gaurav92 Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 ^ :facepalm: Stay away d!Ldo Don't make my blood boil , coz if it does I ll have to log out and take a shower :((
WC2011INDIA Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Better form of cricket - Test Entertaining form of cricket - T20
Raghav_12 Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 BB has asked simple and direct question and has put that in OP. "Which is the best format that offers true cricketing skills. Please vote away." Don't know why people so keen on bringing on other aspects entertainment value, value for time when question has been put forward very clearly.
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 there is a major flaw in your analogy and it is to do with the skills of actors. Unlike Cricket they aren't going to lose their acting skills by acting in movies for Funz and stuffz. They also make the same amount of money in both types of movies. But in cricket it takes many many years for cricketers to develop skills to compete at test level. This is why teams like BD struggle a lot in Test cricket. Once you have showed a easier route to gravy train guess what is going to happen : we will start to suck badly and knowing how Indians are the masters at finding short cuts we will be looking to get done with Test Cricket. Apart from having different techniques for each type of cricket, its pretty similar to the movies. Even in that, although an actor or director doesnt lose his technique of something, he still needs to master different genres. A high voltage action movie is not the same as a mystery movie. Comedies and horror movies are worlds apart. You can mix and match but the point is that a versatile actor/director has to master different genres. Bradman would probably have been a worse batsman if he had to play both tests and ODIs. Sachin would probably have been a better batsman if he had played only tests. But times have changed and market predicts how the game evolves. If it never did, test match as you know it wouldnt have been. Test matches would have been timeless, there would have been no improvement in fielding, no covered wickets or doosras and even some of the shots that were developed for limited overs cricket that found its way to test cricket. Your views that Indians take shortcut is true and its true for the entire world. Its hypocritical to expect others to do what you never did. Where do you work? You could have stayed in India and made it better but instead you took the shortcut and went to US. You could have taken a govt job and worked for India but instead you took the shortcut and took a job in the private sector. You cannot expect players to play for 5 straight days for lesser pay than a 3 hour game. Let's try and increase the pay. Lets pay Gambhir 2 million $ for each test match he plays. Can you fund the BCCI to pay them that salary? Even if you can, are you ready to? Players work hard to earn money and respect.You or I have no right to demand a player chooses one and sticks with it. If he decides to try to earn both, then good on him. If he fails, then we have million others to try the same. If every one gives up respect and goes for money, then I am sure, you and others who want to play only tests will.
saneindian Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Nothing beats a thrilling test match with a close finish, but then test matches played on roads ending in runathons can be quite dull and boring and absolutely kill your interest unless Viru is batting. With t20, there is hardly any connect/much emotions as a fan. Do we even remember the results of bilateral t20 series, for test matches you tend to remember them for a longer duration.
Zelig Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 tambi' date=' noos phlash : Bolly >>>>> Tammy :agree:[/quote'] In terms of box office, agreed. But based on quality - Mallu | daylight | rest. Btw, Bolly has won ONE National Film Award in the last ten years. Oh yeah, Bolly is the best :giggle: Aacha
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 tambi, noos phlash : Bolly >>>>> Tammy :agree: I was talking about the actors and how much they mek :whack: Bhai, I wasn't trying to show which was harder. I just said that to show that a studios makes both kind of movies to earn money from one and respect from another. That, i believe, is what a player would want to do now. Play T20's for money and Test cricket for respect. Not insinuating that players dont respect T20s or there is no money in test cricket but just that the proportion is highly skewed.
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 zap, pls vote on the poal and then I will explain. absolutely ...:icflove: I havent because i cant choose either. I like both. Which is a better form to test techniques - Tests Which is a better form to test attacking strokeplay - T20 Which is a better form to follow - tests Which is a better form to watch fully - T20 Which would i watch if i am in a remote island with only a TV set, a few beers and fried chicken - Tests Which would i watch if i was in a sports bar with friends - T20s Question is vague.
Sidhoni Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Students of the game would always prefer Test cricket over tamasha kirkut.OP has simply asked which format requires true cricketing skills, and I cant think of any reason why T20 will be better than tests in offering true cricketing skills.:dontknow:
Zelig Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 :headshake: let me play along .. so how many tontee-tontee "specialists" have won any jujubi award anywhere (except Pakistan) :hysterical: I'm confused :hmmmm2: Okay..my take on this subject: Test cricket is entertaining as well as offers quality ONLY when it's played by top two sides (there are hardly four now). Whereas, a tontee-tontee game between minnows aka Pune and DD has the POTENTIAL to be intriguing. Don't expect me to sit through a match b/w Pakistan & WI and watch the fielders drop seven catches on a single day. I got better things to do :alienbooty:
don_corleone840 Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Test cricket is best format of cricket. player ki asli aukad test matches main hi pata lagti hai.
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 the money is the same for the actors in both cases ... this is not true in Test cricket vs T20. A better example is the virtual death of many classical music art forms in India ... the entire culture of appreciating good classical music and dance is pretty much dead now ... there is neither money nor much fame to be made. The same will happen to Test Cricket. It is a fact that the Big 5 simply don't care enuff for T20 but for money. No matter how you want to spin the bakwas that is IPL and the participation of the Big 5 in there. Actors take huge pay cuts to do arty kind of movies. Clooney, who makes 15~20 million $ from oceans 11 movies took 1 $ for goodnight and good luck and 350,000 for Syriana. Nicole kidman got just 6000$ for the movie Margot at the wedding. Goodnight and good luck, a black and white movie about a radio show 50 years back could exist with a Oceans 11. One bought applause to clooney including a oscar buzz while the latter paid for his villa in italy. Classical dance might be dead just like timeless tests are dead. Just because they have the same name, it doesnt mean that test cricket played 100 years ago is the same as it is today. Would you be ok with it if we renamed T20 as tests? Sports evolve. Just because you dont want to let go of something you like, doesnt mean that others dont want to let go either. I was in the same boat as you before the start of IPL. I got over it. Which format is the best test of skills ? Timeless tests with uncovered wickets, no thigh pads etc, no helmets,tests as it used to be 100 years prior. But with today's standard of fielding and variety in bowling. Basically, it doesnt exist.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now