Test Cricket - waste of time
Commander Hughes
the fact it's the most boring formats of Cricket that ever existed.
Whoever came up with it should have been shot - who knows maybe he/she/it
was!
Seriously, I enjoy cricket and all, but at least limit the games to 50 overs
like the one dayers and have the one dayers have 20-20 status.
Scrap the tests, waste of time and money I say.
James
aka
Commander Hughes
jzfredricks
It's a funny issue. It's all a matter of personal choice.
I for one hope Test cricket lives on forever, as I find it the most
interesting form of the game.
I still play cricket, and because of that I am in contact with other
players - both from my club and from the opposition. We often talk
about 'Tests versus Limited Overs', and I can assure that I've NEVER
met single PLAYER who prefers ODI to Tests. Not once.
Ærchie
any sense had already left town. Yet jzfredricks was standin' in the
doorway saying:
I found the same during my playing and umpiring career.
It begs the question of how many of the T20 supporters in this group are
just the cricket equivalent of Man U Yobbos and not players of the sport.
Ærchie
--
Don't visit my blog, it is private property!
http://archiearchive.wordpress.com/
Latest Post - Red Kisses
tendulkar.com
> Latest Post - Red Kisses- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah Everyone in this world "Loves Eating Healthy Food & Exercise
regularly" because thats what they say right?.
Only a mindless Idiot would love the artificial excitement created by
test matches. Without artificially manipulating the pitches to help
bowlers, no test match is interesting.
And it is unbelievable they actually get fooled by the gimmicks
employed in tests like close-in fielders, multiple slips and
bouncers.
Oh Well, One day they'll mature and find the beauty of T20
Ærchie
doorway saying:
Thank you for proving my point.
Geico Caveman
Oh no. They let this hit and giggle ADD fellow access the internet.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Geico Caveman
I have not played much cricket, but the sheer drama and mental excitement of
Test match cricket can be the best part of the spectator experience
(speaking of normal spectators, not the hit and giggle short attention span
trolls and some of their ilk found on RSC). Of course, there are boring
Test matches where one or both teams have given up trying to win, but first
with the Aussies and then with the Indians, Test cricket has become far
more interesting to me than the 50 over cricket. The last BG series was
played in very poor spirit, but the quality of cricket still shone through.
Twenty20 is also fairly engrossing once I can figure out which team to root
for (which was easy in the WC but is proving to be impossible in IPL/ICL).
I think Twenty20 was the best thing that has happened to cricket in a while
and will sound the death knell of ODIs which have become far too
predictable and boring.
One innovation, which has already been suggested elsewhere, is for a
Twenty20 match to have two innings (shortening the innings length to 10
overs apiece).
Chan
wrote:
>
> One innovation, which has already been suggested elsewhere, is for a
> Twenty20 match to have two innings (shortening the innings length to 10
> overs apiece).
This will bring it ever closer to Martin Crowe's Cricket Max in style.
I happen to agree with the premise, but feel that 10 overs might just
be a little too few per innings. Unless you only have 10 wickets total
between the innings.
Probably they should let T20 as it is mature for a couple of years
before trying any radical changes like this.
- Chan
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
tendulkar.com
wrote:
> jzfredricks wrote:
> >> The fact that half the time sky pan to the audience during overs
> >> indicates the fact it's the most boring formats of Cricket that ever
> >> existed.
>
> >> Whoever came up with it should have been shot - who knows maybe he/she/it
> >> was!
>
> >> Seriously, I enjoy cricket and all, but at least limit the games to 50
> >> overs like the one dayers and have the one dayers have 20-20 status.
>
> >> Scrap the tests, waste of time and money I say.
>
> > It's a funny issue. It's all a matter of personal choice.
>
> > I for one hope Test cricket lives on forever, as I find it the most
> > interesting form of the game.
