yoda Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 24-3 :phehehe: Yet you are so concerned that one is destroying the other. :winky:
Zelig Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 that is soooo not true ... watch some Tests before throwing muck on them. I've watched a decent number of Tests to comment on the topic, infact, I've played the longer format at the State level...not sure how many of you on this forum have. Now, please don't tell me you can watch a BD v WI/NZ match ball-by-ball. If you do say "yes", then you gotta be either a rich millionaire or jobless or a Guinness WR attemptee.
yoda Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 The Poal was setup in response to your post here : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1517726&postcount=72 The concern - which I have explained about 3 times already - comes from what the filthy sums of money can do to aspiring cricketers thereby striking at the heart of Test Cricket and killing it that way. You will see what Iam saying when the great players have retired and the IPL Generation takes over. Right now everything looks rosy but wait and watch time will tell. So you want to limit the amount of money that can be paid to people in one form unless it can be proven it requires more skills than the other? By that logic, NASA engineers should be getting paid more than your average joe sw engineer, but they don't. Market decides how much each gets paid. You think this stops people from getting to jobs which require higher skill even though it pays less? NO. There will always be guys like Jaffer, Pujara who will be unfit for the shorter forms and will do better at test cricket and you will have those for tests. And guys who can play well in both will decide which ones suit their personal life better, not based on what you and I want, based on what they want.
yoda Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 yoda, kindly stop bringing in meaningless analogies (nobody watches Nasa Engineer to get entertainment) ... but as far as limiting the monies paid goes I have already explained how it is not a level playing field. But since it is a no-brainer that Test Match cricket is the Flagship product of Cricket - and indeed the big daddy of all cricket - its interests need to be protected. Setting up of T20 Leagues funded by Non-cricketing entities is in violation of anti-trust regulations if Test Cricket and T20 were to be treated as independent businesses. It's interests are being protected. That's why SL players left the IPL to play tests. You want interests protected by not permitting any other form to pay more than tests because it requires more skills, which is absurd. More skill doesn't mean more money like the other example I quoted (which is not meaningless, totally relevant)
rkt.india Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 T20 also require different set of skills which test cricketer may or may not possess, IMO. It is not necessary that T20 players will succeed in test cricket and otherwise too. Many good and very good test players are also unfit in T20s. It depends what he is suited for. Cricket is more about natural ability. A player can refine his abilities and skills he possesses, but do not think he can convert as and when he wants. If he will have the abilities he can play both forms. Look at Mohd. Kaif, he can never be a T20 player but has done fairly well at Test levelk whatever chances he had. So someone saying that a player will concentrate on T20 game and develop his game for T20 is not always true. Because if a player is not made for T20, then not many players can develop game that much. look at Parthiv Patel, if he says I will start hitting sixes in one year and I am practicing for it, I do not think he can start hitting sixes like dhoni or Sehwag hits, because it is about ability which he does not have. Players will always do well in form in which they are more comfortable.
yoda Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Do you simply pretend that I have not answered this before (many times) ? Heres one more try : 1. The players who play Test Cricket (and the skills they bring to the table) is what makes it the best format 2. It is significantly harder to succeed at Test Level than at T20 from a players perspective. The opportunities are also very small as there can be only one team per country. 3. Now when you setup a competing league that pays infinitely more for far lesser skills the natural human tendency of any aspiring cricketer would be to start honing your skills to that requirement. 4. This will result in a decline in standards of Test Cricket and ultimately lead to its demise. So if you like Test Match cricket stop supporting IPL . So you are assuming our FC system will go away with the advent of IPL which is incorrect. Players will continue to come out and play all 3 formats (depending on which ones they are fit for). They did with 2 now with 3 formats. They did with both formats paying same, now they will with one of them paying insane amounts. The pride to play for the country will always be there. heres why it is meaningless: 1. NASA is a Govt entity funded by the Govt. So even if the top cream doesn't end up at NASA it will keep chugging along. Their priorities are a bit different from commercial software companies. The same is not true for Test Cricket. 2. Unlike Test Cricket where it is very very hard find the players that can succeed in it .. NASA is not vulnerable to man power shortage as there are literally millions who would want to work there. 3. The monies that NASA pays for its Engineers are not piddly. You are missing the point. NASA cannot work with mediocrity and it does not. It still attracts top talent despite paying much less. I have checked out their job postings, and believe me the pay for the kind of guys they need is much less. 4. NASA is never in direct competition with the companies that hire your "hot shot Avg Joe Software Engineer" ... most importantly the Avg joe Software Engineer is rarely in a position to get hired by NASA nor does the prevalence of Avg Joe Software Engineers going to dilute and corrupt the worker pool that NASA relies on. The same is not true in Cricket because the pool of cricketers that play is common and infact half of them are the same set of people. You start luring this common set to lesser skills thru greed then there is only one entity that will suffer i.e : Test Cricket This is why your analogy is wrong. Same theory here. You have a pool of engineers, you have a pool of cricketers. Some are suited for a NASA job, others are not. Some are suited for test cricket, others are not. NASA pays less, test cricket pays less. NASA job requires more skill, test cricket requires more skill. NASA finds a way to get top engineers, test cricket will do the same. My final words on this subject - While I agree that IPL pay is insane and the auction system is stupid, there will be no dearth of talent to play test cricket in the near future with or without IPL, not because test cricket is great, more because people love playing for the country.
jairamesh Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 What are the chances of a cricketer succeeding in T20 vs Test Cricket ? A moot point, because it works both ways, as several Test players struggle to adopt to T20. Another issue is with the rise of T20 leagues we might be seeing Test bowling quality actually dropping dramatically as bowlers retire early, we are already witnessing that. Hence can we then really say "Test level is the format where best play"?:idunno:
asterix Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Fielding has improved.. Look at Munna Patel.. I'll be moar assured next time when he plays Test matches for India. :icflove: Where as bowlers like Bhajji perform more or less same on all the formats..
yoda Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Nope. They will do their damndest to succeed in Tontee-Tontee because it pays far more and there are literally countless teams to get hired into. Either that or there is a complete disconnect between us as to how greed and lure of easy money affects people. Yes everyone is lured by money. They don't play test cricket for free. Yes they will hone their T20 skills, which doesn't mean they automatically become worthless for tests. there is no pool of cricketers (worthy of playing high quality Test Cricket).... remember that it has been contaminated by T20. From where will it find aspiring Test Cricketers when the primary objective of any cricketer would have been Tontee-Tontee from Day 1 ? Answer - FC. Same as today.
asterix Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Those players who are serious about playing Test cricket, will always be striving to get in the test side. Players who have short cut skills will be found out in Test cricket and will get dumped. Getting a Test cap is an ultimate dream of many players, whether T20 is there or not. The other day Mishra bowled beautifully in an IPL match..Like he has bowled many times in Test cricket. Same skills set. I'm also happy for many players who strive hard and can't make it in the Test team (for various reasons) as they now have some means of making a career and earn some money for their families. If only T20 was there for players like Padmakar Shivalkar who's cricketing life was just wasted away..
ensd2 Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 nothing can match with , England vs India at Lords with Goddy and Viru hitting england's pie throwers all around london:yay::yay::yay::yay: I will try to post few pics of Lord this summer
Ultimate_Game Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 This thread is akin to: Who is better - Tendulkar or Jacob Martin :giggle:
Guest Gunner Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Why would any intelligent person vote for tests? I voted T20 :proud:
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