Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
So why don't you like T20?
182 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Holmans
Jan 13, 2023, 8:17:40 AM1/13/23
to
I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
but who cares?
But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
to score off it.
As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
roundabouts and what have you.
Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
better.
What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?
That seems a very valid objection, and it took me a bit of time
watching the overseas leagues to find a way in. Watching sport as a
pure neutral to appreciate the aesthetics is beyond most of us. We
want to be on someone's side: sport is about competition, and we want
to vicariously experience that thrill. And while I can sort of
understand why people from a franchise city might identify with their
"local" team, I can see no earthly reason why any neutral TV spectator
would care about a specific team on principle.
What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has got
the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon. Unless, of
course, an English player from the other side smacks 80 off 31 in
which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit difficult when
Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want Archer to knock
Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer back over his head
for 6.
Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't happened:
one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for 20 years at
best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what good one can out
of the situation. Moaning about the good old days simply stops you
enjoying what's on offer, because the good old days are gone forever -
as is true of every other sport.
Cheers,
Mike
who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
but who cares?
But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
to score off it.
As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
roundabouts and what have you.
Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
better.
What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?
That seems a very valid objection, and it took me a bit of time
watching the overseas leagues to find a way in. Watching sport as a
pure neutral to appreciate the aesthetics is beyond most of us. We
want to be on someone's side: sport is about competition, and we want
to vicariously experience that thrill. And while I can sort of
understand why people from a franchise city might identify with their
"local" team, I can see no earthly reason why any neutral TV spectator
would care about a specific team on principle.
What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has got
the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon. Unless, of
course, an English player from the other side smacks 80 off 31 in
which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit difficult when
Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want Archer to knock
Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer back over his head
for 6.
Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't happened:
one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for 20 years at
best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what good one can out
of the situation. Moaning about the good old days simply stops you
enjoying what's on offer, because the good old days are gone forever -
as is true of every other sport.
Cheers,
Mike
HVS
Jan 13, 2023, 9:32:27 AM1/13/23
to
On 13 Jan 2023, Mike Holmans wrote
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from
> someone who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it,
> it's painful, but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very
> much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the
> pinnacle of this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid
> form of the game.
I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
equipment.
Yup; I find that with all foreign domestic leagues. I have zero
personal links to Australia, for example, and can't imagine why I'd be
interested in the results of Sheffield Shield matches.
Even with links to NZ (my wife's family), I watch the occasional
international match but have never watched or followed the Plunket
Shield, or the NZ domestic T20 or 50-over league games.
> What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
> well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
> Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has
> got the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon.
> Unless, of course, an English player from the other side smacks 80
> off 31 in which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit
> difficult when Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want
> Archer to knock Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer
> back over his head for 6.
>
> Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
> dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't
> happened: one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for
> 20 years at best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what
> good one can out of the situation. Moaning about the good old days
> simply stops you enjoying what's on offer, because the good old
> days are gone forever - as is true of every other sport.
It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from
> someone who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it,
> it's painful, but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very
> much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the
> pinnacle of this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid
> form of the game.
format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
equipment.
personal links to Australia, for example, and can't imagine why I'd be
interested in the results of Sheffield Shield matches.
Even with links to NZ (my wife's family), I watch the occasional
international match but have never watched or followed the Plunket
Shield, or the NZ domestic T20 or 50-over league games.
> What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
> well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
> Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has
> got the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon.
> Unless, of course, an English player from the other side smacks 80
> off 31 in which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit
> difficult when Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want
> Archer to knock Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer
> back over his head for 6.
>
> Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
> dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't
> happened: one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for
> 20 years at best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what
> good one can out of the situation. Moaning about the good old days
> simply stops you enjoying what's on offer, because the good old
> days are gone forever - as is true of every other sport.
they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Adrian
Jan 13, 2023, 10:01:32 AM1/13/23
to
In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
"Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
at least one of those criteria.
Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
<sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>but who cares?
>
>But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
>who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>but who cares?
>
>But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
"Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
at least one of those criteria.
Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
Mike Holmans
Jan 13, 2023, 11:19:32 AM1/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:32:25 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:
>I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
>format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
>equipment.
How long ago did he say that? I'm not sure that the implication is
anything like as apposite now as in, say, 2010. I shall keep an ear
open for his comments along those lines during the ILT20 (he's
commentating as I type).
Obviously it isn't a four-innings game over multiple days, but 99% of
games whose participants would say they were playing cricket are
single day, one innings per side, so unless all one-day cricket with
innings limitations is a ((H)E)GPWCE, I'd like to know why elite-level
T20 isn't real cricket.
As I understand Ben Stokes's view - and he is clearly the main driver
of the current policy - the county championship is very good at
producing what it has always been very good at producing: players who
are good at playing four-day cricket in English conditions. That
requires solid defence, stamina, patience, judgment and a bunch of
other stuff which Test cricketers need.
But it doesn't generate the flexibility, ability to attack at all
times, or immediate pressures of T20, nor does it guarantee a
prominent role for even fairly moderate spinners who rapidly improve
as a result. On the other hand, T20 is pretty much useless for
developing pace bowlers - they need to already be very good to succeed
in T20. Unfortunately, T20 does rather encourage the slow-medium
variable pace merchants instead, which is a bit irritating, but I have
painful memories of watching a succession of 81 mph right arm over
English bowlers allegedly forming a Test pace attack in the 90s, which
is just as bad.
