Cricket is Cricket but the person who says that 15-20 year olds made Paris Hilton a celeb is like saying my generation are a bunch of idiots. Come on, who really likes Paris Hilton? No-one ever plays her music, comments about her films or even speaks much good about her. The people who made her a "Celeb" are the people who wrote magazines about her, publicised her and advertised her crappy stuff. What do you do when you see something advertised? Well if it appeals to you, you buy it, especially if it is new.

Well that has set the record straight about Paris Hilton. I find it seriously offensive that somebody would think we are stupid enough to like anything that bit...person creates.

Now back to Cricket. David Lloyd said it best:

"I would like to see more of Twenty-20 cricket, but you can never replace a test match as it is the ultamite test for a player."

So basically, Twenty-20 it about atmosphere rather than the "Test" of a 5 day game of cricket. Sometimes, after watching a summer of test matches, I look forward to the Twenty-20 matches as I want to see some more big hitting and runs scored. Someone mentioned Gilly's 100 from 56 balls against England. I remeber Cameron White and Justin Langer knocking 200 runs between them from 60 or so balls for Somerset last year. Of course, after 3 month period of ODI games in the World Cup, I look forward to seeing the more tactical and challenging game that is Test Cricket.

Also, I feel that somebody who says they are a "Real Cricket Fan" as they believe Test Cricket is better than Twenty-20 is really snobbish.

Out of general interest, what do all the cricketers of you play, I now only play 100 over league games (50 each), and up until last year played 2020s as well. Given that this is all the cricket nearly all of us will ever play, why do people go into revolt saying that it isn't 'real' cricket? Test cricket is the form that the masses never play. That said I do prefer watching tests to ODIs, but to say the only cricket 99% of the cricketers on the planet play is 'destroying cricket', 'disgraceful' or anything else is daft. Cricket is the only game where the elite competition is a totally different format to the ameteur game, yet when the pros play the ameteur version it gets slated. Maybe it would be worth considering the value of the opportunity for people to watch how the form of cricket they play 'should' be played, and also the ability to see a direct comparison between the different levels of the sport.

You think it was the 40-50 yo generation that made her a celeb? I think she's rediculous too but people only use her if she's making people watch.

__________________
It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them!
Nietzsche

Liking Paris Hilton has nothing to do with intelligence or anything to be honest. Further more, can you prove that 40 - 50 year olds don't enjoy Paris Hilton?

Am I the only person here who hasn't got a clue who you're all talking about?

OF
(Aged 45)

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

OF, I think they are talking about the relative merits/demerits of a hotel in Paris. Personally, I prefer the Starwood Group (Sheraton, Le Meridien, Four Points, Westin, etc) to Hilton. But I prefer staying at home to all of them anyway - hate living out of a suitcase at my age...!

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Ah the old 'Test match cricket is the only cricket' chestnut.

Fine.
I'll bet noone on this board has ever played in a test match.
I'll also bet that most of you have played the following forms of cricket,or if you don't play, watched them

French cricket
Beach cricket
back garden cricket (one hand one bounce catch rule for under tens!)
Village cricket
One day cricket
4 day match
office corridor cricket
best of x overs
Quick cricket
etc etc etc

And I'll bet you only use a hard cricket ball rarely. (not in back garden cricket or beach cricket or indoors etc where you use a tennis or windball)

Ok, so 20/20 is a fast and furious version of the game. Perhaps the rules do need to be changed a bit for different versions (odi you can only bowl 10 overs etc). But it's still cricket.

Test cricket is the highest level of cricket, but it's not the only form. It's my favorite form, sure.
I like swimming, and I can do the backstroke,crawl,butterfly and doggy paddle. They all involve water!

It doesn't matter about the format! Playing is all that counts.

__________________
I have a dream.... (Martin Luther King)

I bet a heap of 40-50yo's downloaded those infamous upskirt pics of her that were going around the net a year or so back

On topic again. The problem with 20-20 is that it erodes technical skill. India is a classic example. The overload of the shortened game in that country (for the sake of the mighty dollar) has rendered them incapable of matching the best in test cricket. Because they play test cricket poorly, people lose interest, thus the poor attendances.

This should not have come to pass. The great technicians of past days such as the technically brilliant VVS Laxman's are being pushed aside for the Dhonis and all that technical knowledge and skill is slowly being lost - perhaps forever. India have supplied Australia with two of the three most memorable test series in recent memory (Aus in India 2001, Ind in Aus 2004 - the other of course the Ashes 2005).
Who, Australian and Indian alike, can forget the remarkable scenes when those two great technicians - Laxman and Dravid - put on a remarkable 370 run partnership to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Culcutta back in 2001.


The Culcutta stands were full, India were on the ascendancy in test cricket, the Indian' imaginations had been captured, test cricket was alive. This is what cricket is all about, and the emotions the fans and players felt that day can never be replicated by 20:20 or ODI games. What the hell happened?

I've been to a 20:20 match. It sucked and seemed so............American. So shallow and lacking of substance. The forced cheers from fans who started finding it hard to get excited over someone smacking a six, because they had already seen 10 others in the preceeding 10 overs. The indifference to someone hitting a nice four - because only hitting a six seemed noteworthy to an increacingly jaded crowd. Within an hour, despite all the forced cheers, the crowd seemed bored and only paid passing attention to the game when a six was hit.

There is no way people will develop a love of the game watching the shallow nothnigness of 20:20 cricket. Only those that have found themselves absorbed in the drama of a pressurised, close fought test match, will get that addiction that leads to a life long love affair with the great game

__________________

Firstly, this comment I have heard so many times, and it is just not true...

1. Fielding, ODI's have directly effected the standard of fielding, for the better
2. Run Rates - Test Cricket 30 years ago had a run rate of 2 runs per over, now in Tests you are looking at 3.5 to 4 this has directly impacted the spectacle of Test cricket, and it is down to ODI's
3. Bowling - changes of pace and length to stop the batter scoring runs and take wickets, especially on bland pitches that get produced, are directly the result of ODI Cricket

However, I do agree there is too much of the ODI stuff, and I am glad that Twenty20's have used very sparingly at the highest level


Glad you went, sorry you didn't enjoy it. I have been to many and enjoy the game. I agree that it is not the same as Test cricket, but you try persuading the average guy in the street to watch a day of Test cricket, (unless it is some corporate jolly) they are very unlikely to go, get them to commit to a few hours after work, few drinks and a good laugh, they might go for it?

The fact are that Test cricket grounds are full of middle-aged to old men. There are exceptions, but on the whole that is the demographic. This is not sustainable and we need to attract women, children etc...The twenty20 games I have been to I have seen more women and kids, than any Test I have been to.

Twenty20 is a way into Cricket, my hope is that people can watch the game enjoy it, but as they mature they will start to get into the longer form of the game.

As I stated before for me Twenty20 works best at domestic level, and I would prefer that a World Cup was not on the calendar, but clearly the format is working, otherwise we would not be having a tournament at all.

The first I knew of her was when my homepage was highjacked by a site of ill reputation featuring Paris Hilton, and promising nude pics of lots of celebs.

What I don't know is what her occupation is, singer?exotic dancer? actor?, or should I not have asked.

I am over 45 and can't stand the women - so a younger generation must have given her sucker.

As to cricket - more Tests, the abolition of 20/20 at least as far as England are concerned - and less importance put on one day cricket as a whole.

Test cricket must come first or cricket will turn out to be an American sport in the long run.

__________________
Ern