Clearly, I am mightily impressed with India’s victory (I am an Indian - for those of you with less than 15 posts). And I enjoyed the tournament just as much as the next guy.
But, the more I think about the format, I cannot but help feel that - this is not the way Cricket is meant to be played. I am no great purist, but I want a level playing field where all types of players (batsmen, pacers, spinners) have more or less equal chances to exploit their skills.
“Harbhajan could not get his Yorkers right” - when was the last time you heard a spinner trying to get his yorkers right. My take is - why even bother with Spin in Twenty20. For those of you who just thought about Afridi’s stupendous success in this tournament - let me tell you this - Afridi is not a traditional spinner - his bowling is interspersed with pretty fast ones.
In the India-Aus match, when Hayden and Symonds were batting - Ian Chappel commented that Harbhajan should stop trying to contain the bastmen by bowling “yorkers” and instead try and take wickets by luring the batsmen into attacking. That, I thought, was the biggest BS to be said in a Twenty20 game. We found this out in the finals. THREE SIXES in one Harbhajan over and Pakistan were back in business. How can a spinner take any risk by bowling flighted deliveries and hoping that the batsman would commit mistakes. A few hits and your team could be out of the game.
So…bottomline …I still think 20/20 is absolutely not fair to bowlers esp spinners.
Twenty20 is not a sport in traditional sense. Its sportainment. Just like WWE. Now thats not wrestling either, as most of us know.
Having said that, you may want to rethink your example. I agree with you that Afridi is an atypical spinner (he bowls an occassional 85+ mph delivery) but Vittori is a classical spinner. Vittori had great success in this format as well. Point being, whether you are a spinner or a pacer, you need to know how to ball under a particular situation. At this level, and in this game, a one-trick-pony can not succeed. What Dhoni was saying about Bhaji was that he was struggling with his length. That caused the three sixes. When he is on song, Bhaji can be absolutely impossible to hit, and he gets wickets too. He is a good spinner. It was just not his day in the final.
I do grant you the point: Twenty20 is completely *tulla *cricket. It may squeeze out ODI (despite ICC's protestations to the contrary) but it will never replace test cricket.
So...bottomline .....I still think 20/20 is absolutely not fair to bowlers esp spinners.
i thought we saw spinners take control of games that were out of control
i thought it would be one-sided in favor of batsmen but after the tournament, it changed my perspective. good bowlers did trouble batsmen. fair to say some good deliveries may be hit out but we saw examples like how gul in the final and sreesanth in the semi took control and showed their skill.
I don't see this Tulla Cricket ever replacing ODI. Yes, when cricket is dominated by tullay bazz than it will be over. No one will watch 20/20 when you have players like Kallis, Asif, Pointing, Dravid and others in ODI format, but when no such players are present, ODI will defiantly fade away.
When I saw first 2 matches of this worldcup and saw 200 runs chased down and then ZIM beating AUS, I thought it was BS cricket and started that thread. Then I saw pakistani team bowl and they proved to everyone that there is opportunity for the bowlers in this game although a little limited.
I think it may be matter of perspective. Twenty20 will require different skillsets from bolwer, technical measures(Run/over below 7 is ok. Average above 20 is not ok) will change. Bowlers will have to adapt to it and those who can will excell( Gul and Afridi are good examples). I think they should do away with ridiculous rule of free hit on no ball etc.
All and all it is marketable product and if it has market it will evolve and it will change very definition of what a bowler or batsmen is supposed to be.
I totally agree with Faisal that it will squeeze ODI but Test cricket will always be there.
Yes twenty-20 is Tullah Cricket but I do not want to downplay it completely because it does require some skill, timing and/or power to hit sixes/good tullahs consistently. Not every tullah ends up as a six. A bad tullah often sees you getting caught in the deep
But since the ICC has limited the no. of international TT's per test team per year to 7, I think TT should stay.
I also think that the 50-over games and 50-overs World Cup will stay. What the ICC could do is scrap the biennial Champions Trophy altogether now that we have biennial Twenty-20 and 4-yearly 50-overs World Cups
For me the 50-overs World Cup will always remain the real measure of greatness of a team in limited overs format because it tests your skill and tullah baazi over an extended period.
And as I mentioned before I would like to see 4 bowlers bowling 5 overs each in order to address the balance between bat and ball in TT and also the no-ball nonsense rule should go.