>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
You-know-who likes to tell people about how much better cricket was
when they played on unfit pitches which had originally been left
uncovered to provide more hazard for the 18th century nobility. They
were betting huge sums on the games and added spice to the gambling by
allowing for games to become farcical when rain intervened. It had
nothing to do with providing a fair test of skill, because it actively
militated against it. Nor do I understand how the game was better when
played with inferior and dangerous equipment. It may have been more
difficult, but the Eton Wall Game is extremely difficult and extremely
stupid; difficulty is not the sole determinant of quality, especially
if, as happened in cricket's past, it led to players with very limited
techniques better suited to defence than getting on with winning the
game.
Cheers,
Mike
wrote:
>I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
>format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
>equipment.
anything like as apposite now as in, say, 2010. I shall keep an ear
open for his comments along those lines during the ILT20 (he's
commentating as I type).
Obviously it isn't a four-innings game over multiple days, but 99% of
games whose participants would say they were playing cricket are
single day, one innings per side, so unless all one-day cricket with
innings limitations is a ((H)E)GPWCE, I'd like to know why elite-level
T20 isn't real cricket.
As I understand Ben Stokes's view - and he is clearly the main driver
of the current policy - the county championship is very good at
producing what it has always been very good at producing: players who
are good at playing four-day cricket in English conditions. That
requires solid defence, stamina, patience, judgment and a bunch of
other stuff which Test cricketers need.
But it doesn't generate the flexibility, ability to attack at all
times, or immediate pressures of T20, nor does it guarantee a
prominent role for even fairly moderate spinners who rapidly improve
as a result. On the other hand, T20 is pretty much useless for
developing pace bowlers - they need to already be very good to succeed
in T20. Unfortunately, T20 does rather encourage the slow-medium
variable pace merchants instead, which is a bit irritating, but I have
painful memories of watching a succession of 81 mph right arm over
English bowlers allegedly forming a Test pace attack in the 90s, which
is just as bad.
>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
You-know-who likes to tell people about how much better cricket was
when they played on unfit pitches which had originally been left
uncovered to provide more hazard for the 18th century nobility. They
were betting huge sums on the games and added spice to the gambling by
allowing for games to become farcical when rain intervened. It had
nothing to do with providing a fair test of skill, because it actively
militated against it. Nor do I understand how the game was better when
played with inferior and dangerous equipment. It may have been more
difficult, but the Eton Wall Game is extremely difficult and extremely
stupid; difficulty is not the sole determinant of quality, especially
if, as happened in cricket's past, it led to players with very limited
techniques better suited to defence than getting on with winning the
game.
Cheers,
Mike
Robert Henderson
Jan 13, 2023, 11:38:32 AM1/13/23
to
RH
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 13, 2023, 1:13:54 PM1/13/23
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 13, 2023, 1:25:15 PM1/13/23
to
Any team against Paki pigs
NZ vs Aus, Eng
SA vs Aus
WI vs Aus Eng NZ Pak Afg SA Bangladesh
Afg vs Bangladesh Pak
Ire vs Aus, Eng, NZ, Bangladesh, Afg, SL
Eng vs Aus tough call. It depends on players in the teams. Usually
England if Steve Smith, Tim Paine in ozzie team.
max.it
Jan 13, 2023, 2:18:40 PM1/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 16:19:28 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
wrote:
>>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
>
>When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
>types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
>to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
>age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
max.it
wrote:
>>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
>
>When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
>types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
>to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
>age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
max.it
John Hall
Jan 13, 2023, 3:01:30 PM1/13/23
to
In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnf...@4ax.com>, max. it
<m...@tea.time> writes
Tramps or their version of the song. But I must have heard the Judy
Garland version of the song at least a dozen times.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
<m...@tea.time> writes
>Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it 40
>years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
>all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it 40
>years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
Tramps or their version of the song. But I must have heard the Judy
Garland version of the song at least a dozen times.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
David North
Jan 13, 2023, 3:27:56 PM1/13/23
to
my case, I usually support the underdog if England, Scotland and Ireland
aren't involved, except on the rare occasions when the underdog is
Australia.
However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
played today):
Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers
--
David North
David North
Jan 13, 2023, 3:38:30 PM1/13/23
to
On 13/01/2023 19:55, John Hall wrote:
> In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnf...@4ax.com>, max. it
> <m...@tea.time> writes
>> Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>> all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
>> 40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
>
> I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
> Tramps
or even The Trammps. No, I didn't know they had a double 'm' until I
> In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnf...@4ax.com>, max. it
> <m...@tea.time> writes
>> Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>> all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
>> 40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
>
> I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
> Tramps
googled them, but I had heard of them, vaguely.
--
David North
Mike Holmans
Jan 13, 2023, 3:46:09 PM1/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:27:53 +0000, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
>played today):
>
>Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
>Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
>MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
>Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers
Yup. I've sort of adopted MICT because of their bowling attack -
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
>played today):
>
>Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
>Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
>MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
>Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers
Curran, Archer, Stone and Rashid Khan. Stone was superb today,
although the batters hadn't done enough for it to matter as much as it
had a right to.
