Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by dechuck » Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:07:18


I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20 comp
in I India

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:05:39


Quote:
> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
> interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

> By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20 comp
> in I India

Actually, I think 20-20 may actually be quite promising.  I'll wait
and
see, but all evidence seems to indicate that this might be more
entertaining and strategic than 50 over ODIs.

For one, tactical skill will play a huge role -- a captain needs to
use his bowlers very wisely -- he has only 4 overs per bowler and
needs to make sure the bowler bowls in the situation he is best
suited to (which batsmen are batting, etc.)

Second, I think spin -- and bowling in general -- could become
more important than in ODIs.  A great ODI rate is 6 runs per
over.  A decent 20-20 rate is 10 runs per over.  Now, each
ball is precious, and the batsmen have to look to score of
each and every bowler.  And now, the skilled bowler who
can diguise his slower one, vary his pace, slip in the arm
ball, will get wickets.

Third, in many situations 6 batsmen will be enough -- so
there could be more room for pure bowlers in this form of the
game.  On the flip side, wickets -- especially early wickets --
will be cruicial.

Not to say the bits and pieces player will disappear
totally, but even if you are not a wicket-taking bowler in
other forms of the game, if you are a clever bowler (who
can disguise and vary his pace -- also Dmitri M) you
could be very effective, especially if you can bat like
Dmitri can.

And, unlike the ODI game which is quite long, this will
be done in about 3 hours -- not something that takes up
pretty much the whole day.

Finally, fielding standards will improve even further... We
will see better athletes grace the cricket field..

So, I'm actually turning my view around.  Test cricket
will always be my #1 by a wide margin, but I think 20-20
may well become something I actively follow -- but I'll
wait and see, after the T20 WCup.

Bharat [who plans to get the T20 WCup, if DISH has it]

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Southpa » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:21:29


Quote:

> > I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
> > interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

> > By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20 comp
> > in I India

> Actually, I think 20-20 may actually be quite promising.  I'll wait
> and
> see, but all evidence seems to indicate that this might be more
> entertaining and strategic than 50 over ODIs.

> For one, tactical skill will play a huge role -- a captain needs to
> use his bowlers very wisely -- he has only 4 overs per bowler and
> needs to make sure the bowler bowls in the situation he is best
> suited to (which batsmen are batting, etc.)

> Second, I think spin -- and bowling in general -- could become
> more important than in ODIs.  A great ODI rate is 6 runs per
> over.  A decent 20-20 rate is 10 runs per over.  Now, each
> ball is precious, and the batsmen have to look to score of
> each and every bowler.  And now, the skilled bowler who
> can diguise his slower one, vary his pace, slip in the arm
> ball, will get wickets.

> Third, in many situations 6 batsmen will be enough -- so
> there could be more room for pure bowlers in this form of the
> game.  On the flip side, wickets -- especially early wickets --
> will be cruicial.

> Not to say the bits and pieces player will disappear
> totally, but even if you are not a wicket-taking bowler in
> other forms of the game, if you are a clever bowler (who
> can disguise and vary his pace -- also Dmitri M) you
> could be very effective, especially if you can bat like
> Dmitri can.

> And, unlike the ODI game which is quite long, this will
> be done in about 3 hours -- not something that takes up
> pretty much the whole day.

> Finally, fielding standards will improve even further... We
> will see better athletes grace the cricket field..

> So, I'm actually turning my view around.  Test cricket
> will always be my #1 by a wide margin, but I think 20-20
> may well become something I actively follow -- but I'll
> wait and see, after the T20 WCup.

> Bharat [who plans to get the T20 WCup, if DISH has it]

I think T20 may become bigger than ODOs for sheer entertainment value.
T20 may be better in terms of entertainment simply because it is only
about as long as your typical dinner + movie date. However I remain
unconvinced that it is a better test of skill. Those who do stake this
claim have some valid points; the argument regarding attacking bowling
(especially attacking spin bowling instead of the drab middle overs),
is a particularly good one. As a spinner, I am all for T20.

But there are downsides to T20 also. One downside to T20 is that
batting in it is simply synonymous with clean striking of the ball.
Not with technique or temperament, which have been the traditional
cornerstones of the art of batting. Technique and temperament are
better tested in ODOs as compared to T20. For e.g., the former is
tested when there is some juice in the wicket, and the latter when
wickets have fallen early in a long chase (e.g. SWaugh in the 1999 WC
game). While I'm not a batsman, I'm a connoiseur of the art, and T20
is not a good thing to have happened to batting.

