Predator_05 Posted September 11, 2007 Author Share Posted September 11, 2007 Darryl Cullinan throws in his 2 cents; Having played and captained in this format of the game and commentated on it for the last couple of seasons in South African domestic cricket, I believe there is more to Twenty20. It will judge cricketers' execution of their strategies, tactics and skills like never before. It is not a game for the faint-hearted, and those with nothing but total belief and mental strength will be punished. This is where bowlers can come into their own, and in this "hero or zero" scenario, success for them will be sweeter than ever before. For batsmen, big hitting is expected, and this brings its own pressures and expectations. Due to time restrictions captains can lose a game due to one bad tactical error, either in their choice of bowlers or field placings. What we have seen out in South Africa is how effective the new ball can be. Opening spells of four overs for both new-ball bowlers has become the norm. Swing is a great advantage. Wickets upfront are critical, for once teams fall behind there is no time for comebacks. This is what can really bring less fancied teams into this tournament: all it requires is some poor shot selection and even just one bowler to have a great game for an upset to be a strong possibility. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/current/story/310254.html Link to comment
Guest BossBhai Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 -- Removed on request of the user -- Link to comment
yoda Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 margin for error (especially in fielding) is virtually zero in baseball. one fielding "error" can cost your team a win. same with pitching. if you throw a few lollypops aggy style, game is over. it doesn't mean random teams win. it just means players and the game itself get more professional. one issue with 20-20 is how are the bowlers going to get a decent shot at the bats? they need to make pitches much more bowler friendly and work on a few rule changes to make it a more even contest. Link to comment
Guest BossBhai Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 -- Removed on request of the user -- Link to comment
Holysmoke Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 seriously.. if i was captain.. i would seriously consider going in with 11 batsmen, some of whom can bowl... might have a bowler or 2.. but def not more than 2... Think of this as a 20-20 team (hypothetical) Sachin (can bowl) Saurav(can bowl) Dravid Yuvraj(can bowl) Sehwag(can bowl) Karthik Dhoni Uthappa Pathan(can bowl) Zaheer(can throw around his bat a bit) Sree Link to comment
yoda Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 There is no attempt to make this a even contest .... no one in the right mind even pretends that T20 has a chance for a bowler ... that too over a grand sum 4 overs :haha: that is something that can evolve. they can just have two bowlers with 10 overs each. Link to comment
fineleg Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 They should have max number of overs any bowler can bowl to be 5 or even 6. Upto the fielding team how they rotate bowlers. That way teams can go with just 3 bowlers and the rest 8 as batsmen (with one part-timer amongst them). Link to comment
apocalypse Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 This is certainly not a bowlers' game Link to comment
Anakin Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 This is a joke really. In stead of the poor bowlers just have bowling machines and hit them as far as you can. Link to comment
Bumper Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Many experts point to the reaction of fans to the introduction of ODIs back in the 70s to justify the potential of 20/20. They couldnt be more wrong. ODIs despite drastically reducing the time frame reqd to play the game, has room for all aspects of the game, that make cricket colorful. There is still room for a technically correct batsman or a match winning spinner. Besides there is ample scope for strategy, need for a good balance between defense & attack and most of all a decent role for bowlers. 20/20 has none of this. Watching teams score 150 runs in 20 overs & end up losing with 5 overs to go, is a farce. This format will inspire a generation of Afridis and dilute the game and the overall talent pool Link to comment
varun Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 It's the only cricket that's on these days.. so might as well enjoy it. On that note, I've put up a new banner. Link to comment
Chandan Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 It's the only cricket that's on these days.. so might as well enjoy it. On that note, I've put up a new banner. Good one!! :wtg: Link to comment
King Tendulkar Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 its a lottery. anyone can win this. Link to comment
King Tendulkar Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Finally it has become a sport which will be played by real athletes. Unfortunately that means Indians will suck at it like in most other sport. why you so desperate to turn cricket to be played by athletes.? Go watch your cr#ppy yank sports for that who pump themselves full of steriods to become these athletes. I prefer to keep cricket essentially a game of skill and guile. Not one about who can throw the furthest, run the fastest and hit it the furthest. The beauty of cricket is that it still has room for the likes of powar and co eg people whose sheer skill overcomes there lack of athleicism. Link to comment
Anakin Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 All the praise is essentially wrong because in 20/20 getting all out is the least of your concern, so batsmen can bat only one way. There is no room for a technically correct batsman unless he can slog and does that only, the strategy for the fielding side mostly involves praying Link to comment
Guest BossBhai Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 -- Removed on request of the user -- Link to comment
yoda Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 why you so desperate to turn cricket to be played by athletes.? Go watch your cr#ppy yank sports for that who pump themselves full of steriods to become these athletes. so, according to you athletes means steroids. with that limited thinking, you probably only deserve to watch misfits like Munaf and Powar. Link to comment
King Tendulkar Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 so' date=' according to you athletes means steroids. with that limited thinking, you probably only deserve to watch misfits like Munaf and Powar.[/quote'] You choose 2 extreme examples. There is a happy middle ground with a few super fit ones and a few super unfit ones. People like Warne, Sachin, Lara and Mcgrath are no were near being athletes and nor would we want them to be. They have skill and brains. That is what cricket should always be about, skill. Warne was also a fat misfit, do we deserve to watch him? Link to comment
yoda Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 You choose 2 extreme examples. Coming from Mr. extreme who likes to Brand the entire American sports as Steroid infested. :haha: Link to comment
Anakin Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Coming from Mr. extreme who likes to Brand the entire American sports as Steroid infested. :haha: Well baseball is Link to comment
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