And Joe Root was taking excellent catches after making 26 off 21 as an
opener. He said afterwards that he was really enjoying learning how to
play at the top of the innings because of the new skills he was
picking up.
But I really don't care who wins as long as there's a good game.
Cheers,
Mike
Richard Dixon
Jan 13, 2023, 5:19:38 PM1/13/23
to
On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
I've always preferred the ebb and flow of the longer format and maybe as I'm a bowler I enjoy the fact that T20 feels as though it's bowlers to the slaughter constantly.
The one thing I will give T20 credit for though is making me enjoy 50-over formats more - even though I imagine they're dead and buried if cricket is to survive? Genuinely enjoyed the Royal London Cup games last summer.
Richard
David North
Jan 13, 2023, 10:10:22 PM1/13/23
to
On 13/01/2023 22:19, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.
I don't watch many, but put on the current Super Smash match just in
> On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.
time to see Will Young almost hit 6 6s in an over off Louis Delport. He
was caught on the boundary going for the last one.
--
David North
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 14, 2023, 2:18:50 AM1/14/23
to
something to enliven the boring middle overs, especially when humans'
attention span is getting shorter and shorter every passing day.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 14, 2023, 2:25:38 AM1/14/23
to
T20 franchises.
Delhi Capitals fans support Dubai Capitals
Kolkata Knight Riders -> Abu Dhabi
Mumbai Indians -> Cape Town
When it comes to Australia BBL, it obviously depends on their favorite
players and affinity to the cities like attending college or vacations,
work related, friends and family there etc.
max.it
Jan 14, 2023, 4:50:55 AM1/14/23
to
talent and remarkable skill but he picked the wrong tune that time.
I'm a fingerstyle guitarist. I haven't played in public or done any
tuition in 20 years. People would ask who my playing was influenced
by.
It's a bit like T20 when there are a few of your favourite players on
both teams and you're watching the performances rather than the match
as a whole. I like most of the big guitar based bands but my favourite
guitarist and the one who had the most impact on my playing and still
does is Freddie Phillips..
max.it
Hamish Laws
Jan 14, 2023, 8:29:05 AM1/14/23
to
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:17:40 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>
I'll watch it if it's on but it's not something I'll go out of my way to see more of
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>
I think the way people play in T20s results in a lot less elegant shots than you get in first class cricket
I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give Rupert Murdoch money...
Mike Holmans
Jan 14, 2023, 10:21:57 AM1/14/23
to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
depending on format.
In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
accurately-set field.
In essence, what enjoyment you get out of a cricket match depends a
lot on how much you're prepared to put into it. At one extreme is
"this is what I like and any deviation from that standard is a
disappointment" and at the other is like being a pet dog who appears
to believe that whatever it's doing is its favourite thing ever.
If you want to like T20, you can find a way to. If you don't want to
like it, you can find any number of reasons not to. Same with Test
cricket and any other format.
I don't like the 100 because I don't see the point of a very slightly
different format with dreadful TV presentation. So I say. But is what
I really mean that I'm so accustomed to being able to judge a T20
situtation that it's just jarring to have to try and adjust
expectations by 10-20% to understand what's going on?
I can't be bothered to put any more effort into T10 than I already
have. My objection to that is similar to what Richard was saying about
T20 v longer forms - there isn't enough ebb and flow.
But again, how much ebb and flow you perceive depends on how much
you're prepared to perceive, which in turn depends on how much you
have already perceived. 15-20 years ago, if a team needed 50 off 3
overs, I'd assume the game was over. Today, if certain batters were in
or at least still in the hutch, I'd back them to get it because I've
seen it happen multiple times. And I've also seen teams take 5 wickets
for 8 runs in the last 3 overs to win by 3. So I'll watch a bit longer
- I tend to leave early, as it were, when I can't see any reasonable
path for the likely result to change.
Being a fussy eater limits the range of restaurants in which you can
get a good meal. The village idiot reminds me of a guy I used to know
at work who only ever ate sausage, chips and beans and regarded
anything else as disgusting or as foreign muck. I'm allergic to fresh
mango, recoil at excessive capsaicin and want eggs to be adulterated
as, say, Yorkshire pudding rather than served fried or scrambled. I
like the fact that I can go to more restaurants and have a good time
than the other bloke.
>It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give Rupert Murdoch money...
of them. I'm not sure how much of Sky TV in the UK Murdoch now owns,
either: I know some of it's been sold for regulatory reasons.
Cheers,
Mike
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 14, 2023, 11:21:21 AM1/14/23
to
HVS
Jan 14, 2023, 11:59:40 AM1/14/23
to
On 14 Jan 2023, Mike Holmans wrote
Murdoch sold his interest in Sky television to Comcast in 2018; AIUI
he no longer owns any of it at all.
--
Cheers, Harvey
he no longer owns any of it at all.
--
Cheers, Harvey
mike
Jan 14, 2023, 12:53:56 PM1/14/23
to
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:32 PM UTC, Adrian wrote:
> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> >but who cares?
> >
> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
> >
> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
> at least one of those criteria.