>
> > I still play cricket, and because of that I am in contact with other
> > players - both from my club and from the opposition. We often talk
> > about 'Tests versus Limited Overs', and I can assure that I've NEVER
> > met single PLAYER who prefers ODI to Tests. Not once.
>
> I have not played much cricket, but the sheer drama and mental excitement of
> Test match cricket can be the best part of the spectator experience
> (speaking of normal spectators, not the hit and giggle short attention span
> trolls and some of their ilk found on RSC).
Ooh look at me and my refined tastes. I'm so superior to the rest of
the world and their crass tastes.
HVS
I'm rather surprised (and slightly depressed) that people responded
to such a blatant bit of troll-bait.
Heigh-ho.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Unknown
Mike Holmans
<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
You haven't met Darren Gough, then. He finds the challenge of trying
to out-think a batsman who is trying to take him to pieces more
satisfying than the challenges of Test cricket. I've seen interviews
with one or two other bowlers (Vaas?) who say similar things and can't
be accused of sour grapes because they were also good Test cricketers.
(I would be a little distrustful of a statement that odos are better
from the likes of Bevan or Yuseless.)
But Gough still knew that what counts in the history books is Test
cricket, and that's why he kept a list of England bowlers and how many
Test wickets they'd taken in his cricket bag and ticked each one off
as he passed their total.
This isn't just a thing about tradition and conservatism: it's about
the respect fellow professionals have for each other. You can pay them
as much money you like for T20, but the craftsmen themselves will
still rate each other on the basis of first-class and Test cricket
because those are the forms which require the highest levels of skill
to succeed at consistently.
A star actor may make bundles of money starring in a hit TV series,
but he may also know in his heart that what really counts for him as
an actor is what people think of his leading roles for the Royal
Shakespeare Company.
Cheers,
Mike
--
R. Bharat Rao
> This isn't just a thing about tradition and conservatism: it's about
> the respect fellow professionals have for each other. You can pay them
> as much money you like for T20, but the craftsmen themselves will
> still rate each other on the basis of first-class and Test cricket
> because those are the forms which require the highest levels of skill
> to succeed at consistently.
Thats now Mike, and certainly true of today's cricketers, who feel
that they call is "Test" cricket for a reason. However, I wonder how
much of this is because most of these players were born in the 70s or
80s when Tests were the "real thing", and the stars they grew up
watching (Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara, McGrath, Akram, Donald, Dravid,
Ponting etc.) all put such a premium on Test cricket. However, in the
90s as ODI's (and now 20-20) have grown in popularity, most of the
younger generation that will be making their debut in the next few
years may feel differently...
Bharat
Geico Caveman
> On May 16, 10:37 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> One innovation, which has already been suggested elsewhere, is for a
>> Twenty20 match to have two innings (shortening the innings length to 10
>> overs apiece).
>
> This will bring it ever closer to Martin Crowe's Cricket Max in style.
> I happen to agree with the premise, but feel that 10 overs might just
> be a little too few per innings. Unless you only have 10 wickets total
> between the innings.
That would be a capital idea. It would force batsmen in the first innings to
think about conserving wickets and not go for outrageous shots with very
high risk. That in itself will do something to redress the current
imbalance between bowling and batting.
Similar restrictions on bowlers - only 4 overs over both innings. So, no one
will be able to McGrath out both innings.
Unknown
<rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Remember the game Bharat, it is a game, and like all games options
have evolved to make it easier for the non gamer to understad.
I like to see twenty wickets being taken, or a win denied. It may take
five days but, it is the game, not a variant, but the real thing.
Elements and wit and sound cricket makes the game, 'tis the shame that
certain governing bodies custodians of the game in their
jurisdictions, have put pounds before pride.
Kiwis in London played like limited overs specialists, hit hard and
get out, and they got out. Now, they must wise up quicly or rsk the
test match. Doesn't that sound more like a match than a limited overs
game?.............Nice and fair with plently of chances for
everyone.........twice??
tendulkar.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean Test Cricket Lovers who drive hybrid cars and listen only to
Mozart & David Sedaris and know whats best for everyone in the planet
have publicly displayed their idiocy? Thats unpossible!!!
