T20 Cricket: some thoughts.

JGK wrote:The experience in the last domestic Aust 2020 season was that there were very few close games. Frankly, if side 1 puts on a good total and side 2 loses a couple of wickets early, then the last 20 overs are as one sided and pointless as many JAMODIs are seen to be.

I have been to 3 2020 games in my life and all were practically over 3 overs into the second innings.

I think we should draw lessons from basketball when it comes to assessing how "good" 2020 is - any sport that needs rock music, dancing girls and similar gimmicks to keep the crowd interested is fundamentally crap.

Bingo. Spot on.

Phurt... yeah, 50 overs stuff is so exciting. As you said Tim, 7.8% of the matches you watch turn out to be an event.

Cricket is cricket. Although Kenya's effort just now probably doesn't count.

Tests will always be king with the connoisseurs, and ODIs have become a little formulaic (sp?) and a tad boring, so 20/20 is probably the injection the international game needed.

JGK wrote:....any sport that needs rock music, dancing girls and similar gimmicks to keep the crowd interested is fundamentally crap.

I'm not sure that the music etc is needed to keep the crowd interested. Many find it an irritating distraction from what can often be quite an exciting game. I think that element is what some ignorant marketeers think will add to the experience, following the lead of the Americans who really do have attention deficit syndrome as a nation.

I kind of agree with much of what Zim says, but I have to say I find it far more enjoyable than most 50 overs matches. It's not real cricket, but as the 50 over game becomes increasingly contrived (making it even more formulaic without relieving its dullness) you can say the same for the 50 over game.

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.

Sadly, in this age, it may be necessary for cricket to have an arm which is easily sellable and marketable for it to retain whatever strength it has. That is a sad reflection of our age and culture, manipulated by multi-nationals and marketing, rather than a statement on T20 itself.

doctorspin wrote:
I'm not sure that the music etc is needed to keep the crowd interested. Many find it an irritating distraction from what can often be quite an exciting game. I think that element is what some ignorant marketeers think will add to the experience, following the lead of the Americans who really do have attention deficit syndrome as a nation.

I kind of agree with much of what Zim says, but I have to say I find it far more enjoyable than most 50 overs matches. It's not real cricket, but as the 50 over game becomes increasingly contrived (making it even more formulaic without relieving its dullness) you can say the same for the 50 over game.

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.

Sadly, in this age, it may be necessary for cricket to have an arm which is easily sellable and marketable for it to retain whatever strength it has. That is a sad reflection of our age and culture, manipulated by multi-nationals and marketing, rather than a statement on T20 itself.

Spin, a quality post. Expect some blithering bullshizzle from Timbo the chippy Wozzie.

Bullshizzle....I like it. Even better when it's blithering.

I have to agree with both Zim and Spin.

I don't particularly like the razz-mattazz and all the b0ll0xs that goes with the T20- stuff. Seems all the bit over the top, a bit too American football for me.

To be honest though, generally very few games of cricket really go down to the wire in any format.

However in the T20 stuff I would expect that even less would be close, they may seem close in score terms, but in actual fact you'll find many are won comfortably.

However, if T20 gets more youngsters into the game its obviously good for the continuance of the sport. My worry is that its only seen as a tool for marketing and not a tool for development, which it should well be.

All well and good Chas ... but youngsters force fed on 20/20 aren't going to turn out as future Test quality stars ....
And I agree, it IS a marketing dream ... full houses, constricted hours of play, lots of music, dance and razz ....
to say cricket "benefits" is, IMO, borders on the ambiguous.

Financially of course it does .... however, producing future test stars ... no way at all. Guys like Gayle and Gibbs et al were brought up on the long game - honing their skills to suit that extended pressure. Adapting to the bing-bang-slog of 20/20 would come fairly naturally to most ...

It's here to stay - like it or hate it - and it does offer a quick fix when seeing the likes of those two I mentioned blitzing away. But when I hear commentators talk of "records" being broken - that IMO is absolute bullshit.

holcs wrote:My worry is that its only seen as a tool for marketing and not a tool for development, which it should well be.

Sage point. I fear the same.What has the ECB really done with the riches from selling out to Sky?

The BCCI improving the Indian game with its great wealth?

The ICC...a force for good in the international game......The 2007 WC......Zimbabwe......general development of cricket?

test cricket may be 'real cricket' n all but how many close test matches are there?

20-20 is gonna challenge ODIs, not test matches. it will attract a new audience to cricket. plus if you dont like you can always, erm, not watch it...

Ash wrote:test cricket may be 'real cricket' n all but how many close test matches are there?

20-20 is gonna challenge ODIs, not test matches. it will attract a new audience to cricket. plus if you dont like you can always, erm, not watch it...

I think the fact is, that in Tests, although you often get to a point where it is very probably not going to be close, the journey to that point is often very interesting and usually different from other matches which may have reached a similar point. Although this is very impressionistic, i can think of quite a number of Tests where on day 3 or 4 one side looked dead and buried and they ended up being thrillers or near thrillers on the final day.

Also, 3 or 4 quick wickets falling early on in a OD match and that is probably it. Not so in a Test.

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.

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.

Agreed, give the fact most kids are lardarses playing their PS2's for hours on end - anything that gets them into the sport has to be a good thing.

[quote="Geoffrey TruemanPeople 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.[/quote]

England's results bear this out.

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz & winning in SA ?

Totally agree, man

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz & winning in SA ?

Totally agree, man

Living on past glories again?

Any second 1966 will be brought up.

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz once in the last 20+ years & winning in SA ocassionally?

Totally agree, man

Yep, me too.

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz & winning in SA ?

Totally agree, man

Living on past glories again?

Any second 1966 will be brought up.

Naw. Just a bit funny why a saffie would want to slate the state of our cricket considering you haven't done the former for 37 years and haven't done the opposite of the other for more than that either

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz & winning in SA ?

Totally agree, man

Living on past glories again?

Any second 1966 will be brought up.

Naw. Just a bit funny why a saffie would want to slate the state of our cricket considering you haven't done the former for 37 years and haven't done the opposite of the other for more than that either

But taips is an ornery Aussie these days . . .

Sorry, that should be "honorary" . . .

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:

taipan wrote:

England's results bear this out.

You mean beating Oz & winning in SA ?

Totally agree, man

Living on past glories again?

Any second 1966 will be brought up.

Naw. Just a bit funny why a saffie would want to slate the state of our cricket considering you haven't done the former for 37 years and haven't done the opposite of the other for more than that either

Well the banning might have a bit to do with it.

And I wasn't saying SA cricket is in good hands. In fact I have been posting the complete opposite for over five years.

Of course the problem for t20 in the sub-continent is that it doesn't really leave time for buiding and burning effigies.

tac wrote:Sorry, that should be "honorary" . . .

Lets face it, no pom will ever earn that accolade.

taipan wrote:Of course the problem for t20 in the sub-continent is that it doesn't really leave time for buiding and burning effigies.

I think they have basic effigies kits that can be bought prior to the match and you just add the face and shirt number as ocassion requires . . .

tac wrote:Sorry, that should be "honorary" . . .

Apology not required.
You got it right the first time.