>
I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> >but who cares?
> >
> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
> >
> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
> at least one of those criteria.
>
usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
of the anti growth coalition.
Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
The cricket isnt so bad, some of it is amazing, but its all the other shite
which puts me off ever going to a match plus I prefer watching the longer
formats of the game. But I will watch it occasionally to see how england
players get on in the t20s leagues abroad. I notice that jacks nearly
hit a 100 tother day.
mike
Mike Holmans
Jan 14, 2023, 1:12:22 PM1/14/23
to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:53:54 -0800 (PST), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>
>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
I appear to be able to tolerate it for T20 but not the 100, where
there is even more silliness.
But those seem to me perfectly respectable reasons for not liking the
format. If the look of the thing is unpleasant, nobody's making you
look at it.
On the other hand, it does close off your options for watching
cricket.
>The cricket isnt so bad, some of it is amazing, but its all the other shite
>which puts me off ever going to a match plus I prefer watching the longer
>formats of the game. But I will watch it occasionally to see how england
>players get on in the t20s leagues abroad. I notice that jacks nearly
>hit a 100 tother day.
That also seems highly rational. Particularly since you note that some
of the cricket is amazing.
What I object to now is saying that different formats are not valid
examples of good cricket. There is cricket I don't enjoy very much,
but that of itself doesn't make it bad cricket. Bad cricket is when I
imagine that even I could do better than the klutzes out in the
middle.
Cheers,
Mike
wrote:
>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>
>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
there is even more silliness.
But those seem to me perfectly respectable reasons for not liking the
format. If the look of the thing is unpleasant, nobody's making you
look at it.
On the other hand, it does close off your options for watching
cricket.
>The cricket isnt so bad, some of it is amazing, but its all the other shite
>which puts me off ever going to a match plus I prefer watching the longer
>formats of the game. But I will watch it occasionally to see how england
>players get on in the t20s leagues abroad. I notice that jacks nearly
>hit a 100 tother day.
of the cricket is amazing.
What I object to now is saying that different formats are not valid
examples of good cricket. There is cricket I don't enjoy very much,
but that of itself doesn't make it bad cricket. Bad cricket is when I
imagine that even I could do better than the klutzes out in the
middle.
Cheers,
Mike
Adrian
Jan 14, 2023, 2:26:07 PM1/14/23
to
In message <fa0a0d8c-d34c-4986...@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
>
I'll freely admit that I haven't seen any of the T20 games, but the odd
bits that I've heard on the wireless and reports elsewhere have
confirmed my view that it isn't for me.
mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:32 PM UTC, Adrian wrote:
>> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> >but who cares?
>> >
>> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>> >
>> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
>> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
>> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
>> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
>> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
>> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
>> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
>> at least one of those criteria.
>>
>
>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>
Oi, I resemble at least one of those remarks.
>> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> >but who cares?
>> >
>> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>> >
>> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
>> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
>> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
>> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
>> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
>> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
>> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
>> at least one of those criteria.
>>
>
>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>
>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
>
bits that I've heard on the wireless and reports elsewhere have
confirmed my view that it isn't for me.
Richard Dixon
Jan 15, 2023, 6:17:31 AM1/15/23
to
On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
Even though the T20 games are typically much better attended than the sumtotal of 4 county days, I see that they've forgotten to tell the locals there's a game on in the ILT20 (that yes, I've got on in the background). Maybe 6 tournaments is overkill and T20 franchises are tending towards greedy commercialism?
Richard
Robert Henderson
Jan 15, 2023, 6:52:39 AM1/15/23
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 15, 2023, 8:44:09 AM1/15/23
to
David North
Jan 15, 2023, 9:13:34 AM1/15/23
to
time I checked, stags were male.
It seems less ridiculous than calling cricket teams "Thunder",
"Lightning" and "Storm", which will eventually (if it hasn't happened
already) lead to "Thunder v Lightning abandoned due to rain".
--
David North
Hamish Laws
Jan 15, 2023, 9:33:29 AM1/15/23
to
On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
> depending on format.
>
> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
> accurately-set field.
>
I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
> depending on format.
>
> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
> accurately-set field.
>
and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format
mike
Jan 15, 2023, 9:50:56 AM1/15/23
to
1 of the most ridiculous is garden route badgers in RSA. actually
i think their full name is 6 gun grill garden route badgers. i believe
theyr based at Oudtshoorn which was the centre of the ostrich industry
until they got wiped out by chinese bird flu a while back, otherwise they
could have been called the Oudtshoorn Ostriches.
mike
Mike Holmans
Jan 15, 2023, 10:26:14 AM1/15/23
to
They were sometimes a bit bigger, actually, when Pakistan were using
the grounds as home, but even then they were county 50-over
attendances. But an Indian TV channel has lots of money and doesn't
get a slice of the IPL and have decided they want some eyeballs.
I wouldn't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, and I'm
particularly unhappy about the ILT20, which isn't just greedy
commercialism but blatant sportswashing into the bargain.
However, it is pretty good evidence that the format is very popular.
You can accept that it's an integral part of cricket's ecosystem and
that it's as valid a format as the others, and that performance in the
format is not at all irrelevant to likely performance in others
(although not necessarily equivalent). That's what you'd probably do
if you cared about the sport's continued existence.