Mike Holmans
Possibly, but I doubt it. Inside every star of a hit TV series is
someone who really wants to play Hamlet or King Lear because they know
that it's so much more difficult to do. It is not because people put a
high premium on Test cricket that it is difficult to play well:
players put a high premium on it because it is difficult to do and
they know it.
Kent won last season's T20 competition. They were also playing Sussex
when Sussex clinched the championship at the end of the season.
Talking on TV at the beginning of this season, Sussex captain Chris
Adams and Kent captain Rob Key recalled the presentation to Sussex:
Key told Adams "That's the one I really want" as the trophy was handed
over, and Adams replied "Yeah, you don't have to play a lot of overs
for the one you got, do you?"
There isn't an active player who was even born when the counties
started playing limited-over cricket; the financial rewards and the
crowds have always been bigger for the short formats, but the county
championship is still the gold standard for an English domestic
player. When they get to willy-waving in dressing rooms about who's
better than who, it's championship hundreds and five-fers which earn
the bragging rights.
In tennis, you can win all the best-of-three-set singles titles you
like but you won't be regarded as a great by your peers unless you win
five-set tournaments. Golfers, I believe, have greater regard for
those who can win titles on Scottish seaside links courses than those
who can only do it on manicured American surfaces.
Players don't like their game being dumbed down; it devalues their own
sense of achievement if they're good at an easy game rather than a
hard one. And you can't fool players that T20 is harder than Test
cricket when they have personal experience which proves the opposite
case conclusively.
Some of the players in the ICL, barred from other Indian domestic
cricket were interviewed and said they really missed not playing
four-day cricket.
We owe it to the players to let them play what they consider the
ultimate challenge. In fact, we owe it to ourselves. Preventing the
pursuit of excellence is the road which leads ultimately to
choreographed farce, as witnessed in the hell that is professional
"wrestling".
It's very easy to fix cricket matches if you have a mind to. If you
take the idealism out of the sport and make it all about money, you
breed the cynicism which leads players into that temptation.
Destroying the game's soul out of misguided iconoclasm could easily
destroy the sport itself, with catastrophic money losses as a
consequence.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Totaltully
flexibility and adaptability. Till the 70s it was alright to have
static formats. Though i wasnt around, cricket was in tune with those
times.
Kerry Packer tried to bring cricket in step with times and introduced
pajama cricket. One days subsequently became mainstream.
Rules have changed significantly - think of the no ball rule,
powerplays, 30 yard rules and yes the hated Duckworth Lewis. The game
has not stayed static. For the life of me, i cant figure why the
offside rule cant be relaxed to a line closer to the goal. And hockey
has successfully alienated Africa and the largest part of Asia and
Latam with their astroturf only rule.
A pickup game of cricket can be had at a beach, a busy interesection
in Kandy, in the bylanes of Byculla or a basketball court anywhere.
Make your own rules and have fun. The game looks and feels like
cricket. Very few sports can lay claim to such adaptability.
Im as much a purist as anyone else. My advice to the naysayers - dont
bet against cricket morphing yet again. T20 has what the masses really
want at a time when ODIs have gone stale. In terms of structure,
participation and business model - T20 has in it to be the future of
cricket.
HVS
> Im as much a purist as anyone else. My advice to the naysayers -
> dont bet against cricket morphing yet again. T20 has what the
> masses really want at a time when ODIs have gone stale. In terms
> of structure, participation and business model - T20 has in it
> to be the future of cricket.
Hmmm....I'd agree thaat it has in it to be *a* future of cricket -- a
good one -- but not "the" future of cricket.
"The future of one-day cricket", perhaps.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Totaltully
Opinions Harvey. You can keep yours and ill keep mine. I believe it
can be the future, much as ODIs currently are the present.
