The Ashes 2010/11
- Thread starter strung out
- Start date
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I think that's what I will have to do, to learn to love this tacky bastardisation of a beautiful game
Idaho
blah blah blah
I think that's what I will have to do, to learn to love this tacky bastardisation of a beautiful game
It does have it's own subtlties as it goes. It requires a very different bowling style. In many ways it's more a bowlers game in terms of technique. Batting generally consists of hoofing it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They did well to avoid an innings defeat today. Acorns and all that.
And to be fair their score of 157 certianly represents and improvement on some of their recent efforts.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Just seen highlights of the 20/20 game, amazing stuff. 
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
OK, I get your point here, and I must admit, I found the highlkights pretty exciting. still not 'proper cricket', but...
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
And surely an hour of highlights of a T20 are more representative of the game than an hour of highlights for a Test, so you must have a better feel of the T20 than the Tests after that? Any game with Morgan batting is worth a watch..
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I used to hate 20/20. It's allright now - as noted above, the bowling has changed it. It's no longer all graceless slog.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Perhaps not. Dot balls and (near) maidens are crucial in T20. The batsmen are under immense pressure to get boundaries and get lots of them. Clever bowlers can keep them guessing and get them to mistime. I think Yardy is a very interesting T20 bowler. He would be a total disaster in the long form, but his pace and line variations, combined with his ability to keep the ball low, really throttle the batsmen.
That Tait - his action really does make Johnson look polished by comparison.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
I've never quite grasped this, because while I understand that the batters are 'defending' their wicket, if they don't score any runs they don't win, so surely they also need to 'attack'
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
Any game, depends on the pitch, one of the Zim T20 semi finals was won by 1 wicket (after 18.3 overs) chasing a target of 71 after the side batting first made 70 off 19.2 overs..
mattie
missing in inaction
I'm all for it - much as 5-a-side football or 7s rugby ask different questions of the participants, they're still a subsidiary of the longer game.
I've never quite grasped this, because while I understand that the batters are 'defending' their wicket, if they don't score any runs they don't win, so surely they also need to 'attack'
In proper cricket, you win by bowling the other team out twice. If you don't manage that, you don't win. Runs scored only become important if you manage it.
I wouldn't pay to go to a 5-a-side football match either.
mattie
missing in inaction
Fine -the bowling challenge is predominantly to stifle scoring, not predominantly to take wickets, but they're just different challenges.
Taking wickets is also a good way of applying pressure in Twenty20, the England/Oz game should be a clear indicator of that.
mattie
missing in inaction
Even if an 11-a-side game took a full working day?
My post was more to illustrate that other sports recognise that short-form versions have particular benefit, even if they don't fully mirror the full-blown sport.
Hence defence.
In proper cricket, the batting challenge is predominantly to not give your wicket away, hence defence.
It doesn't, though. It takes just the right amount of time to ensure the game is exciting and interesting. Just like a test match.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
So say no team scores any runs, but the opening team takes 20 wickets then the other team fail to bowl them out in the final innings - doesn't that just result in a draw?
Can you win without scoring any runs?
mattie
missing in inaction
It generally does.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Australia just tried that. Didn't work.
mattie
missing in inaction
The point of Test cricket is that you have to react to match conditions. Stifling scoring rates to apply pressure, to defend a low score, whilst waiting for a new ball, to tempt a batsman, etc etc are all part of it. It's these bits that Twenty20 emphasise, and it omits other parts. Much like 7s rugby has no scrum worth the name, and has only a subset of the skillset and subtlety of the full-blown game.
The idea that every batting session is Boycottesque is simply not correct - not that you're using that precise argument, but that seems to be the gist.
No, I wasn't saying anything about the manner of the batting. Merely pointing out that ultimately the test game is about taking wickets to win. It's what distinguishes it from the short game, where you do not have to take wickets to win. This has totally nerfed the value of the attack bowler in the short game (albeit that they have found other niches instead). It, literally, just isn't cricket.
The reason I am apparently so petty about this is because this is what I enjoy about cricket, this overwhelming importance of bowling a team out and importance of the strategic value of time in this equation. By reverting to a short form, you are essentially removing the thing I love most. To me, it becomes dull and insipid, just a succession of slogs.
The reason I am apparently so petty about this is because this is what I enjoy about cricket, this overwhelming importance of bowling a team out and importance of the strategic value of time in this equation. By reverting to a short form, you are essentially removing the thing I love most. To me, it becomes dull and insipid, just a succession of slogs.
mattie
missing in inaction
For time, think of resources. Wickets and overs are important, and it's the on-the-fly calculation of how to manage them (think Bevan etc) that is of interest. It's not happy-clappy, smack-every-ball. It's make damn sure you hit the bad ones, and plan your innings to attack the weaker bowlers (or bowlers you find easier to play).
As above, it's just different challenges, and if you view cricket as solely being about the challenge of preserving your wicket regardless, you have a very different interpretation of cricket to me.
Idaho
blah blah blah
? Test Cricket is primarily about runs. If you have more runs, you generally win - with the exception of team losing on runs, holding out for a draw.
Yesterday I saw Australia almost win by taking 10 wickets. Not quite sure where that fits into your analysis. Wickets are crucial for breaking up momentum in T20.