On the other hand, if your main interest in cricket is parading your
prejudices, complaining that things aren't as boring as they used to
be and producing adoring assessments of players you've never seen, you
can ignore it and declare it irrelevant, thus confirming your own
irrelevance to modern cricket.
Cheers,
Mike
Robert Henderson
Jan 15, 2023, 11:34:41 AM1/15/23
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 16, 2023, 2:54:27 AM1/16/23
to
On 1/15/2023 6:33 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
>> depending on format.
>>
>> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
>> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
>> accurately-set field.
>>
> I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
>
No T20 batter deliberately plays/hits to get out, EXCEPT in abnormal
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
>> depending on format.
>>
>> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
>> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
>> accurately-set field.
>>
> I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
>
cases like Ashwin being sent as pinch hitter at #3 or #4 who gets out in
"late stages" to accommodate a powerful hitter.
> I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format
If you take a deep breath and think about what you said, you will
realize the Naivete in your own comments.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 16, 2023, 2:56:30 AM1/16/23
to
Robert Henderson
Jan 16, 2023, 3:20:58 AM1/16/23
to
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 16, 2023, 5:01:30 AM1/16/23
to
max.it
Jan 16, 2023, 7:03:36 AM1/16/23
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
Unless you are hitting the ball along the ground, tip and run style,
hitting the ball in the direction of a fielder especially in the air
is always a risky idea.
How is it that a 'big six' that leaves the ground looks better usually
than a nicely placed shot that splits the field for 4?
I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
max.it
hitting the ball in the direction of a fielder especially in the air
is always a risky idea.
How is it that a 'big six' that leaves the ground looks better usually
than a nicely placed shot that splits the field for 4?
I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
max.it
Andy Walker
Jan 16, 2023, 7:40:58 AM1/16/23
to
Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Godfrey
field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Godfrey
jack fredricks
Jan 16, 2023, 8:29:56 AM1/16/23
to
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 11:17:40 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
I'll answer as a player, rather than a spectator.
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
To be more specific, as a batsman (who often opens).
At my skill level (upper village cricket) going the tonk is still quite risky. We can't play the reverse sweeps off quicks. Our bats aren't maximum thickness wonderbats, so 6s aren't assured even with a well-timed shot.
It takes most of us a little bit of time to get our eye in, as we don't do the pre-game warm ups pros do.
So T20 rarely feels like I can maximise my own skill.
I don't feel that when I'm playing other limited over cricket (we play both 35 overs and 50 overs)(plus of course 2-day cricket).
50 overs is my preferred limited overs to play. But I can't stand watching it.
T20 is my least preferred to play, but I do watch it (both on TV and at the Gabba).
Robert Henderson
Jan 16, 2023, 9:03:55 AM1/16/23
to
Hobbs was likened to Trumper before WW1 .
RH
Mike Holmans
Jan 16, 2023, 9:57:36 AM1/16/23
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>
> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
for the Australian side.
Cheers,
Mike
wrote:
>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>
> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
for the Australian side.
Cheers,
Mike
John Hall
Jan 16, 2023, 11:33:06 AM1/16/23
to
In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
shots than he was in Tests.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
<sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
shots than he was in Tests.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 16, 2023, 11:42:42 AM1/16/23
to
On 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>
>>> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>> playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>> once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>
>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>> for the Australian side.
>
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.
Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>
>>> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>> playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>> once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>
>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>> for the Australian side.
>
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.
he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
One fast century doesn't prove that he will be a great T20 player.
Mike Holmans
Jan 16, 2023, 6:18:47 PM1/16/23
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:22:26 +0000, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>>Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>for the Australian side.
>
>Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
>a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
>allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
>pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
>shots than he was in Tests.
One can say roughly the same of Root, who's a very good player of T20
>>able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>for the Australian side.
>
>Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
>a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
>allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
>pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
>shots than he was in Tests.
but can't get into the current England side, much to his own
disappointment.
Cheers,
Mike
Hamish Laws
Jan 16, 2023, 7:55:29 PM1/16/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 3:33:06 AM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
> >>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
> >>
> >> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
> >>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
> >>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
> >>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
> >>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
> >
> >That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
> >more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
> >Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
> >able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
> >for the Australian side.
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.
Bradman chose not to loft the ball, he could do it if he wanted to, his feeling was that he hit the ball well enough that he didn't need to take the risk
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
> >>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
> >>
> >> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
> >>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
> >>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
> >>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
> >>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
> >
> >That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
> >more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
> >Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
> >able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
> >for the Australian side.
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.
He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
in another he late cut between keeper and 1st slip, then between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd...
He also tells the story of what he calls the best shot he ever played, he was going down the pitch, got beaten in flight so went back to try and recover his ground when he slipped and was falling. On the way down he managed to late cut the ball away from the keeper for a single.
According to Illingworth's book on the Ashes on the 1930 tour of England he took Larwood for 90 runs/100 balls in tests
I think he'd do ok although he would have to make adjustments to how he played.