In T20, wickets are actually not that crucial since it is quite hard
to be all out, even when trying to score quickly. Losing wickets is
bad not because there is a danger of being all-out, losing wickets is
just bad in terms of lost momentum. There is almost never a danger of
being all out. This devalues wickets slightly. The batsman has less
incentive to preserve his wicket - yes, he needs to be wary of lost
momentum, but if he's overly careful, momentum will be lost anyway. So
better to err on the side of aggression, and throw caution to the
winds, thus devaluing the wicket a bit.

Unlike in ODIs where 50 overs is quite sufficient to be all out,
especially when trying to score fast. The result is that one would
ideally pack one's T20 side with hard-hitting batsmen and wicket-
taking bowlers. There is actually a place in test and ODI cricket for
the innings-builder and run-restricter, but these two don't find a
place in T20 at all.

There is no equal to test cricket of course. But between T20 and ODI,
I am not convinced the former is a greater measure of skill. ODI
cricket wouldn't be so bad if the wickets weren't made so batsman-
friendly. I've always maintained that it's not that the ODI format is
bad. It's that ODI wickets have been made almost uniformly batsman-
friendly, and there's just too many ODI games. Thus making this
variety of the game rather formulaic and predictable.

My experience with T20 is that, while the format is quite entertaining
in and of itself, a sporting wicket only makes a game more
interesting. A 20-20 game with a 120-140 par-score is more interesting
than a par-180 run-***. Thus, preparing ultra batting-friendly
wickets will IMO harm 20-20 also, just like it did ODIs.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Dave -Turne » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:54:56

Quote:
> The only interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

awww well we'll be thinking of you during this tough period dechucka
 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Rodne » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:09:44

Give Gideon Haigh's article on the subject a read.

--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate

I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by dechuck » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:10:19


Quote:
>> The only interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.
> awww well we'll be thinking of you during this tough period dechucka

I'm sure he will NOT. but I couldn't think of any possible other point of
interest for the tournament from my pov
 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by alve » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:38:23

Quote:

> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
> interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

> By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20 comp
> in I India

Well yes. It'll provide a few sparks of life during the endless tedium of
the rah rah WC.
 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Stex » Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:03:27


Quote:

> > I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
> > interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

> > By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20 comp
> > in I India

> Well yes. It'll provide a few sparks of life during the endless tedium of
> the rah rah WC.

So you're not watching it ya big poof.

Cant wait till you start taking an interest when Aus are in the final

Stex

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Mike Holman » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:52:01


tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

Quote:

>> Actually, I think 20-20 may actually be quite promising.  I'll wait
>> and
>> see, but all evidence seems to indicate that this might be more
>> entertaining and strategic than 50 over ODIs.

<snip>
>> So, I'm actually turning my view around.  Test cricket
>> will always be my #1 by a wide margin, but I think 20-20
>> may well become something I actively follow -- but I'll
>> wait and see, after the T20 WCup.

I'm pleased to see that you have swallowed what I was peddling to you
at Lord's hook, line and sinker. Except for that "wait and see", I
guess.

Quote:
>I think T20 may become bigger than ODOs for sheer entertainment value.
>T20 may be better in terms of entertainment simply because it is only
>about as long as your typical dinner + movie date. However I remain
>unconvinced that it is a better test of skill. Those who do stake this
>claim have some valid points; the argument regarding attacking bowling
>(especially attacking spin bowling instead of the drab middle overs),
>is a particularly good one. As a spinner, I am all for T20.

>But there are downsides to T20 also. One downside to T20 is that
>batting in it is simply synonymous with clean striking of the ball.
>Not with technique or temperament, which have been the traditional
>cornerstones of the art of batting. ..

>In T20, wickets are actually not that crucial since it is quite hard
>to be all out, even when trying to score quickly. ..

..

Quote:
>My experience with T20 is that, while the format is quite entertaining
>in and of itself, a sporting wicket only makes a game more
>interesting. A 20-20 game with a 120-140 par-score is more interesting
>than a par-180 run-***. Thus, preparing ultra batting-friendly
>wickets will IMO harm 20-20 also, just like it did ODIs.

Your point about the wickets on which odos are mostly played is an
excellent one, but I'm not sure at all about your other points.

In my view, you are wrong about temperament not being tested. The
easiest thing in the world is to get swept up in the momentum of a
game rather than keep a cool enough head to do what ought to be done.
There's a fairly interesting interview with Ravi Bopara on the BBC
website where he goes into some detail about how to plan a T20 innings
and the importance of keeping your concentration on the job in hand
rather than getting carried away. If you need 17 off the last over,
you can't just slog blindly and hope: well, you can, but it is
unlikely to work as well as a coolly calculated ***. If you keep
your cool as the batsman, it's all the more likely that the bowler
will lose his and give you the game.

