“If T20 becomes the yardstick for judging players, then Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar won’t be India’s greatest in the past three decades. That honour would probably go to Yuvraj Singh and Yusuf Pathan.” Arjuna Ranatunga on Cricinfo
Rantunga gets it. Agreed that T20 is entertaining and requires certain skills from players. However, these skills are different from those originally envisaged by the “founding fathers” of the game of “Cricket”.
Therefore please make “T20” a separate game as opposed to it being a format of the game called “Cricket”.
Who is with me ? I am guessing nobody given the current euphoria on this forum.
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
well this is exactly what I think as well.. I have seen many classic players in my life, who played glorious cricket.... the list is long.... but none were of the caliber of T20 style of cricket... They were artists..... But I do have a feeling that gradually with time test cricket with diminish in the next 5 years and ODI will be out completely by 10-15 years... then we will be telling our generations that we have seen 5 even 6 days test matches and an ODI used to last for a whole day..
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
im with u! and i also agree that its a totally different format even though it looks same like wth its only 20 overs but its the same thing but i dont think so. like cutting 30 overs changes everything! its all about who can hit more boundaries no using brains and skills watsoever.
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
Such arguments weren't considered when India won T20 in 2007.
Some1 angoor khhattey hain.
Btw, there would have been a lot of people against the format of ODIs when it was initially introduced. At that time people would have compared the greatest test cricketers with ODI cricketers. At that time some people liked to make ODI a separate game not something called "Cricket". So, nothing new. People would also get used to T20 with time.
Don't know why people have problems with this format when the legends themselves have endorsed it. Or probably it is just a matter of personal opinion.
Why do players like Tendi and Dravid play in IPL or why do legends like Gavaskar or Wasim Akram sit in the commmentary box and give their opinions behind the mic during a T20 game?
It is just another format of cricket just like Test Matches and ODI. You cannot compare ODI with Test matches and similarily you cannot compare T20 with the ODI or Test cricket. However it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be called cricket.
People need to realize that it is a new format and therefore we are seeing these frequent upsets where we saee teams like Australia getting beaten by a minnow. Once teams will start playing T20 games frequenty during a calendar year they will get the hang of it. These days the only time they play regular T20 is actually during the World Cup.
I am sure people must have felt the same thing when ODI's were introduced back in 70's. At that that time alot of people must have questioned that new format and probably have declared it as something no related to cricket.
As far as Ranatunga goes, you need to know the background and his beef with IPL. Before he was sacked as the president of Srilankan Cricket Board he was totally against his players playing for IPL and not touring England in May. Obviously Srilankan players hated him and formed a lobby against him and complained with the sports minister. To cut the story short, Srilanka tour of England was cancelled (they were replaced by Windies), Ranatunga got sacked, BCCI bailed srilankan players out and under the new srilankan cricket adminitration they all were allowed to play for IPL.
Saying Test cricket might vanish one day and be replaced by T20 to me is akin to saying we might have a Taliban President and PM in Pakistan one day!! Neither is gonna happen EVER
Test cricket is not going anywhere and will always be the yardstick by which greatness is measured in cricket - period
Think of T20 as pure entertainment and nothing more. Think of it as a kind of preparation for the bigger prize, the T50 World Cup. Think of how teams might utilize their T20 experience and skills to play even better in the first 10 overs and power plays of T50.
So essentially there should be three competitions
- Test cricket - The real deal
- T50 World Cup every 4 years - the biggest limited overs challenge
- T20 World Cup biennially - pure thrill and entertainment
CT (Champions Trophy) should be scrapped altogether - not needed anymore
its already a different type of game than ODI & tests, its T20I. The stats are separate, the rules are different (apart from the core cricket rules shared by all three forms), most teams are different, captains are different. The name is different too, its T20I. Cricket is kind of an umbrella title that extends over 12 distinct sports with separate rules and separate stat pools.
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
Some1, to be honest, the current hoopla and importance surrounding Twenty20 is primarily because of India, and India's victory in 2007. Prior to that tournament, no-one considered it a very important event. Major Indian players pulled out. Though it was named the World cup, the real World Cup had taken place earlier in that year, which Australia had won.
However, as soon as India won the tournament, all hell broke loose. The players were showered with an extra-ordinary amount of of adulation and praise and treated as world conquerers. I still remember the Indian ad for washing machine/soap in the papers with Dhoni's pictures "Aisi dhulai..... World Cup lay aaee!!" Never mind the fact that there's only one real World Cup in cricket, and that's the ODI World Cup held every four years.
However, now that Pakistan is in the finals and has a chance to win it, I won't mind the winners being called the World Champions.
Some1, to be honest, the current hoopla and importance surrounding Twenty20 is primarily because of India, and India's victory in 2007. Prior to that tournament, no-one considered it a very important event. Major Indian players pulled out. Though it was named the World cup, the real World Cup had taken place earlier in that year, which Australia had won.
