Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Then what's your point??
discussion, End of.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Flukes and Upset happen in all games. Absolutely Correct.
But games like Soccer, Tennis, even Baseball etc do not involve as much "luck factor" and encourage "flash-in-the-pan skills (tullaybaazi)" as Twenty20 format. Hence the suggestion that champions should not be decided with one single match.
I have the same suggestion even for ODIs. As a matter of fact, Triangular Championship ODI tournaments in Australia have best of 3 FINALS.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
20/20 is a new format. That does not mean it's an inferior format, just a different format.
No matter what the format is, cricket is about a team making more runs than the other team in the allocated overs/time. It's simple math; however game dynamics change depending on the number of overs/hours. It's not about the intangible traits such as class or style or elegance; they are byproducts. A Tendulkar will not be regarded a great batsman if we was not scoring thousands of runs at a fast pace. If this format does not suit Dravid, than it does not mean that this format sucks, it's Dravid who is not suitable for this format.
This format will allow the teams to become more competitive and counter-intuitively it will force them to always be on top of their games. This game is about responsiveness, reflexes and fast thinking. If Imran Nazir is a tullaybaaz, he'll be out of the team in a few games. Imran Nazir could be better than Dravid in 20/20 but might not compare to Dravid in test matches.
Do you think rapid chess is fake? Heck even I might stand a chance against Vishwanathan Anand if I get 1 year for every move.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Flukes and Upset happen in all games. Absolutely Correct. But games like Soccer, Tennis, even Baseball etc do not involve as much "luck factor" and encourage "flash-in-the-pan skills (tullaybaazi)" as Twenty20 format. Hence the suggestion that champions should not be decided with one single match.
I have the same suggestion even for ODIs. As a matter of fact, Triangular Championship ODI tournaments in Australia have best of 3 FINALS.
Failure to contain tullaybaazi just means you are not bowling with a correct game plan. Various bowlers have proven in this tournament that you can bowl effectively without surrendering 6 sixes in an over. Even in baseball, there are some players who you would consider to be "tullaybaaz" (Vladimir Guerrero for example). But no one dismisses his success just because he virtually swings at every pitch. Likewise, no one should dismiss the success of Yuvraj and the likes.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Then what's your point??
My point is ...we are shouting "sour grapes" as if Australia does not have skills for Twenty20s so they are just plain frustrated.......but as a matter of fact Australia will still win against India/Pak many more times than vice-versa (yes, even in Tullaybaazi otherwise known as Twenty20s").
That's why we shudder everytime we have to face Australia in any format of the game.
Give them time...and they will automate their gameplan to suit even this version of the game. They are that good.
Lets not go overboard with solitary wins against them.....in an ambush fight.
End of story.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Do you think rapid chess is fake? Heck even I might stand a chance against Vishwanathan Anand if I get 1 year for every move.
No, you will not.
And over-exaggeration as a tool should not be used to substantiate opinions.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
No, you will not. And** over-exaggeration** as a tool should not be used to substantiate opinions.
^^ Alright point taken, but do you see my point. If Australia is the best team they'll come on top and I know they will coz they are perfectionists.
PS: But I do seriously think I stand a chance against Anand coz he wins coz he thinks faster than me. He's faster (not necessarily better) at computing the combinations than me.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
My point is ...we are shouting "sour grapes" as if Australia does not have skills for Twenty20s so they are just plain frustrated.......but as a matter of fact Australia will still win against India/Pak many more times than vice-versa (yes, even in Tullaybaazi otherwise known as Twenty20s").
That's why we shudder everytime we have to face Australia in any format of the game.
Give them time...and they will automate their gameplan to suit even this version of the game. They are that good.
Lets not go overboard with solitary wins against them.....in an ambush fight.
End of story.
The discussion is not about India/Pakistan against Australia or about sour grapes. The discussion is about the validity of the 20/20 format. And as I said in my previous post, they will master this format as well.
My point is that 20/20 is not a fluke format.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
PS: But I do seriously think I stand a chance against Anand coz he wins coz he thinks faster than me. He's faster (not necessarily better) at computing the combinations than me.
If you are again trying to co-relate chess with Cricket...sorry pal..I am not having any of it.
I am talking about batting teams lasting for 20 overs as opposed to 50 overs (or 2 days as in Test Matches).
You are talking of "thinking on your feet" as opposed to "thinking for 1 year".
I don't see how the latter is relevant to the former.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
What phenti....I have no doubt in my mind that Twenty20 format or not, Australia will still defeat India/Pak at least 7 out of 10 times.
I am with some1 and Ponting here. Twenty-20 is not real cricket and should n't be given the same status as the traditional 50-overs World Cup. It does involve a much bigger element of tullah/fluke/luck call it what you will compared to the traditional 50-overs game because players know that they have to be good only for a short period of time. Twenty overs is simply not enough to judge how great/skilled a team is.