And while your point about each batsman's wicket being not worth as
much in and of itself is valid, it's not an infinitely extensible
point. If *all* the batsmen play as though it doesn't matter if they
get out then more often than not they *will* all get out, usually well
inside the 20 overs. Three wickets down in six overs and you need
someone to hold the rest of the innings together, not just blast. Just
as we legitimately criticise Test batsmen who can wear the bowlers
down but then fail to capitalise by scoring some fast runs, we can
legitimately nitpick T20 batsmen who don't have a first and second
gear to go with their supercharged overdrive.

I'm also unsure what you mean by saying that run-restricters have no
place in T20. Bowlers who can deliver their four overs for under 20
are a highly prized commodity in this market. Wicket-taking remains a
very effective brake, of course, but a bowler who can read a batsman
and bowl him the ball he has definitely not prepared for does very
well too. The style of bowling with which one can best achieve that
may be different to that for doing it in 50-over cricket but the
principle remains the same, surely.

When the target is roughly 8 an over, an over that goes for only one
or two achieves as big a swing as one which goes for 15 or 16: it
follows that the state of the game can change very rapidly indeed.
It's very easy for a side to think they've got a game won and find it
slipping through their fingers because they relaxed.

The basic point that I think you are missing is the difficulty of
correct decision-making and accurate execution in the compressed
timescale.

Whether that makes T20 a better, harder or superior game to 50-over is
perhaps more of a matter of taste than anything else. The skill sets
required and the methods of using them are slightly different. I
suppose I can see how some would prefer the skills which 50-over
highlights better than T20 does, but from my experience so far, I feel
the opposite way.

Cheers,

Mike

--

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by HVS » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:55:41

On 07 Sep 2007, dechucka wrote

Quote:
> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum

"ad nauseam"

(Erroneous spelling pet peeve.)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by dechuck » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:35:06


Quote:
> On 07 Sep 2007, dechucka wrote

>> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum

> "ad nauseam"

> (Erroneous spelling pet peeve.)

what shits me off is people going on ad nauseum about there pet spelling and
grammer beafs

;-)

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Wog?Georg » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:14:13


Quote:
> On 07 Sep 2007, dechucka wrote

>> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum

> "ad nauseam"

> (Erroneous spelling pet peeve.)

I'm not sure how I'd have spelt it if I'd typed it.  Presumably the wrong
way prior to your post.  It just... looks right!  Now I know better.
Thanks, Harv.

--
George
"Strike me down while you can, but it won't make your dried up ovaries any
more fertile." - Eric Cartman - 3 May 2006

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Rodne » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:52:48

Quote:

> Give Gideon Haigh's article on the subject a read.

http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/current/story/3096...

--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate

I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Southpa » Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:30:51


Quote:

> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

<snip>

Quote:

> Your point about the wickets on which odos are mostly played is an
> excellent one, but I'm not sure at all about your other points.

> In my view, you are wrong about temperament not being tested. The
> easiest thing in the world is to get swept up in the momentum of a
> game rather than keep a cool enough head to do what ought to be done.
> There's a fairly interesting interview with Ravi Bopara on the BBC
> website where he goes into some detail about how to plan a T20 innings
> and the importance of keeping your concentration on the job in hand
> rather than getting carried away. If you need 17 off the last over,
> you can't just slog blindly and hope: well, you can, but it is
> unlikely to work as well as a coolly calculated ***. If you keep
> your cool as the batsman, it's all the more likely that the bowler
> will lose his and give you the game.

There's temperament and there's temperament. I was talking of
temperament more in terms of waiting out tough periods while building
a big innings. Of course, this is what makes test batting gruelling
and entertaining, at the same time. It's visible on a smaller scale in
ODOs, at least theoretically. Take for e.g. opening the batting
against a top-class new-ball attack, under seaming conditions. Or the
Steve Waugh example I gave earlier where a long innings was required,
but the immediate circumstances were fairly trying.

In T20 there are no "periods" - it is rather like a highlights package
- an amorphous, gaudy mess of cricket, the purples, oranges, and
bright reds splashed over each other randomly.

