20/20 :Is it Cricket?. >

[Ernest]

I know this has been done before, but the fact is, IMHO it is still just as important, more to the point Michael Holding says it is important, and when greats like him talk, I tend to listed.

I think it is poor cricket,making for poor shot selection at Test level, well Michael Holding agrees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4234237.stm

Does anyone think Test Cricketers should be allowed to play 20/20?, and will this not affect their game?.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Depends. For the likes of tresco, no. He'll play a little quicker but not alot but other test players it will be more of a hinderence than anything useful. Keep it for the county pros/test rejects.

[Pete]

Makes for poor shot selection at test level? Only if the batsman is a complete fool.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Depends. For the likes of tresco, no. He'll play a little quicker but not alot but other test players it will be more of a hinderence than anything useful. Keep it for the county pros/test rejects.

I agree Rich, not really for Test Cricketers, we play Ausie later a 20/20 match. maybe we could put the likes of Hick in.

Originally Posted by Pete 36853

Makes for poor shot selection at test level? Only if the batsman is a complete fool.

What I am getting at Pete,is that a certain shot becomes automatic after a while, so shots picked up at 20/20, could be played with instinct.
How many times do we here, commentators say, the batsmen got themselves out?, and there is more one day cricket than ever.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ernest

How many times do we here, commentators say, the batsmen got themselves out?, and there is more one day cricket than ever.

That's not as a result of Twenty20 though. I've yet to see Tres run down the pitch during the first 15 overs of a test match.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Give it time Pete ! Seriously it does seem to be more and more the casae of the batsman getting themselves out rather than the bowler getting them out.

Isnt it ??????????

[Pete]

Standard of bowling isn't all that good these days.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Part of me agrees, but then you look at the likes of warne and murali and the number of wickets they've not finished yet ! Mind you, try and think back to when ANY sides top 5 were bowled out, and on a reasonable pitch too and I dont think its possible.

[Ernest]

Yeah Tres is an exception, but look at some of the silly shots batsmen get out to, on both sides, traditional Test Cricket has gone, but IMHO 20/20 played regular means we will only need 3 days for a Test Match.

[Zainub]

It doesn't last long enough to have an affect on players' techniques in my humble opinion, and players are getting smarter, they know when to slog and went to not.

I'm a massive fan of all form of limited overs cricket, as much as want to deny it, is it is reality that if cricket is to reach out to more audiences that is they way to go about it.

Micheal Holding is gravely over reacting. I was not alive (not born actually) at the time one-day cricket intially started out, but I would suspect there must have been similar so called traditionalists getting angry about 50 overs perside being "rubbish" and look at how things are now. If anything I think one-day cricket has improved even test cricket, could we have ever imagined sides scoring at 4 an over before, leave that alone, could we have imagined players diving around like mad trying to save a boundary before the advent of one-day cricket...No. One-day cricket has had a definate postive impact on test cricket, ok, I conceede, some bad habbits have creeped in, but the positives have outnumbered the negatives.

I'm glad (over joyed actually) with how things have gone about, and I can't wait for the time 20-20 starts domestically (and internationaly) in Pakistan.