Now and then

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

And who is going to ban them?

I think the answer is obvious - the ECB, and if they won't, then a new body for either Test or PJ cricket should be set up and players given a choice - the same thing as a ban.
Realistically - how can fast bowlers stand the strain of so much cricket?.

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Realistically - how can fast bowlers stand the strain of so much cricket?.

I don't know how big the workload is right now, but I remember reading Alec Bedser saying that the number of overs bowled by Harmison today in the County Championship is a fraction of the number bowled by him in the forties and fifties. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they used to play more games in a season back then? It was quite common for a player to finish his career with 5-or-600 first-class matches under his belt, over about 20 years. In fact, Sidney Francis Barnes played until he was 60.

Also, in an excellent book I read recently- The Encyclopedia of World Cricket- there was a comparison of travel times on tours to England and "rest days" (where there was no game or travel time) and it showed that in fact there were more rest days on Australia's tour of England in 2001 than there were in 1938! Plus the fact that they traveled on ships for weeks rather than planes for under a day had to put more of a strain upon the body.

So in short, if they could put up with that back then, they can blooming well put up with T20 now!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

I don't know how big the workload is right now, but I remember reading Alec Bedser saying that the number of overs bowled by Harmison today in the County Championship is a fraction of the number bowled by him in the forties and fifties.[...]So in short, if they could put up with that back then, they can blooming well put up with T20 now!

Well Alec Bedster did not have to play the PJ games the players do today, neither was he as fast as Harmison - and his run up was far less stressful.

Also 20/20 is far more frenetic than county cricket matcher ever were, so I still believe that players like Harmison, Flintoff, Shoaib et al, should not play 20/20 because of the likelihood of stress injury.

I remember the likes of jeff Arnold and John Snow to mention but just to, and they never had to put up with what their modern days counterparts have to, Max Walker also never had the workload of todays bowlers.

20/20 is fine for those who like it, but keep it separated from Test cricket - that's all I am saying.

Can you imagine Fred Trueman or Denis Lillee playing 20/20? - I think not.

Also could you imagine a fast bowler lover like Dougless Jardine captaining a side in 20/20 internationals with his best fast bowlers?. He would not even turn up.

[sanketh84]

yeah well u know what sourav ganguly, captain of kolkatta knightriders IPL team did when shoaib came through to play for them after all the ruckus of ban and postponement? he brought him on as an opening bowler...asked to go all out..one spell of 4 overs. he got 4 crucial wickets in his spell and then a substitute fielder was brought in. his 4 wickets were enough to seal the match. even retirees like mcgrath, warne were able to bowl and effectively with too much of a problem coz its just 4 overs.i dont think its too much of a task for most international bowlers to bowl 4 overs in a match.
about batsmen, t20 is surely taxing for guys who rn't quick enough between the wickets. there is a strategy for that too... mumbai ipl team with veterans like jayasurya, tendulkar and pollock were surely not the most athletic of teams so they brought in the boundaries at their home ground(wankhede stadium which even normally is a smaller ground) which took 2's out of the equation. well t20 is in its inception stage and we probably will see more strategies in future. i do feel that t20 is probably the best format to see our favorite players play after retirement. it might be a gr8 opportunity to make a buck for a rainy day as well.

its just 40 overs of cricket for guys who r used to rigorous five days of cricket which can be taxing mentally and physically. u decide whether being in the field for 2 days at a stretch(sometimes in adverse conditions) with bowlers having to bowl 10-12 over spells and batsmen needing to concentrate almost every ball to play a long innings can be more stressful than T20?? i dont think so.

i feel this new format of the game is here to stay.i enjoy watching a test match unless it gets too boring and i also enjoy the frenzy of t20 as well. i believe a peaceful co-existence of all 3 formats is possible, whether players want to play all 3 formats or not shud be left to them, they know the demands of each form of the game. most good players below 32-33 should be able to adjust to all 3 formats like a sangakarra, and we might see more of these versatile category players in future.