman Thu 01 May 2008, 03:04

tac wrote:Sorry, GT, I meant sustained pressure . . . (pressure in T20 is bowling 2 dots balls) . . . . the 50-over game still has plenty of room for bowlers to show their skills. In the T20 on display, mishits are regularly going for 6 FFS

Yeah, but it's the same thing in a condensed form. It's what 20/20 is all about. What's the difference between a mishit heave ho going for 6 and a mis-timed cover drive squirting through the slips for 4?

20/20 is the lowest form of cricket and I much prefer watching cricket in it's longer format, it doesn't stop me enjoying 20/20. It's like a game of 5 a side football to a footballer. It's football and you enjoy taking part, but in the grand scheme of things it means nack all.

by tac Thu 01 May 2008, 03:12

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:
tac wrote:Sorry, GT, I meant sustained pressure . . . (pressure in T20 is bowling 2 dots balls) . . . . the 50-over game still has plenty of room for bowlers to show their skills. In the T20 on display, mishits are regularly going for 6 FFS

Yeah, but it's the same thing in a condensed form. It's what 20/20 is all about. What's the difference between a mishit heave ho going for 6 and a mis-timed cover drive squirting through the slips for 4?

20/20 is the lowest form of cricket and I much prefer watching cricket in it's longer format, it doesn't stop me enjoying 20/20. It's like a game of 5 a side football to a footballer. It's football and you enjoy taking part, but in the grand scheme of things it means nack all.

True enough, GT, I see test cricket as the only form of cricket I really get excited about . . . . the 50-over game has taken an exciting part of test cricket (setting a target in a limited amount of time and then chasing down the target, thus simulating the final 100 overs of a tight test match being played against the clock) and made a game of it. T20 has then taken the exciting part of that (the big bash in the opening and closing overs) and tried to make a game of it. The thing for me is that these "exciting aspects" of the longer games are only exciting in context . . . T20 hit and giggle just isn't exciting to me . . . there is little pressure on batsmen as they are expected to just go for it and if they get out, bad luck. Like a baseballer who is happy getting on base one time out of 3.

Maybe, if they made 10 players each bowl 2 overs, it'd be more fun to watch . . . a real game of "park cricket" . . .

by embee Thu 01 May 2008, 03:34

No ...make it more like baseball...each bowler can bowl as many overs as possible ...but once removed from the attack cant bowl again

by noelene Thu 01 May 2008, 05:19

I see test cricket as being in the firing zone,because the Indians are not interested in it.There is still big money in ODI cricket for the BCCI,not in test cricket.Apparently Indians are not even watching test cricket on tv.
Australia and England are the only countries that have decent crowds for test cricket.They need to find a balance between the three,and in so doing,it will be less test matches played,which may not be a bad thing.
Players love playing test cricket,they don't like playing so many of them though.How long before we see the franchises in 20/20 trying to put on an ODI tournament?

by Lara Lara Laughs Thu 01 May 2008, 17:50

I'm quite surprised that most people think 20/20 should replace ODI cricket. I thought I was the only one. It's just about everyone on this thread isn't it, from all different countries, except for tac who just doesn't like Indians.

I can't see a downside to it. It'd mean a lot less cricket for everyone, matches would be less dull, and a seven match 20/20 series would only be less than 3 ODIs meaning the players would be less tired and there would be more room for 4 and 5 match Test series'.

There'd also be far fewer Duckworth-Lewis matches, which can only be a good thing. A whole 20/20 match is less than one ODI innings so it's far less likely to be affected by weather.

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 17:54

Some people are talking about playing 20/20 every week - now that WOULD be overkill in my opinion. Chop one of the other one-day formats by all means to accommodate an EPL, but every week will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

by Lara Lara Laughs Thu 01 May 2008, 17:58

Every week? Every week of the year?

by Basil Thu 01 May 2008, 17:59

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Every week? Every week of the year?

Every week of our season

by Sponsored content

Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers

Re: Short, simple and apt summation of the IPL by Aggers