Re: T20 Cricket: some thoughts.

by Basil Thu 13 Sep 2007, 00:26

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:
doctorspin wrote:It is advantageous that young kids can be taken along to a game and see the whole game after school. Really young kids are not going to be able to concentrate for a whole day's cricket, but can follow a T20 match. If this encourages more into the game then great. Whether it will turn them off Test cricket remains to be seen. But I suspect if they are interested enough to play they will enjoy the long form as well.

For me this is the best thing about 20/20. My son is very young and enjoys playing the game, but like most kids he has the attention span of an amoeba and gets bored watching 'proper' cricket. The fact 20/20 is 'Mickey Mouse' cricket should be ignored, if it gets kids interested and playing the game then bring it on.

People seem to be concerned about technique and how youngsters will want to play the game. Sure, at 8, 9 and 10 they all want to knock the casing off the ball, but the format of junior cricket in England decrees that you look after your wicket. You'd be amazed the effect losing 5 and 8 runs per wicket has on a youngsters technique. That coupled with the coaching provided by their club soon put's them on the right path. Having seen it at first hand I'm pleased to announce the future of 'proper' cricket is in safe hands.

Spot on.

by Invader Zim Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:06

So basically your infrastructure is so shit and the state of cricket in England so bad that the only thing keeping it going is some bullshit rubbish format that appeals to morons?

Righto.

by JKLever Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:07

Not that you're bothered or nout Zim

by Basil Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:12

It makes me laugh when an Aussie/Saffie ( whatever IZ is) whinges about 20/20 - if they had invented the format, it would, of course, be the best thing to happen to cricket since Kerry Packer got his cheque book out.

by Invader Zim Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:12

Not at all. Just interesting how angry people seem to get when I suggest the format isn't that great.

Not sure why anyone would worry about what I think. Not sure why they are so keen to convince.

by Invader Zim Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:13

Basil wrote:It makes me laugh when an Aussie/Saffie ( whatever IZ is) whinges about 20/20 - if they had invented the format, it would, of course, be the best thing to happen to cricket since Kerry Packer got his cheque book out.

Yeah, thats the only reason.

by LeFromage Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:14

I don't think he's whingeing about it - just doesn't fancy it much.

I'm not a fan of the format, personally, but it's a good laugh by and large.

No more no less.

by Basil Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:15

Invader Zim wrote:Not at all. Just interesting how angry people seem to get when I suggest the format isn't that great.

Not sure why anyone would worry about what I think. Not sure why they are so keen to convince.

Your reaction to 20/20 mirrors the reaction in this country 30/40 years ago about the introduction of limited overs cricket ( yes I am that old) - but, hey where are we now - which form of the game subsidises the other? Grit your teeth mate! Wink

by Basil Thu 13 Sep 2007, 01:33

Dello wrote:I don't think he's whingeing about it - just doesn't fancy it much.

I'm not a fan of the format, personally, but it's a good laugh by and large.

No more no less.

No-one in their right mind would argue that it's a true test between two teams, but take it for what it is and don't take it too seriously - unless we beat the Aussies of course!

by JGK Thu 13 Sep 2007, 04:31

Basil wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:Not at all. Just interesting how angry people seem to get when I suggest the format isn't that great.

Not sure why anyone would worry about what I think. Not sure why they are so keen to convince.

Your reaction to 20/20 mirrors the reaction in this country 30/40 years ago about the introduction of limited overs cricket ( yes I am that old) - but, hey where are we now - which form of the game subsidises the other? Grit your teeth mate!

Isn't it a bit ironic that it is JAMODIs that are being made away with in the push for 2020?

FWIW - in Australia, Tests are better attended than JAMODIs.

by Invader Zim Thu 13 Sep 2007, 04:37

You're only saying that cos Australia didn't invent the game.

by JGK Thu 13 Sep 2007, 04:39

You got me.

by taipan Thu 13 Sep 2007, 06:25

Basil wrote:It makes me laugh when an Aussie/Saffie ( whatever IZ is) whinges about 20/20 - if they had invented the format, it would, of course, be the best thing to happen to cricket since Kerry Packer got his cheque book out.