HVS
> On May 17, 1:24 pm, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17 May 2008, Totaltully wrote
>>
>>> Im as much a purist as anyone else. My advice to the naysayers
>>> - dont bet against cricket morphing yet again. T20 has what
>>> the masses really want at a time when ODIs have gone stale. In
>>> terms of structure, participation and business model - T20 has
>>> in it to be the future of cricket.
>>
>> Hmmm....I'd agree thaat it has in it to be *a* future of
>> cricket -- a good one -- but not "the" future of cricket.
>>
>> "The future of one-day cricket", perhaps.
>>
> Opinions Harvey. You can keep yours and ill keep mine. I believe
> it can be the future, much as ODIs currently are the present.
Indeed, it's all down to personal views. I just don't think it's a
zero-sum thing.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Mohan
> We owe it to the players to let them play what they consider the
> ultimate challenge.
No one is forcing any player at gun point to play T20. They are free to
go and organise their own Test matches and play it all year.
> In fact, we owe it to ourselves. Preventing the
> pursuit of excellence is the road which leads ultimately to
> choreographed farce, as witnessed in the hell that is professional
> "wrestling".
>
> It's very easy to fix cricket matches if you have a mind to. If you
> take the idealism out of the sport and make it all about money, you
> breed the cynicism which leads players into that temptation.
This is based on the mistaken notion that there is any idealism left in
international cricket.
Mohan
swingin...@gmail.com
> Mike Holmans wrote:
> > We owe it to the players to let them play what they consider the
> > ultimate challenge.
>
> No one is forcing any player at gun point to play T20. They are free to
> go and organise their own Test matches and play it all year.
Looks like the ECB is actually holding its star players at gun point
and asking them to play for England. Check these quotes from
Pietersen from the link I posted in the other thread: "That's why I
was frustrated and irritated when we weren't allowed to go to India. I
definitely want to go next year." and "... we should not be in a
position where we have to choose. No one else had to."
Clearly this guy has been watching Dhoni, Watson, Yuvraj, Ishant
Sharma, Rohit Sharma etc. on Setanta TV everyday and weeping.
On the other hand, RH would argue that Pietersen has always been a
mercenary and should never have been picked for England in the first
place.
SP
<snip>
shineything
And what happens when 20-20 begins to pale - as it inevitably will.
What's left then - baseball?
Tweedle Dee
People like Mohan are heady with IPL success at the moment, and I
guess one could say that they have a right to enjoy IPL's runaway
popularity, since they've been touting the "free-market, clubs, non-
national team" concept in rsc for so many years. But I think that
Mike's analogy to professional wrestling is not such a bad one. Í
belong to the worried camp that senses that the BCCI may get carried
away and start, say, a Winter IPL season from November to January in
addition to the Summer season, and then gradually phase out test
cricket for the Indian team altogether. I know what Mohan would say -
that'd be great! Down with archaic concepts like 5 day games! Let's
only have T20 tournaments till the end of time etc. But I think this
will be like riding a tiger - it'll be a thrill ride, but at some
point you're bound to lose your hold and fall off and be devoured. At
some point, this instant thrill T20 business will start getting more
commonplace, and the franchises will be forced to try and jazz things
up with fresher attractions, till they realize that fixing games may
be the most optimal, fail-safe strategy for holding audience interest.
Perhaps Mohan will be okay with that as well, explaining it as a
natural progression and the inevitable bowing to market forces etc.
etc. But for fans like me, that is something to really be worried
about. There may be no idealism left in international cricket, but if
what is taking its place is market driven manipulative puppeteering,
then it's a very bleak and depressing prospect indeed.
-TD
Reverse Swing
>news:b06c6bd0-287b-4bb5...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I belong to the worried camp that senses that the BCCI may get carried
> away and start, say, a Winter IPL season from November to January in
> addition to the Summer season, and then gradually phase out test
> cricket for the Indian team altogether.