However, as soon as India won the tournament, all hell broke loose. The players were showered with an extra-ordinary amount of of adulation and praise and treated as world conquerers. I still remember the Indian ad for washing machine/soap in the papers with Dhoni's pictures "Aisi dhulai..... World Cup lay aaee!!" Never mind the fact that there's only one real World Cup in cricket, and that's the ODI World Cup held every four years.
However, now that Pakistan is in the finals and has a chance to win it, I won't mind the winners being called the World Champions.
You are 1000000% right and on the money.
Add to it the IPL which came into being only because ICL threatened to lure away Indian players....but went on to make the T20 even more popular in India.
But seriously somebody needs to step back and consider if T20 is not redefining Cricket. I mean it changes the way how kids (who aspire to play cricket for their country) would be imparted Cricket coaching.....it will be SEE BALL ...HIT BALL.
Saying Test cricket might vanish one day and be replaced by T20 to me is akin to saying we might have a Taliban President and PM in Pakistan one day!! Neither is gonna happen EVER
Test cricket is not going anywhere and will always remain the yardstick by which greatness is measured in cricket - period
Think of T20 as pure entertainment and nothing more. Think of it as a kind of preparation for the bigger prize, the T50 World Cup. Think of how teams might utilize their T20 experience to play even better in the first 10 overs and power plays of T50.
So essentially there should be three competitions
- Test cricket - The real deal
- T50 World Cup every 4 years - the biggest limited overs challenge
- T20 World Cup biennially - pure thrill and entertainment
CT (Champions Trophy) should be scrapped altogether - not needed anymore
*Aap meri baat samjhe nahi.....*I am saying that T20 is so different from traditional cricket....that it should really be a separate game as opposed to being a format of Cricket.
So a child can decide if he wants to be a "T20" player or a "Cricket" player when he grows up.
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
My own thinking is that T20 is gonna be EXTREMELY popular. The allure of a game completing in 3.5 hours is just irresistible for modern generation growing up on baseball, soccer, tennis, football etc. To have a game go on for a whole day, or, god forbid, FIVE days .... the new generation just doesn't have the attention span that long.
Test cricket will not go anywhere, as puritans, will make sure it stays. I originally thought that T20 will squeeze out ODI. So far, ICC has consistently maintained that ODI is a much better money-maker for them (due to a whole day's length of advertising they can sell) compared to T20, so they will keep ODI alive, and limit how much T20 can be played. Once the marketing economics start coming in for T20, may be the thinking will change.
Its still cricket, of course. What else will you call T20? Just that the skills required in a T20 game are some times very different than for test cricket. You still need good batsmen and good bowlers. Umar Gul, for example, is a good bowler whether he is playing T20, ODI or test. Many players will just focus on one or the other. Thats ok. Things evolve. Cricket will evolve too.* C'est la vie.*
And as much as we all enjoy watching a quickfire 50 or 60 in T20, there is something very special about seeing a batsman score a hundred, double hundred, triple hundred etc. or a bowler take 5wI or 10wM in a test match.
And one Final and perhaps THE most important point
As long as cricket is played the world - cricket pundits, past and present greats and fans alike - won't ever stop mentioning** Bradman's** name. Bradman is to cricket what Pele is to soccer, Ali is to boxing, Jahangir is to squash etc. etc. Because of Bradman's unique feat (an unbelievable test average of 99.94) and because of what he and other past and present greats (we know who they are) have achieved in cricket, test cricket will survive. It is just a different format.
*Aap meri baat samjhe nahi.....*I am saying that T20 is so different from traditional cricket....that it should really be a separate game as opposed to being a format of Cricket.
So a child can decide if he wants to be a "T20" player or a "Cricket" player when he grows up.
Yes different from test cricket but the skills required in this short format are essentially the same as those required in the first 10 and last 5 overs and powerplays of T50
Good batsmen whether they are essentially sloggers (Gayle, Pietersen, Jayasuriya) or accelerators (Dilshan, Kallis, Jayawardene) have done well in both T20 and T50
And bowlers who know how to bowl yorkers etc. in the death overs (Gul, Steyn etc.) will have equal success in the death overs of T50
Same goes for spin bowlers, Murali, Mendis and Afridi etc. are all very successful T50 bowlers as well.
Re: Why T20 should be detached from Cricket and be a separate game ?
I do not understand why we should consider it as a different one .Each form of the game Test or One day or 20-20 has got its own parameters to judge players.For example Test matches show the stamina,foucus and consistency of a player,One dayers show how smart they can think and work on the field and T-20 how fast you can rain down on opposition.T-20 is a fun one ,as Y.K was quoted the other day ,but at the same time it reveals how well you are adapted to a fast cricket.
A war is a war whether it was fought for 10 years, One year or One day.If one side wins on another side in one day,you can not term it as `not a war or not a part of war'.