I don't want to sound repetitive....but certain types of spinners just cannot succeed in this version of the game....esp conventional Leggies like Piyush Chawla.
"Patience" is supposed to be a valuable asset for a spinner....ability to gradually work the batsman into a trap.....my point is....where is the time in 20/20 to be "patient" or "wait for the batsman to fall for your bait".
One bad over....and you might have changed the complexion of the game...esp between the 10th and 20nd over.
There are some cricketers who are more suitable for test cricket. You don't even see them selected in ODI's, let alone Twenty20. No shame in that. Conversely there are some kinds of players who absolutely will be a miserable failure in tests but are fabulous in ODIs/Twenty20. Its not a hit on the type of cricket, but not everyone is a do-it-all kinda cricketer. So Piyush sahab should stick to tests and first class cricket, and may be ODI's if he thinks he can contribute in that form of game.
"Patience" is supposed to be a valuable asset for a spinner....ability to gradually work the batsman into a trap.....my point is....where is the time in 20/20 to be "patient" or "wait for the batsman to fall for your bait".
Quite indeed. I had been wondering the state of mind of those who had initially discarded this form of cricket but are gradually coming to terms to accept it as perhaps a new breed of life. :-)
Patience is a virtue, definitely. This type of format have robbed cricket of it's essence, of it's core values. Yes, more marketable and all that, but it is coated with a different (and a very ugly) wrapper. Batsmen cannot afford to leave the ball alone through to the keeper, or heads get rolled. Every ball is expected to be hit to some part outside of the ground, it is a misery for truest of spectators and for those who are on the receiving end of an extra baggage of being carted all over the park.
One particular thing which I have always enjoyed about cricket and playing the game is when a bowler continues to work on the batsmen, ball after ball, over after over. One can quickly tell when the work of art is currently taking place, it is a thing of beauty. At times when a batsman is faced with a bouncer and replies back to the bowler with a nod of the head is just, flat-out good contest between bat and ball.
But if paying less attention to the wrapper and focusing more on eating a candy whose flavor isn't meant to last for very long is attractive, then by all means, sacrifice quality for quantity.
A Twenty20 World Cup is like judging a Govinda movie at the Cannes Film Festival.
Faisal, I sort of get your point....but I am not fully convinced.
Twenty20 will render far too many players useless. Anybody who does not have the slogging ability to tonk at least 3 sixes in an over will be considered a bad candidate for Twenty20. Conventional spinners too.
^ i agree. when players like kallis and yousuf and ganguly/tendulkar/dravid are not selected cause theyre not suited for the format you know its only good for out and out hitting and bowling against out-and-out hitting. very one-dimensional, inspite of the excitement.
ODIs atleast encapsulate more dimensions of cricket
20/20 may be unfair to bowlers on some days but it's a great tool for cricket to attract bigger audiences and hence will aid in the development of cricket in new playing countries.
20/20 has allowed people to read a few pages of the book 'cricket' without judging it by it's cover.
Cricket is a sport of bat and ball. No matter what format, situation or number of overs, it's the batsman's ability to play the ball and the bowler's ability to stop that from happening. Good cricketers adapt to any situation presented to them. The more condensed the format the more pressure on the players. I love this added factor of "pressure" in the Twenty20 and less room for error and recovery. This is a phenomenal development in the history of cricket and we are lucky to be witnessing it.
PS. Some posters above use words like "sportainment" as if they invented it two minutes ago. bhai hum bhi Cricinfo parhtay hain. :)
Cricket is a sport of bat and ball. No matter what format, situation or number of overs, it's the batsman's ability to play the ball and the bowler's ability to stop that from happening. Good cricketers adapt to any situation presented to them. The more condensed the format the more pressure on the players. I love this added factor of "pressure" in the Twenty20 and less room for error and recovery. This is a phenomenal development in the history of cricket and we are lucky to be witnessing it.
PS. Some posters above use words like "sportainment" as if they invented it two minutes ago. bhai hum bhi Cricinfo parhtay hain. :)
Nice to see you back ... You showed up after 2 weeks. You last post here was 'Defeating India is better than worldcup' :D
By the way.. We did both. Defeated Pakistan and won worldcup. :D
Kabhi Kabhi beech me aa kar post kar liya karo yaar.