And it is also very wrong to assume that Aussies will not be a force in this format just because they did not make the final. They may have lost to India yesterday but it was n't like they were completely outplayed by India. India had to bat out of their skins to deny Australia yesterday. Australia were still very much in charge of the run chase with 5 overs remaining. If Symonds and Hayden had used their heads a bit more, they could have finished things off yesterday. My last comment should not take anything away from brilliant batting and bowling by Yuvraj/Dhoni and Sreesanth respectively.
Whoever wins yesterday would know still that Australia are the team to beat even in this format.
And staying on topic, former Pakistan captain Javed Miandad claims Twenty20 is not "real cricket" and has accused the International Cricket Council of trying to turn the game into baseball.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
The discussion is not about India/Pakistan against Australia or about sour grapes. The discussion is about the validity of the 20/20 format. And as I said in my previous post, they will master this format as well.
My point is that 20/20 is not a fluke format.
Oh yes...the dicussion is about SOUR GRAPES...read the posts above by our respected friends.
As for the fluke format...again not every Twenty20 victory is a fluke....but it does allow for flukes more than ODIs , but more importantly it encourages Tullaybaazi which is not the yardstick that should be used to determine which is the better Cricket Team.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Oh yes...the dicussion is about SOUR GRAPES...read the posts above by our respected friends.
Read the title of the thread.
And going by your logic, in 2 years we should see a very different 20/20 team ranking report than the odi/test ranking report.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
And going by your logic, in 2 years we should see a very different 20/20 team ranking report than the odi/test ranking report.
Not really....rankings would be determined based on all 20/20 games not just the World Cup games.
So for example if India and Australia play 15 Twenty20 games against each other in a year , we will certainly know who is the "real" boss....the fluke/luck factor get eroded with number of matches played.
But individual tournaments (like WC) might throw up "fake" champions (this possibility is there even in ODI tournaments but to a lesser extent - plus Australia have become such masters of ODIs of late, that even "luck" is often not sufficient for other teams to win ODI tournaments against them).
Finally, will you agree with me if I say that India's victory against West Indies in the 1983 WC final was a HUGE FLUKE esp after India had scored 183 runs. West Indies came to India immediately after the WC and whipped India 5-0 in the ODI series. So who was the REAL BOSS ?
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
You proved my point exactly.
Yuvraj came to bat yesterday when India were around 40-2 in 9 overs. If it was an ODI...do you think Yuvraj would have straightaway started to hit SIXES and FOURS. But he knew India needed to just bat for 11 more overs, so he had the license to kill.
For example I have seen enough of Imran Nazir to conclude that he is an out-and-out Tullaybaaz....yesterday he hit sixes and fours off bowlers like Bond and Vettori. Does that mean he is technically gifted. The answer is a resounding NO.
First of all, you do realize this is 20-20 cricket right, ofcourse Yuvraj is going to get on with it, why are you comparing it to 50 over cricket? the situation is not the same.
Second, your evaluation of Nazir from your posted statement makes absolutely no sense. Please dont judge players and shots by their 'names'. Just because 'Nazir' hit sixes and fours of 'bond' and 'vettori' doesnt mean you can classify him as a Tullaybaaz. Fine, that you cant say he is techically gifted but the answer will most definitely NOT be a resounding NO just because 'Nazir' hit a six off the great almighty 'Bond'.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
*^arey bhai...*I have seen enough of Nazir even before the Twenty20 WC started.
For example, I saw him bat in the World Cup in the West Indies. You could tell by how he bats that he is the quintessential tullaybaaz. Its not about SIXES and FOURS, its how he bats. Yuvraj/Malik/Hayden/Gilchrist hit SIXES and FOURS too (may be more than Nazir) but I am not calling them tullaybaazs.
As a matter of fact - in the West Indies World Cup, if memory serves- Nazir scored a century against Zimbabwe....but his batting was hardly convincing as far as I am concerned.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
20/20 is a new format. That does not mean it's an inferior format, just a different format. No matter what the format is, cricket is about a team making more runs than the other team in the allocated overs/time. It's simple math; however game dynamics change depending on the number of overs/hours. It's not about the intangible traits such as class or style or elegance; they are byproducts. A Tendulkar will not be regarded a great batsman if we was not scoring thousands of runs at a fast pace. If this format does not suit Dravid, than it does not mean that this format sucks, it's Dravid who is not suitable for this format.
This format will allow the teams to become more competitive and counter-intuitively it will force them to always be on top of their games. This game is about responsiveness, reflexes and fast thinking. If Imran Nazir is a tullaybaaz, he'll be out of the team in a few games. Imran Nazir could be better than Dravid in 20/20 but might not compare to Dravid in test matches.
Do you think rapid chess is fake? Heck even I might stand a chance against Vishwanathan Anand if I get 1 year for every move.
Failure to contain tullaybaazi just means you are not bowling with a correct game plan. Various bowlers have proven in this tournament that you can bowl effectively without surrendering 6 sixes in an over. Even in baseball, there are some players who you would consider to be "tullaybaaz" (Vladimir Guerrero for example). But no one dismisses his success just because he virtually swings at every pitch. Likewise, no one should dismiss the success of Yuvraj and the likes.
good points
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
You proved my point exactly.