The international calendar can accommodate two IPL seasons in a year with a
little bit adjustment from all the parties for everyone's good. The current
IPL timing is quite lousy actually, April/May is no time to play cricket in
India. IPL should plan a Feb/Mar season in India (or perhaps a bit later to
beat the school exams season in India). They can convince Aus and SA to
finish their home season before IPL starts thereby ensuring everyone's
availability.
The second season could be hosted in England in July/Aug. The English could
very easily cut down their international calendar by a few weeks (why play 2
home series every year, just to accommodate Zim/Bangladesh/NZ/WI etc?).
Playing during day time in England ensures prime time on TV in India, which
would be the biggest TV audience anyway.
Rest of the year would be available for international events which would
basically become a kind of 'talent-spotter' for IPL.
Everyone happy?
SP
Mohan
> People like Mohan are heady with IPL success at the moment, and I
> guess one could say that they have a right to enjoy IPL's runaway
> popularity, since they've been touting the "free-market, clubs, non-
> national team" concept in rsc for so many years.
Not so much heady as amused by the shifting of goalposts by
nation-vs-nation cricket fans. First they said Indian market isn't that
big, where is bcci balance sheet? etc. Then the dominance of Indian
cricket market became commonly accepted truth. Then there were the twin
arguments of a) international cricketers won't come and play in hot
and dusty Indian cities at the beck and call of bcci b) Indian fans
won't watch these club matches anyway. Now both those arguments have
been refuted by IPL. Now it is the moral argument. ok, this may be
financially feasible, this is also what the fans want to watch and
players too might go where the money is, but still in their hearts
players actually don't want to play this 20-20 cricket, hence to respect
their deep desire fans shouldn't be watching this and bcci shouldn't be
conducting this tournament. So from "this won't succeed" they have gone
to "this shouldn't be succeeding".
> etc. But for fans like me, that is something to really be worried
> about. There may be no idealism left in international cricket, but if
> what is taking its place is market driven manipulative puppeteering,
> then it's a very bleak and depressing prospect indeed.
What makes you think that international cricket isn't manipulated? If
anything, there is more reason for manipulation there than in IPL,
because the markets for various teams are hopelessly imbalanced in the
former and also there is no natural way of balancing the team strengths
there.
Mohan
Mohan
> On May 18, 7:57 am, Mohan <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> We owe it to the players to let them play what they consider the
>>> ultimate challenge.
>> No one is forcing any player at gun point to play T20. They are free to
>> go and organise their own Test matches and play it all year.
>
> Looks like the ECB is actually holding its star players at gun point
> and asking them to play for England.
They are only doing it in the players' interest, because they know that
what the players really want to do is to play for their country. It is
just that the lure of money has blinded them and they themselves don't
realise what they *really* want.
Mohan
Mohan
> Playing during day time in England ensures prime time on TV in India, which
> would be the biggest TV audience anyway.
But will there be crowds if Mumbai and Delhi are playing at Trentbridge?
Without crowds, it won't look good on tv either. No need to take IPL
out of India. Just have a 5-6 month season and let foreign players play
whenever available. Apart from England and Australia, I don't see any
other board insisting on continuing to play international cricket
anyway. Pakistan and South Africa are already preparing to have their
own versions of IPL. Their leagues will be smaller, financially and
duration-wise, and will mostly serve as feeders for IPL. As for
international cricket, Australia and England can always schedule their
Ashes so as not to conflict with IPL. To please the purists, bcci should
conduct a 5-day cricket tournament among IPL teams outside the main
20-20 season.
Mohan
Reverse Swing
> Reverse Swing wrote:
>> Playing during day time in England ensures prime time on TV in India,
>> which would be the biggest TV audience anyway.
>
> But will there be crowds if Mumbai and Delhi are playing at Trentbridge?
