Was MCG the right venue for T20 match???

[Rachael]

Rewarding bigger hitting isn't in the spirit of the game, either: I'm pretty sure even Barry Richards (who found the ropes more often than most) would agree that the art of batting is surely about rewarding selective, intelligent strokeplay based on judgement of the risk involved in playing a particular shot to a particular delivery and on accurate placement into areas of the field where the ball isn't going to be intercepted by fielders.

To my mind the "six" should be a rarity in any form of cricket... not because I'm averse to lofted strokes (lifting the right ball over the field strikes me as fine).. but because the bowling in international cricket should not present batsmen with more than the rarest opportunities for low-risk opening of the shoulders.

Bowlers only have a chance in cricket if trying to hit through the line to any half-decent delivery is a low-percentage option to be passed up in all but the most extreme situations.

[Aurelius]

One thing that I find encouraging is the number of "touch" players coming through over the last couple of years- Clarke and Hussey, Bell and Cook (plus Vaughan), Bravo (plus Sarwan- already established), Ross Taylor, plus some of the established Sri Lankan batsmen. And I really liked the look of Gambhir and Rohit Sharma today, who can hopefully continue the Indian tradition of classical strokeplay, that was practised so well by their "Big Four." So it doesn't look like the future of batting's going to be in basic slogging. Saying that, I also like players like Symonds and Sehwag, who are elegant in their own way, if not really classical.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If a good bowler sends down a good delivery... and a batsman lofts the ball over the infield with an exquisite shot that would have sailed into the stands at a small ground... is the spectacle really diminished by the ball landing in the outfield and being chased down by a fielder on a bigger ground?

Surely the quality of the "hit" is a matter of how well the ball is struck: whether the result is 1, 4, 6 or out strikes me as neither here nor there.

Agree compleatly, It's always great to watch a brilliant shot regardless of how many runs are made off it.

As far as I'm concerned 20/20 is about the atmosphere and there is no better atmosphere than at the MCG with 85,000 people. It was good for cricket and the only negative aspect of the game was Indias poor showing.

[sanketh84]

if u look at it...few strokes that were played would go to the boundaries in most other grounds anywhere else in the world, whereas u get 2's or 3's in MCG!!! the lofted shot dhoni got out to would probably be six anywhere else as he got caught right on the boundary line, if i was in the crowd i'd boo dhoni as an indian supporter for that slow knock!!!!. i'm just saying if u want T20 to be played like an ODI why have it?? india would have loved a practice ODI match with the local team instead. a T20 game is played for the entertainment of the crowds and definitely not for testing technique or skill....we have that in the longer versions of the game!!!

[Rachael]

Can observers not appreciate great bowling, batting, wicket-keeping and fielding without the ball constantly sailing over the boundary rope? Surely there's something to "entertain" the observer when the bowler cuts a top batsman in half, beats the bat, raps the pads and so on: the dot balls are often the best to watch. There's even more to entertain when the wicket-keeper is trying to effect a stumping off a 85mph ball or takes a spectacular catch.

Even when the batsman makes contact... the spectacle is often best when the ball fails to make the rope: few players have entertained the way Johnty Rhodes did at cover point with his astounding catches, sensational interceptions, stunning run-outs and so on. Moreover, the best shots to watch are generally NOT forcing shots: little can top a batsman dancing down the track to work a bowler square of the wicket against the spin, or a late cut that delicately places the ball between the slips and gully.

The spectacle in Twenty20 is arguably at its best when almost every ball is worked into a gap: that HAS to be more interesting to watch than slogging in which mis-timed forcing shots (mostly lofted) go either nowhere special (perhaps off the toe of the bat, or from bat onto pad) or rather randomly to all corners of the ground (all too often picking out the fielder).

A Twenty20 could provide the spectator with quite exquisite viewing without the ball EVER crosssing the rope!

[Statto]

The "massive" ground didn't seem to stop Australia did it? The scored 33% of their runs off the bat in boundaries, and had they batted 20 overs looked on course for at least 160. India faced 105 balls and scored 71 off the bat, deducting the 3 fours scored they scored 59 off 102, I had a quick look and there were 55 dot balls. Are you seriously suggesting that all of these balls weren't scored off because of the ground? Nonsense. If roles were reversed you would be praising the Indian bowlers for the next 6 months, and probably laughing at the Australian batsmen for the same time. A dot ball isn't a victim of the size of the ground, and neither are 95% of 1s, they are caused by either good bowling (restricting or preventing attacking shots), good fielding / field placing or poor batting. At the most India may have scored what, 10 more runs? Its time to stop finding pathetic excuses and accept the fact that India woefully underperformed, however well Australia bowled. That is the only reason you weren't entertained, but if you just want to see 4s and 6s, maybe bowlers should be replaced with a bowling machine to stop bowlers spoiling the game by doing their job well.

[acker]

Some absolute rubbish being posted in this thread about making the feild smaller to accomodate batsmen who lack power.

The MCG rewards batsman who time their shot well and hit the ball with adequate power

If some of these international grounds get roped in much further, we may as well start playing 20/20 matches on tennis courts.

[Rachael]

I am in complete agreement with you (for perhaps the first time ever) in one respect: I support huge outfields and hard to reach boundaries. That said... I have absolutely no time for "power": what appeals to me about huge outfields is precisely the way gaps open up for batsmen who nudge and nurdle... and the way the "power hitters" struggle once the boundaries become more elusive.

Power players will always thrive on small grounds: big grounds,to my mind, favour players whose touch and placement is matched by an ability to work the ball all around the wicket.

[acker]

I saw Viv Richards score 150 runs at the MCG when it had "no ropes' in a "ODI" about 1980.

Viv had a complete game; power, placement and timing.

[Warne]

Mark Waugh's 173 against the WI came at the SCG perhaps, which is not a small ground & there have been few players as elegant as Mark Waugh.