Yuvraj came to bat yesterday when India were around 40-2 in 9 overs. If it was an ODI...do you think Yuvraj would have straightaway started to hit SIXES and FOURS. But he knew India needed to just bat for 11 more overs, so he had the license to kill. Actually yes. For example I have seen enough of Imran Nazir to conclude that he is an out-and-out Tullaybaaz....yesterday he hit sixes and fours off bowlers like Bond and Vettori. Does that mean he is technically gifted. The answer is a resounding NO. Other batsmen like Yuvraj/Shoaib Malik/Gilchrist/Hayden are naturally gifted to adapt to all formats. And when they get the added freedom provided by the Twenty20 format, they can go berserk....but that does not prove anything. The fact remains, Twenty20 rewards Tullaybaazs....where somebody like Afridi is preferable over Dravid.
yaar some1 Nazir may have some technical flaws and problems with temperament but he's not as bad as you are making him out to be. He does have natural talent. He has hit sixes off Lee and McGrath in 50-overs games never mind Bond and Vettori.
Ian Chappell thinks he has got obvious talent but that he needs to sort out the mental side of his game
When Pakistan won the Tower series - a 3-match one-day international series - 2-1 in Australia in 2002, Nazir scored runs against Lee and McGrath incl. 60 odd in the final game which we won
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
My point is ...we are shouting "sour grapes" as if Australia does not have skills for Twenty20s so they are just plain frustrated.......but as a matter of fact Australia will still win against India/Pak many more times than vice-versa (yes, even in Tullaybaazi otherwise known as Twenty20s").
That's why we shudder everytime we have to face Australia in any format of the game.
Give them time...and they will automate their gameplan to suit even this version of the game. They are that good.
Lets not go overboard with solitary wins against them.....in an ambush fight.
End of story.
They definitely have the skills, and i dont think anyone doubts that...we know they are good and come back stronger next time
And so what if they will win more than India/Pak? This is funny, you talk like this a new completely new concept. Brazil can be beaten in the semi final against a team while they might have more wins against them in exhibition matches. Similar to how Australia lost yesterday. This is nothing to ponder so much about.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Not really....rankings would be determined based on all 20/20 games not just the World Cup games.
So for example if India and Australia play 15 Twenty20 games against each other in a year , we will certainly know who is the "real" boss....the fluke/luck factor get eroded with number of matches played.
But individual tournaments (like WC) might throw up "fake" champions (this possibility is there even in ODI tournaments but to a lesser extent - plus Australia have become such masters of ODIs of late, that even "luck" is often not sufficient for other teams to win ODI tournaments against them).
Finally, will you agree with me if I say that India's victory against West Indies in the 1983 WC final was a HUGE FLUKE esp after India had scored 183 runs. West Indies came to India immediately after the WC and whipped India 5-0 in the ODI series. So who was the REAL BOSS ?
As I said earlier twice, I'll side with Australia in this format. You are weakening your point by siding with Australia to be the eventual champions. And for the sake of the discussion let's not mix the perfomance of Australia with the validity of the 20/20 concept. They still reached the semis, it was just that India outperformed them.
Now coming back to the topic, you are not questioning the legitmacy of the 20/20 format but rather the concept of the world cup (your 1983 world cup example illustrates the same) which I can agree with to some extent if that is what you were trying to say. Then why not just have 100 round robin games between all the teams to decide the winner; to go one step further what's the need of a world cup at all.
Again, I say 20/20 is just a different format but in no way inferior to the other formats. One big reason apart from the quality of their players why Australia is the test cricket champion is their ability to apply the ODI concept to the test cricket. They score at 4+ runs in an over in the test format which only proves the point that cricket is a game of numbers nothing else. And now teams will apply the 20/20 strategy to ODIS and gradually to tests.
One major reason I can think of the resistance to 20/20 format from various cicrcles is their inability to accept change which will gardually go away with time.
Have to go now. Ciao.
Re: Ricky Ponting remains unconvinced on Twenty20 concept
Completely agree with infiniti. What you guys consider traditional cricket is no better or worse than 20/20 cricket. First of all, ODI is not traditional cricket either. To be honest, it is just a half-assed version of Twenty20 cricket. If Packer or who ever had the blueprint of Twenty20 cricket in front of him, I'm absolutely certain that he would have skipped the ODI concept for his league. Would Twenty20 seem more "traditional" and effectively "legitimate cricket" to you guys if it had been invented in the 70's? In my opinion, it is no more or less legitimate than ODI and, heck, even Test cricket. When cricket was played for the very first time, I'm quite certain it did not have the exact same rules as Test cricket now.
The fact is that it is time to move on. Cricket is a very archaic sport that always seems reluctant to change. I personally don't care if Australia goes on to win every Twenty20 game they play in the future. I would rather watch them kick Pakistan's arse in 3 hours than 10.