Oh, people would show up. Remember this is England we are talking about
where 8,000 is considered a 'crowd' and 20,000 is considered a 'massive
turnout'. The English are quite used to seeing international players
perform even in their domestic platform. There is a significant upwardly
mobile south Asian population in the UK which would be interested.
Moreover, some of the teams would have English players like Pietersen,
Flintoff etc. playing for them, which would attract the locals.
> Without crowds, it won't look good on tv either. No need to take IPL out
> of India. Just have a 5-6 month season and let foreign players play
> whenever available.
Problem with a single 5-6 months season is it gets tiresome. There is a
feeling of oh-there-is-another-game-today. Also, it would be a shame to
waste the northern summer season when only England is able to play (and
whoever is visiting them) while the rest of the big teams like India,
Pakistan, Aus and SA are cooling there heels doing nothing. Some of the
players from these countries end up playing in low quality county cricket
which is a terrible waste of available talent. Might as well channelize all
this into IPL.
SP
Mike Holmans
<k.v...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On May 18, 7:57 am, Mohan <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > We owe it to the players to let them play what they consider the
>> > ultimate challenge.
>>
>> No one is forcing any player at gun point to play T20. They are free to
>> go and organise their own Test matches and play it all year.
>>
>> > In fact, we owe it to ourselves. Preventing the
>> > pursuit of excellence is the road which leads ultimately to
>> > choreographed farce, as witnessed in the hell that is professional
>> > "wrestling".
>>
>> > It's very easy to fix cricket matches if you have a mind to. If you
>> > take the idealism out of the sport and make it all about money, you
>> > breed the cynicism which leads players into that temptation.
>>
>> This is based on the mistaken notion that there is any idealism left in
>> international cricket.
>
>People like Mohan are heady with IPL success at the moment, and I
>guess one could say that they have a right to enjoy IPL's runaway
>popularity, since they've been touting the "free-market, clubs, non-
>national team" concept in rsc for so many years.
What is a bit irritating about the Mohans and Shishirs of this world
is that conceptually the IPL is nothing new. We've had overseas
players in the top-level club teams for decades in England. That it's
amazingly new to an Indian audience merely shows how pathetically
conservative and useless the BCCI have been for the last eighty years.
In two years time, that novelty will have worn off.
>But I think that
>Mike's analogy to professional wrestling is not such a bad one. Í
>belong to the worried camp that senses that the BCCI may get carried
>away and start, say, a Winter IPL season from November to January in
>addition to the Summer season, and then gradually phase out test
>cricket for the Indian team altogether. I know what Mohan would say -
>that'd be great! Down with archaic concepts like 5 day games! Let's
>only have T20 tournaments till the end of time etc.
What a feeble mind one must have to hope for that as a future. I love
T20, and I also love first-class cricket. I don't see why I can't have
both, despite the selfish killjoyism of the IPL-rah-rah-rah cretins.
>But I think this
>will be like riding a tiger - it'll be a thrill ride, but at some
>point you're bound to lose your hold and fall off and be devoured. At
>some point, this instant thrill T20 business will start getting more
>commonplace, and the franchises will be forced to try and jazz things
>up with fresher attractions, till they realize that fixing games may
>be the most optimal, fail-safe strategy for holding audience interest.
I think you're right that this would be the consequence of an
unrelieved diet of T20. The better way to hold audience interest in
the IPL would be to make sure that the national team plays Tests and
odos against other countries. It makes for a bit of variety, and if
nothing else allows people to have a look at players it might be worth
signing. How else are you going to find the next lot of exciting
foreign players? Are the franchises really going to spend large
amounts of time and money scouring the denuded domestic competitions
in Australia, South Africa and England for promising players?
People get excited about the idea of signing Pietersen because he's
done well in international cricket. If international cricket becomes
to some extent the shop window in which potential IPL recruits
demonstrate their credentials, then that's basically fine. But unless
that shop window is full of vibrant displays, it won't be of any use.
