Originally posted by David O'Meara: I enjoy the spectacle, but I think in general T20 is bad for cricket (and not just because Oz lost to Pakistan )
This form of the game is too distilled. It is big hitting and high excitement with reduced finesse and tactics.
I think it is good, if it co-exists with test and ODI. But if this is the only form left OR the dominant format left, then its a killer for the game! For me i think its a great format as i do not have to fight with my wife for the TV, the full day. It finishes off in 3 hours flat And the bowl out between India and Pak that day was really exciting! I love this game
Aussies dominance is fading in T20. This is good for Cricket as they start favourites in tests and ODIs.
When ODI world cup was started wab back in 1975, people felt, ODI is killer of cricket test matches. Now, same opinion is spreading about T20.
David, I believe, batsmen and bowlers will start building new techniques, strategies to win these T20 games. Cricket will find a new dimension of batting and bowling. It will evolve and then you would find tactics and finesse in the future of T20.
I love this format, as it takes much lesser time. I don't need to skip office for watching crikcet.
Satish Chilukuri
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 266
posted
0
Originally posted by David O'Meara:
This form of the game is too distilled. It is big hitting and high excitement with reduced finesse and tactics.
+1
I really love watching a bowler dominating a game. Now instead bowling to get rid off the batsmen, bowlers are just content with minimizing runs scored.
Nik Arora
Ranch Hand
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 652
posted
0
Hi Satish,
Originally posted by Satish Chilukuri:
+1
I really love watching a bowler dominating a game. Now instead bowling to get rid off the batsmen, bowlers are just content with minimizing runs scored.
Bowler will be tested.He has to put all his skills and talent to dominate and if he can use his skills he will definitely dominate.
Currently I have the same feeling as that of DOM, but I think we all will get used to this format once we see it more often.
But deciding the result based on bowl outs? That's horrible! Why not devise a better way?
For example: Both the teams will play another 3 overs each, but instead of 10 wickets, there will a maximum of 2 wickets for each team.
Or, what about throwing in some "double wicket cricket" (remember?) rules here. Both team will send 2 batsman, who should bat for 2 overs. For every wicket they lose, there will be a reduction in the number of runs they have scored.
Any more recommendations?
Mani
Quaerendo Invenietis
Nik Arora
Ranch Hand
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 652
posted
0
Hi,
Originally posted by Mani Ram: Currently I have the same feeling as that of DOM, but I think we all will get used to this format once we see it more often.
But deciding the result based on bowl outs? That's horrible! Why not devise a better way?
For example: Both the teams will play another 3 overs each, but instead of 10 wickets, there will a maximum of 2 wickets for each team.
Or, what about throwing in some "double wicket cricket" (remember?) rules here. Both team will send 2 batsman, who should bat for 2 overs. For every wicket they lose, there will be a reduction in the number of runs they have scored.
Any more recommendations?
Deciding a game on a bowl out is stupid.How about starting the game again by providing extra 5 overs.
Regards, Nik
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand
Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
posted
0
Originally posted by Nik Arora: Hi,
Deciding a game on a bowl out is stupid.How about starting the game again by providing extra 5 overs.
Regards, Nik
But a team batting for 5 overs with 10 wickets in hand will be worse. That's why I would like to have a cap on the wickets. Also, another 10 overs will cost an extra 45 minutes - beats the purpose of Twenty20
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill: ...I was thinking this was the other 20/20 cricket, where Hugh Downs is bowling against Barbara Walters. That just sucks.
Yeah, I like it better when they box! (Although they both really slow down after the first round.)
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5369
posted
0
Cricket is no more gentlemen's game.
think of it. Earlier, a team may win or lose or draw. Chances of draw in test is much higher than winning or losing.
If one team is losing, other team allows first team to play again(follow on).
So it was just for pleasure, team would play for five days and then happily go home.
But now, specially 20-20, IMO, is not cricket.
You dont remove goalie from football to have more goals and to make match exciting.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand
Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
posted
0
Originally posted by R K Singh: Cricket is no more gentlemen's game.
think of it. Earlier, a team may win or lose or draw. Chances of draw in test is much higher than winning or losing.
If one team is losing, other team allows first team to play again(follow on).
So it was just for pleasure, team would play for five days and then happily go home.
But now, specially 20-20, IMO, is not cricket.
You dont remove goalie from football to have more goals and to make match exciting.
Eh? From when did winning (or losing) a game became ungentle?
Cricket is (or was) not called a gentlemen's game because the players didn't want to win. It was called so because the people played it fair. And that reputation has deterioted even before Twenty20 came into picture.
And allowing a team to follow-on is a strategy to win; not a gesture of gentleness. Do you know that in the initial days there was no concept of follow-on? Does that mean that cricket was not a gentlemen's game initially, and it became a gentlemen's game later and now it has again lost it gentleness?
Um, it isn't the World Cup, it is the ICC World Twenty20 Championship. It is still being played on TV here, sad I dropped by After Pakistan's bowling effort I wouldn't have given India much chance. Nice victory!
Sri Anand
Ranch Hand
Joined: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 392
posted
0
can some one post the scorecards here., I have nothing accessible from here except Java Sites
Sri Anand
Ranch Hand
Joined: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 392
posted
0
Its not world cup, But its good to see India making up something for all the Cricket fans after terrible show at World cup
Note: We didnt have Sachin,Ganguly and Rahul the Old Folks and best thing was Sehwag didnt play the finals today...all this could be the reason for Winning
ankur rathi
Ranch Hand
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 3829
posted
0
India Rocks!!!
Pakistan also played good, it was a close match as expected.
0
)