Mike Holmans
Jan 16, 2023, 8:06:15 PM1/16/23
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
Cheers,
Mike
Hamish Laws
Jan 16, 2023, 9:31:56 PM1/16/23
to
jack fredricks
Jan 16, 2023, 9:46:59 PM1/16/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers, just as he was better in all other batting skills.
jack fredricks
Jan 16, 2023, 9:49:03 PM1/16/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 10:55:29 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bradman chose not to loft the ball, he could do it if he wanted to, his feeling was that he hit the ball well enough that he didn't need to take the risk
https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/3758013/the-dons-ton-in-22-balls/
> Bradman chose not to loft the ball, he could do it if he wanted to, his feeling was that he hit the ball well enough that he didn't need to take the risk
Bradman scoring a 22-ball century. Versus a lowly team, sure, but he could motor.
Mike Holmans
Jan 16, 2023, 10:50:13 PM1/16/23
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:31:55 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
recounts it.
Cheers,
Mike
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>
>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks
Peter Judge saw it happen in 1948. Though not off his bowling. And the
>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>
>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks
Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
recounts it.
Cheers,
Mike
David North
Jan 17, 2023, 2:53:50 AM1/17/23
to
first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
took 3 hours according to Wisden.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152318.html
Here's a list of Test hundreds before lunch:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283003.html
> One fast century doesn't prove that he will be a great T20 player.
--
David North
John Hall
Jan 17, 2023, 3:45:24 AM1/17/23
to
In message <d25b170a-6637-479a...@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>
>I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
>just as he was better in all other batting skills.
>
I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
>
>He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.
>> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
>
>He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
>
>I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
>just as he was better in all other batting skills.
>
today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
Robert Henderson
Jan 17, 2023, 4:26:59 AM1/17/23
to
As for his batting technique see Don Bradman's batting technique see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman%27s_batting_technique
RH
jack fredricks
Jan 17, 2023, 4:33:22 AM1/17/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 5:53:50 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> That was far from Bradman's only fast century.
IIRC he's still the only player to score 300 Test runs in a day.
> That was far from Bradman's only fast century.
jack fredricks
Jan 17, 2023, 4:34:51 AM1/17/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 7:26:59 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.
That's above average height for his time. Not sure how it compares to other cricketers.
> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory.
Hamish Laws
Jan 17, 2023, 4:48:56 AM1/17/23
to
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:26:59 PM UTC+11, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:45:24 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <d25b170a-6637-479a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > >> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
> > >
> > >He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
> > Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.
> > >
> > >I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
> > >just as he was better in all other batting skills.
> > >
> > I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
> > today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
> > I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 8:45:24 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <d25b170a-6637-479a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > >> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball
> > >
> > >He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.
> > Indeed. I didn't intend to imply that he couldn't if he wished to.
> > >
> > >I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers,
> > >just as he was better in all other batting skills.
> > >
> > I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
> > today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
> > I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
> Not sure about that. Bradman was a small man, about 5'8" from memory. I also have nagging a suspicion that he may have used a bat with a shorter handle than normal.
>
which puts him about 3 inches taller than Tendulkar who used a 3 lb 2 oz bat,
>
Mike Holmans
Jan 17, 2023, 6:02:25 AM1/17/23
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
>> he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>
>I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
>first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
>in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
>took 3 hours according to Wisden.
I suspect this could be a reference to I v WI at Mumbai 78-79, when
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
>> he wouldn't make it to T20 team.
>
>I think you are mistaken. Gavaskar made 3 Test centuries at Delhi. The
>first two were slow: 120 in 344 minutes and 115 in 329. The 3rd was v WI
>in 1983/84, where he made 121 off 128 balls, but even then his century
>took 3 hours according to Wisden.
Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
better).
Cheers,
Mike
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 17, 2023, 6:08:52 AM1/17/23
to
defense" and went on a rampage before lunch against Marshall and Holding
in that Delhi test.
I vaguely (since it happened 35+ yrs ago) remember that he scored a
century before lunch.
I actually watched that innings. He scored a century in 94 balls.
You can read this column about his counter attacking Delhi innings after
fans were upset with his performance in the previous test match at
Kanpur where fearsome Marshall knocked the bat out of Gavaskar's hand.
Hook-filled and Bradmanesque
Sunil Gavaskar's 29th Test century came against two of the most
ferocious quicks of all time
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-best-i-ve-watched-sunil-gavaskar-s-29th-test-century-452776
His footwork that day was almost divine. He did not weave and duck at
the crease, but played what I still think is the best exhibition of
hooking I have watched. As if knowing the intent of the bowlers before
they had released the ball, Gavaskar got into perfect position to hook,
and raced to his half-century off just 37 balls. He took 57 more to
record his 29th century, a feat achieved by only man before him - Donald
Bradman.
Gavaskar had reserved his best to match the greatest batsman the history
of the game has known.
Robert Henderson
Jan 17, 2023, 6:49:27 AM1/17/23
to
RH
Mike Holmans
Jan 17, 2023, 6:52:47 AM1/17/23
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 03:50:10 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
deserved. Good balls were defended, bad balls went for 4, and those in
between went for 1, 2 or 3 depending on what DGB thought of them.