The IPL-rah-rah-rah line is incredibly short-sighted - some might even
call it suicidal - because the IPL cannot subsist in total isolation.
In order for it to be a continuing success, there has to be a constant
supply of new players, and that means having feeder systems which
produce them. Since only a lucky few from any given country like
England or New Zealand will get to put their snouts in the IPL trough,
getting picked for the IPL cannot be the only worthwhile reward or the
intake of players into the feeder systems will also dry up.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mohan
>> People like Mohan are heady with IPL success at the moment, and I
>> guess one could say that they have a right to enjoy IPL's runaway
>> popularity, since they've been touting the "free-market, clubs, non-
>> national team" concept in rsc for so many years.
>
> What is a bit irritating about the Mohans and Shishirs of this world
> is that conceptually the IPL is nothing new.
Yet we had people here on this forum telling us for years that such a
concept won't work, it will never draw crowds or tv viewers etc.
>> But I think that
>> Mike's analogy to professional wrestling is not such a bad one. Í
>> belong to the worried camp that senses that the BCCI may get carried
>> away and start, say, a Winter IPL season from November to January in
>> addition to the Summer season, and then gradually phase out test
>> cricket for the Indian team altogether. I know what Mohan would say -
>> that'd be great! Down with archaic concepts like 5 day games! Let's
>> only have T20 tournaments till the end of time etc.
>
> What a feeble mind one must have to hope for that as a future. I love
> T20, and I also love first-class cricket. I don't see why I can't have
> both, despite the selfish killjoyism of the IPL-rah-rah-rah cretins.
We want to have both too, except we want "Test" cricket also to be
played between the IPL teams.
>
>> But I think this
>> will be like riding a tiger - it'll be a thrill ride, but at some
>> point you're bound to lose your hold and fall off and be devoured. At
>> some point, this instant thrill T20 business will start getting more
>> commonplace, and the franchises will be forced to try and jazz things
>> up with fresher attractions, till they realize that fixing games may
>> be the most optimal, fail-safe strategy for holding audience interest.
>
> I think you're right that this would be the consequence of an
> unrelieved diet of T20. The better way to hold audience interest in
> the IPL would be to make sure that the national team plays Tests and
> odos against other countries. It makes for a bit of variety, and if
> nothing else allows people to have a look at players it might be worth
> signing. How else are you going to find the next lot of exciting
> foreign players? Are the franchises really going to spend large
> amounts of time and money scouring the denuded domestic competitions
> in Australia, South Africa and England for promising players?
New talent will come through similar leagues conducted in other cricket
playing countries, which won't be financially as lucrative as IPL but
whose purpose will be to find talent for the latter.
> The IPL-rah-rah-rah line is incredibly short-sighted - some might even
> call it suicidal - because the IPL cannot subsist in total isolation.
It is not the rah-rah line that is short-sighted. It is your feeble mind
that can't understand the argument.
Mohan
Geico Caveman
> We want to have both too, except we want "Test" cricket also to be
> played between the IPL teams.
>
Not a bad idea at all. Have a "Test" match between the two finalists of the
IPL, or to borrow an American concept, between the winners of IPL and ICL.
Pity that RCB will get nowhere close to that match :)
Mohan
Or play a full-fledged tournament dividing the eight teams into 2
groups. 15 test matches - can be done with in a couple of months with
some matches scheduled in parallel. You can't play 20-20 throughout the
year, anyway.
Jan-Mar - IPL Test tournament
April-May - first half of the 20-20 season
June-Sep - Monsoon break (let the players go play in EPL)
Oct-Dec - Second half of 20-20 tournament coinciding with peak
festival/shopping season.
Mohan
R. Spanditt
<noneofyourfuckingbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> The fact that half the time sky pan to the audience during overs indicates
> the fact it's the most boring formats of Cricket that ever existed.
>
> Whoever came up with it should have been shot - who knows maybe he/she/it
> was!