Quote:
> And while your point about each batsman's wicket being not worth as
> much in and of itself is valid, it's not an infinitely extensible
> point. If *all* the batsmen play as though it doesn't matter if they
> get out then more often than not they *will* all get out, usually well
> inside the 20 overs. Three wickets down in six overs and you need
> someone to hold the rest of the innings together, not just blast. Just

My experience is that it is extremely difficult to lose 10 wickets in
20 overs even if you ***y try. If you have 3 wickets down in 6
overs, things are not bad at all. The field is likely to be spread
after 6 overs, especially if you hit one or two over the top. And the
ball will only get older from now on, yet not old enough to spit out
of a non-existent rough. The worst batting show I have seen from my
team in the last 2 years in ANY form of cricket was being 59/7 after
12 overs of a 20/20 game. We finished at 120/9 - *still* not all-out.
We lost because of the collapse early on, but at no point did we stop
striking it as firmly as we could. The tail (yours truly included) was
asked to hit as hard as possible along the ground. That was the only
restriction. At no point was there an instruction to defend like one's
life depended on it. Because that would be suicide anyways. 85/8 in 20
overs is no better than 85 all out in 16.

Quote:
> as we legitimately criticise Test batsmen who can wear the bowlers
> down but then fail to capitalise by scoring some fast runs, we can
> legitimately nitpick T20 batsmen who don't have a first and second
> gear to go with their supercharged overdrive.

> I'm also unsure what you mean by saying that run-restricters have no
> place in T20. Bowlers who can deliver their four overs for under 20
> are a highly prized commodity in this market. Wicket-taking remains a

Bowling four overs for less than 20 without taking a wicket is a near-
impossibility in T20. I wonder how frequently this has happened. The
only reliable way to ensure one goes for under 20, is to take wickets,
i.e. to attack. The few times 4-1-17-0 has happened, I'm guessing
wickets have been tumbling at the other end.

Since you cannot have a specialist for a task that is near-impossible,
run-restricting as a specialty is non-existent in T20. In ODOs, you
have the middle-over specialists. In tests, you have the "stock"
bowlers. But in T20, as a strategy, you either kill or be killed.
There's no attrition.

Quote:
> very effective brake, of course, but a bowler who can read a batsman
> and bowl him the ball he has definitely not prepared for does very

This is what one does to take wickets. The kind of bowler that I'm
talking about, that has no place in T20 is the one who *consistently*
bowls on the exact same, predictable spot. The batsman expects the
ball to be in that spot as well, but is not prepared to take a risk at
this point. He's playing the waiting game - waiting for the bad ball.
The bowler is also playing the waiting game - waiting for the
batsman's patience to run out. Such a game is non-existent in T20, but
can be seen in the middle-overs of ODOs and during some phases in
tests.

Such a contest is non-existent in T20 because the batsman is *always*
prepared to take a risk (wickets not being as important and all). The
bowler is thus always trying to surprise the batsman. He cannot wait
for the batsman to make a mistake because, even if the mistake comes
in as few as 10 balls, the previous 9 could've turned the game on its
head.

Quote:
> well too. The style of bowling with which one can best achieve that
> may be different to that for doing it in 50-over cricket but the
> principle remains the same, surely.

> When the target is roughly 8 an over, an over that goes for only one
> or two achieves as big a swing as one which goes for 15 or 16: it

The only way to ensure an over goes for one or two in a T20 game is to
*beat* the bat. This is the point I'm trying to make. You have to look
to beat the bat every ball. Look to surprise the batsman every ball.
With attritional bowling however, you're not looking to beat the bat
every ball. Most of the time actually you want the batsman to play...
play a particular way, so that when you do try something different, 2
or 3 overs later, he will be surprised.

-Samarth.

Quote:
> follows that the state of the game can change very rapidly indeed.
> It's very easy for a side to think they've got a game won and find it
> slipping through their fingers because they relaxed.

> The basic point that I think you are missing is the difficulty of
> correct decision-making and accurate execution in the compressed
> timescale.

> Whether that makes T20 a better, harder or superior game to 50-over is
> perhaps more of a matter of taste than anything else. The skill sets
> required and the methods of using them are slightly different. I
> suppose I can see how some would prefer the skills which 50-over
> highlights better than T20 does, but from my experience so far, I feel
> the opposite way.

> Cheers,

> Mike

> --

 
 
 

Does anyone care about the 20/20 tournament in SA?

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:22:05


Quote:

>> I care less about this than I do about the ad nauseum ODIs.  The only
>> interest I have is if Pontings wife is OK.

>> By the way what is the supposed significance off this breakaway 20/20
>> comp
>> in I India

> Well yes. It'll provide a few sparks of life during the endless tedium of
> the rah rah WC.

The only people who find it tedious are those who feel obliged to sit
through it in a desperate search for new troll material.  For others it's
usually a case of watching it if one enjoys the sport, and not watching if
one doesn't.

Andrew