Since Peter did bowl at him, one cannot entirely dismiss it, but to
the extent that it may be true, it seems like a case of wild
over-interpretation. However, I entirely believe his assertion that
Bradman would offer the odd comment about how a bowler was doing when
he was at the non-striker's end. (During a Test in Oz in 1946-7, he
had Compton to dinner and showed him what he was doing wrong.)
Cheers,
Mike
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:31:55 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
><hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>>
>>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks
>
>Peter Judge saw it happen in 1948. Though not off his bowling. And the
>Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
>recounts it.
Peter also said that he treated bowlers with the respect they
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:31:55 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
><hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>>
>>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks
>
>Peter Judge saw it happen in 1948. Though not off his bowling. And the
>Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
>recounts it.
deserved. Good balls were defended, bad balls went for 4, and those in
between went for 1, 2 or 3 depending on what DGB thought of them.
Since Peter did bowl at him, one cannot entirely dismiss it, but to
the extent that it may be true, it seems like a case of wild
over-interpretation. However, I entirely believe his assertion that
Bradman would offer the odd comment about how a bowler was doing when
he was at the non-striker's end. (During a Test in Oz in 1946-7, he
had Compton to dinner and showed him what he was doing wrong.)
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
Jan 17, 2023, 9:44:16 AM1/17/23
to
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:38:40 +0000, John Hall
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
Their mass may be greater, but that doesn't mean they feel heavier.
<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
They are much better balanced now and require less effort for the same
reward if the batter has good technique.
Which reminds me: in denying that T20 is a slogfest, I'm not saying
there's no slogging. There has always been slogging in every form of
the game. What I am saying is that there is now a whole new range of
attacking shots which look very unfamiliar but are played with
considerable elegance and panache, which is only achievable through
practice and honing of technique. It is wilful blindness to deny the
great skill and technique required for them.
I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
going in.
Cheers,
Mike
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 17, 2023, 12:51:55 PM1/17/23
to
On 1/17/2023 6:44 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:38:40 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>> today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>> I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
>
> Their mass may be greater, but that doesn't mean they feel heavier.
> They are much better balanced now and require less effort for the same
> reward if the batter has good technique.
>
> Which reminds me: in denying that T20 is a slogfest, I'm not saying
> there's no slogging. There has always been slogging in every form of
> the game. What I am saying is that there is now a whole new range of
> attacking shots which look very unfamiliar but are played with
> considerable elegance and panache, which is only achievable through
> practice and honing of technique. It is wilful blindness to deny the
> great skill and technique required for them.
>
Especially the 360 degree hitting of AB De Villiers and Surya Kumar
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 08:38:40 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect you're right. He'd probably play with a heavier bat if playing
>> today, especially in T20s, which would assist in playing lofted strokes.
>> I believe bats are now generally much heavier than they used to be.
>
> Their mass may be greater, but that doesn't mean they feel heavier.
> They are much better balanced now and require less effort for the same
> reward if the batter has good technique.
>
> Which reminds me: in denying that T20 is a slogfest, I'm not saying
> there's no slogging. There has always been slogging in every form of
> the game. What I am saying is that there is now a whole new range of
> attacking shots which look very unfamiliar but are played with
> considerable elegance and panache, which is only achievable through
> practice and honing of technique. It is wilful blindness to deny the
> great skill and technique required for them.
>
Yadav, not to mention big hitters like Chris Gayle, Bairstow, Maxwell,
Butler and recent newcomers like Harry Brook, Cameron Green in T20s.
T20s brought lot of innovative shots like ramps, scoops, reverse pulls etc.
jack fredricks
Jan 17, 2023, 9:38:50 PM1/17/23
to
Hamish Laws
Jan 17, 2023, 10:43:02 PM1/17/23
to
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:44:16 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
> Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
> ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
> difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
> going in.
My hazy recollection is that when it first came in I think the reverse sweep was normally a lot less powerful than a sweep, it was generally more of a lap than a full blooded sweep, now it's common to see people clouting 4s and 6s with.a reverse sweep or reverse pull.
>
> I can remember that when the reverse sweep came in in the 80s, Mike
> Gatting was thought to be good at it, but his reverse sweep was pretty
> ponderous and fairly awkward. Watching Joe Root these days, there's no
> difference in how natural his sweeps are, whichever direction they're
> going in.
Mike Holmans
Jan 18, 2023, 8:47:02 AM1/18/23
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
>> depending on format.
>>
>> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
>> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
>> accurately-set field.
>>
>I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
>and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
When a bowler delivers a ball 25kph slower than usual, the batter gets
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
>> depending on format.
>>
>> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
>> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
>> accurately-set field.
>>
>I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
>and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
his shot wrong and it goes straight down the throat of the one fielder
in the deep on that side of the field (he had to come in a couple of
metres), as I've just seen Archer do to Rossington, I'm very much
inclined to credit the bowler and captain, not blame the batter.
Cheers,
Mike
Hamish Laws
Jan 18, 2023, 9:21:47 AM1/18/23
to
How's Archer looking?
Mike Holmans
Jan 18, 2023, 10:30:09 AM1/18/23
to
and deny that there's a fair amount of sloppy cricket in T20. If you
want to find reasons to be annoyed and dissatisfied, there are endless
opportunities. I would much rather concentrate on the good bits and
accept the sloppy stuff as the nature of this particular beast; I'd be
as annoyed as helll seeing in a Test, but I'm not watching a Test when
I'm watching T20.