>
> Seriously, I enjoy cricket and all, but at least limit the games to 50 overs
> like the one dayers and have the one dayers have 20-20 status.
>
> Scrap the tests, waste of time and money I say.
Luckily the administrators couldn't give two shits about what you say,
being an idiot and all.
Andrew Dunford
"Commander Hughes" <noneofyourfu...@all.com> wrote in message
news:g0i1pa$a58$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
I have been watching Test cricket for more than 30 years and can confirm
that it is a superb waste of time. Not like that Twenty 20 nonsense which
wastes far too little time, requiring that one does something 'useful' with
all those left over hours.
> The fact that half the time sky pan to the audience during overs indicates
> the fact it's the most boring formats of Cricket that ever existed.
As opposed to the IPL, where the cameras occasionally pan to the match on
the field, indicating that cricket crowd-watching is one of the most boring
formats of television that ever existed.
<snip>
Andrew
Reverse Swing
news:a9u034dej2dsnvitg...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> What is a bit irritating about the Mohans and Shishirs of this world
> is that conceptually the IPL is nothing new.
And what's irritating about you is that you don't read all the posts
carefully and simply jump to conclusions based on the name of the poster or
perhaps the country of his origin. I can't speak for the Mohans of the
world, but let me speak for the Shishirs:
I, for one, never called this a new concept. Time and again (including in
my post yesterday), I acknowledged that the English domestic competition has
been playing host to international cricketers all along.
I have actually invested time watching the IPL games for several weeks
before posting on the subject, unlike you who has decided to bury his head
under the sand and pretend that IPL doesn't exist. Over last four years, I
have actually watched cricket in England at all levels, both on TV and in
person: Tests, odos, county and the local 20-20. Believe it or not, I
happen to have internet access and regular scan websites in UK and Aus to
see what they are saying (oh btw, how many times do you read the Indian
media?). Based on my observations, I proposed a calendar that includes both
IPL and ICC international cricket. It's less 'revolutionary' than what
Mohan wants, but it aims to embrace a large part of the cricketing
community.
Now, instead of arguing the point, if you want to get irritated just because
the proposal was to cut down on England-Bangladesh Tests and denying Bells
of the world the opportunity to score tons of useless runs against feeble
opposition, it's your choice.
Summary: read the damn post from yesterday again, it allows for 8 months
international cricket and absolutely no change in domestic cricket anywhere.
<snip>
> What a feeble mind one must have to hope for that as a future. I love
> T20, and I also love first-class cricket. I don't see why I can't have
> both, despite the selfish killjoyism of the IPL-rah-rah-rah cretins.
Was the last word above directed at the Mohans and Shishirs of the world?
SP
<snip>
Geico Caveman
I am not entirely in favour of this idea. Putting IPL Tests in Jan will mean
that future Indian tours of Australia will be impossible. Not something I
want to see.
Maybe the above schedule should have space for India, England, Australia and
Sri Lanka to play Test cricket as national teams.
Splitting the Twenty20 season into two parts ? Why ? Why not have it all
between late September and early/mid-December ? Does not rain much during
that period anyways.
I think that making players play in India in late April, May and early June
is brutal. Might be the best time to schedule away tours of England and
such.
Though it will probably never happen, an end-season "Test" match between ICL
all-stars and IPL-stars will really be a great idea.
Jellore
> the fact it's the most boring formats of Cricket that ever existed.
>
> was!
>
> Seriously, I enjoy cricket and all, but at least limit the games to 50 overs
> like the one dayers and have the one dayers have 20-20 status.
>
> Scrap the tests, waste of time and money I say.
>
> aka
> Commander Hughes
Commander you are an utter fool. Anyone who watched the recent Test
series between Australia and India knows that Test cricket is alive
and well. The following series between SA and India was not far behind.
cricketanator
they're like start then all of a suuden the match has been won. If
test stops then so does true cricket.