Basil you have been reading this forum for years, yet you have no idea where IZ comes from?

by taipan Thu 13 Sep 2007, 06:27

JGK wrote:
Basil wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:Not at all. Just interesting how angry people seem to get when I suggest the format isn't that great.

Not sure why anyone would worry about what I think. Not sure why they are so keen to convince.

Your reaction to 20/20 mirrors the reaction in this country 30/40 years ago about the introduction of limited overs cricket ( yes I am that old) - but, hey where are we now - which form of the game subsidises the other? Grit your teeth mate!

Isn't it a bit ironic that it is JAMODIs that are being made away with in the push for 2020?

FWIW - in Australia, Tests are better attended than JAMODIs.

One would hope so, considering that they are 5 times the length.

by Guest Thu 13 Sep 2007, 06:46

Invader Zim wrote:So basically your infrastructure is so shit and the state of cricket in England so bad that the only thing keeping it going is some bullshit rubbish format that appeals to morons?

Righto.

No, test cricket money is what has kept cricket in England going since the sixties. But 20:20 is so popular and so lucrative that it would be stupid to stop playing it.

In the same way that ODIs have informed test cricket by raising the fielding standards and scoring rates, 20:20 is going to inform ODI cricket and tests.

But I expect that ODIs will fizzle out within 20 years now. It's called evolution.

by taipan Thu 13 Sep 2007, 07:20

Rob I wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:So basically your infrastructure is so shit and the state of cricket in England so bad that the only thing keeping it going is some bullshit rubbish format that appeals to morons?

Righto.

No, test cricket money is what has kept cricket in England going since the sixties. But 20:20 is so popular and so lucrative that it would be stupid to stop playing it.

In the same way that ODIs have informed test cricket by raising the fielding standards and scoring rates, 20:20 is going to inform ODI cricket and tests.

But I expect that ODIs will fizzle out within 20 years now. It's called evolution.

Transform?

by Merlin Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:10

Dello wrote:I don't think he's whingeing about it - just doesn't fancy it much.

I'm not a fan of the format, personally, but it's a good laugh by and large.

No more no less.

Exactly my sentiments.

And opinions across these pages have reflected, overall, the fact that 20/20 is a non entity except as a marketing machine for "drawing in" the kiddies and workers after a day at the orifice.
I don't believe anyone on here, thus far, has taken the format seriously.
It's a bit o fun, a lot of bum twitching dance routines, loud music and good for a giggle.

by Henry Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:30

It's funny though because 30 years ago everyone was referring to 50 over cricket as "a bit of fun and a giggle" but now it's turned India into the rickest cricketing nation in the world and has sent the price of television rights soaring.

In 10 years 20-20 will be the games biggest money puller, imo.

by Merlin Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:41

Henry wrote:

In 10 years 20-20 will be the games biggest money puller, imo.

I totally disagree.

I'm convinced 10-10 will be.

by taipan Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:49

Merlin wrote:
Henry wrote:

In 10 years 20-20 will be the games biggest money puller, imo.

I totally disagree.

I'm convinced 10-10 will be.

That's the double innings version that replaces test cricket.

by Brass Monkey Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:49

Uhh, Zim, there's no way you can't call the Aus-Zim game close. It was well in the balance in the last over. One more wicket would've done it for Oz, as it was it got to the penultimate ball.

So, that's 1 for the tally.

by embee Thu 13 Sep 2007, 08:51

It was all over at 3/18 ...

by Invader Zim Thu 13 Sep 2007, 10:02

Batfink Begins wrote:Uhh, Zim, there's no way you can't call the Aus-Zim game close. It was well in the balance in the last over. One more wicket would've done it for Oz, as it was it got to the penultimate ball.

So, that's 1 for the tally.

Fair enough. So 1 out of 4.

by Brass Monkey Thu 13 Sep 2007, 10:09

Invader Zim wrote:
Fair enough. So 1 out of 4.

25% > 7.8%. Fact.

by Merlin Thu 13 Sep 2007, 10:12

Blimey ... we're into maths now to prove that 20-20 (more maths) is the dogs b******s !

GCSE's anyone!

by Sponsored content