>
>How's Archer looking?
I'd love to be able to find fault so as not to sound stupid. He bowled
two successive leg-side wides today, which might I suppose indicate
the rustiness the always insightful Mark Nicholas attributed it to. Or
it might not.
I don't understand how he does what he does. He just seems to lope up
to the stumps and lazily turn his arm over, yet it comes out at 94mph
if he wants it to. Obviously, since that's the sort of speed which
looks like medium pace when compared with Tyson's 118 mph, it
shouldn't be surprising that it seems so effortless, but (not having
seen Tyson in Australia in 1954-5) I haven't seen anyone else bowl
that fast without looking as though they were putting a whole lot of
effort into it. And with what appears to be an identical action, he
drops one in at 77mph for a simple wicket straight down wide third
man's throat.
He also ran out a non-striker by fielding the ball which the batter
hit, turning rapidly and throwing down the striker's wicket before he
could get there, which isn't that easy for a quickie.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
Jan 18, 2023, 11:26:16 AM1/18/23
to
playing it for years and they're entirely confident in their ability
to execute.
And that's why only bowling at extreme pace doesn't work: if it's
short, tapping it on its way past so it goes over deep third man and
if it's full then ramping it over deep fine leg merely require nerve
and delicacy of touch.
Cheers,
Mike
David North
Jan 21, 2023, 6:41:00 AM1/21/23
to
that Gavaskar was 109* at lunch.
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1970s/1978IW/1978IWsess.pdf
He also has session scores for the Delhi Test that I mentioned above
(which I didn't notice before), where Gavaskar was 62* out of 99/1 at
lunch (which would have put him roughly on course for his 100 in 3 hours
as Wisden says).
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWsess.pdf
--
David North
David North
Jan 21, 2023, 7:29:49 AM1/21/23
to
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IW50.pdf
"Major Statistical Sources: Indian and West Indian newspapers. West
Indies Cricket Annual."
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1980s/1983IW/1983IWcov.pdf
It seems likely that the paper would have mentioned it if he had made
100 before lunch.
For comparison, Bradman's 100 before lunch took 145 balls (so much
slower in those terms), but only 99 minutes.
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA50.pdf
Bradman was helped by the fact that 46 overs were bowled (in 2 hours)
before lunch, despite only 9 of them being bowled by a spinner (Tyldesley).
http://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1930s/1930EA/1930EA3bbb1.pdf
--
David North
David North
Jan 21, 2023, 7:50:24 AM1/21/23
to
According to that, the average height for an Australian man born in 1910
(the nearest it shows to Bradman's DOB) was 172.7cm, which is 5' 8".
--
David North
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 21, 2023, 8:57:37 AM1/21/23
to
But strangely another Indian fan also thought that Gavaskar scored a
century before lunch in one session in the same test in Delhi.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.cricket/c/msbh4_mY3-4/m/HcBOAJESbAgJ
1990, the good old days of lot of cricket fans peacefully enjoying
discussing cricket UNTIL the EVIL CIA NSA MI6 Psychopaths INFESTED
cricket newsgroups in 2003/2004 and DESTROYED our mental peace forever
with their "gangstalking, electronic harassment and remote programming
of cricket fans" and also "Artificially creating problems" between fans
by programming one fan to insult another fan, like they "remotely
programmed" Robert Dixon and Hamish Laws recently to INSULT/OFFEND me.
Mike Holmans
Jan 21, 2023, 10:14:09 AM1/21/23
to
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:40:57 +0000, David North
easily see SMG being 100+* at lunch lodging in memory and getting it
confused with a different fast innings some 30 or 40 years later.
Cheers,
Mike
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17/01/2023 11:02, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
> > <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not
>mistaken
>On 17/01/2023 11:02, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 07:53:48 +0000, David North
> > <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2023 16:39, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >>> Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not
>mistaken
> > I suspect this could be a reference to I v WI at Mumbai 78-79, when
> > Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
> > day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
> > 100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
> > better).
>Charles Davis has session-by-session scores for that Test, which show
>that Gavaskar was 109* at lunch.
Given the way humans manage to mix up their memories a bit, I can
> > Gavaskar was 28* overnight and was then 4th out for 205 out of 334 on
> > day 2. It doesn't seem unlikely that he made 72 in the morning and was
> > 100* at lunch; it seems a bit less likely that he was 128* (or
> > better).
>Charles Davis has session-by-session scores for that Test, which show
>that Gavaskar was 109* at lunch.
easily see SMG being 100+* at lunch lodging in memory and getting it
confused with a different fast innings some 30 or 40 years later.
Cheers,
Mike
David North
Jan 21, 2023, 11:33:40 AM1/21/23
to
thought was that the last to do it was Majid Khan, which was several
years before Gavaskar's innings. Majid was, at the time, the last to do
it on the first day, but Greg Chappell had done it (going from 76* to
176) on the 2nd day at Christchurch in 1981/82, which no-one mentioned
in that conversation.
--
David North
0 new messages