There'll be bhangra dancing in Banglore tonite!

Originally posted by FMF
Kevin Pietersen has got out at absolutely crucial moments on several occasions in Tests as a result of attempting unorthodox shots and, yes, I think plenty of England fans have bowed their heads but not for the reason you'd think. Note that there was no love lost between KP and probably most England fans when he had his falling out with the ECB and changing room ...[text shortened]... gland fans in the same way other players with less talent and more team spirit might be. 🙂

then perhaps this is a lack of judgement on his part rather than any actual problem with the strokes that he plays, so England fans dont like him, hes welcome in the IPL , any time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As i have stated, i was not offended by any degree of disagreement, i was offended by your dismissive tone that T20 is a lesser form and that it may have detracted from other forms of the game, clearly it has added to cricket by introducing diversity and unorthodox shots that would have otherwise been frowned upon by the ultra conservatives among us.?

Well, I do believe that T20 is a lesser form of the game and that it may be detracting from other forms of the game, and I do not care for unorthodox shots that have crept into the first class game. How on earth can you be "offended" by these words?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How many times do we hear in T20 that a player has been working on some unorthodox stroke? whether reversed sweep or scoop or a bowler working on a carrom ball or a knuckle ball, to add to his leg break or dusra or googly? or whatever? You dont think this is a good thing?

If a T20 player scores runs in what I see as a meaningless contest using an unorthodox stroke, it is of no interest to me. Does this "offend" you?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, I do believe that T20 is a lesser form of the game and that it may be detracting from other forms of the game, and I do not care for unorthodox shots that have crept into the first class game. How on earth can you be "offended" by these words?

One again i was not offended by your difference of opinion, i was offended by your dismissive tone.

Originally posted by FMF
If a T20 player scores runs in what I see as a meaningless contest using an unorthodox stroke, it is of no interest to me. Does this "offend" you?

No its merely irrational.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One again i was not offended by your difference of opinion, i was offended by your dismissive tone.

But I am dismissive of the merits of T20/IPL so that probably explains what you describe as my "tone". How does this impinge on you in any way that could cause you to claim to be "offended"?

Originally posted by FMF
But I am [b]dismissive of the merits of T20/IPL so that probably explains what you describe as my "tone". How does this impinge on you in any way that could cause you to claim to be "offended"?[/b]

You like it when you approach someone and they are completely dismissive of your claims without a shred of substantiating evidence?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its merely irrational.

Being a fan of the T20 format, and not so much a fan of test cricket, you may not be aware of how much more valuable a batsman's wicket is in the context of a first class game, and how the relatively small number of deliveries available to hit in T20 turns scoring at a certain rate in a risky way into a norm. It is clearly not "irrational" to prefer one style of the game over the other.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You like it when you approach someone and they are completely dismissive of your claims without a shred of substantiating evidence?

I have explained in detail why I am personally dismissive of the T20 format. I have cited several technical aspects of the way the game is approached and technical matters. I am not "offended" by the tone you have taken with me just as I am not "offended" by your preference for T20 over first class cricket, nor by the way you have expressed your preference.

Originally posted by FMF
Being a fan of the T20 format, and not so much a fan of test cricket, you may not be aware of how much more valuable a batsman's wicket is in the context of a first class game, and how the relatively small number of deliveries available to hit in T20 turns scoring at a certain rate in a risky way into a norm. It is clearly not "irrational" to prefer one style of the game over the other.

you dont think a batsmans wicket is important in T20? and is less valuable than in test cricket? really so you are chasing a good total and you have a single recognised batsman left at the crease, you dont think that that batsmans wicket is as important as say some middle order batsman in a five day test? Not only is it more valuable to the chances of effecting a victory but it increases in value as the game progresses.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you dont think a batsmans wicket is important in T20? and is less valuable than in test cricket? really so you are chasing a good total and you have a single recognised batsman left at the crease, you dont think that that batsmans wicket is as important as say some middle order batsman in a five day test?

There are 120 deliveries available to a side in a T20 game. There are 540 deliveries per day in Test cricket and the batsmen of both sides have to negotiate approximately 2,700 deliveries in a complete match.

A sequence of batsmen getting out after only 8, 10 or 12, or 20 of these deliveries doesn't work in a Test match regardless of the way it goes and what may be required in T20. Test match cricket would be a shambles if batsmen came in and batted in T20 mode. The team with patient batsmen who valued their wickets more highly would win because of the time factor. It's the time factor that makes test cricket the better format of the game.

If a batsman comes in and scores 20 off two overs, this may be a what is needed as a matter of course in a T20 match, but 95% of the time in a first class game it would be an irrelevancy.

And as for the 5% of the occasions when 20 off two overs is required in a close finish or before a declaration, first class cricketers have been having a go successfully and unsuccessfully for more than 150 years, long before T20 came a long and turned high-risk shots and low-value-wickets into the entire underpinning of the format of the game.

Originally posted by FMF
There are 120 deliveries available to a side in a T20 game. There are 540 deliveries per day in Test cricket and the batsmen of both sides have to negotiate approximately 2,700 deliveries in a complete match.

A sequence of batsmen getting out after only 8, 10 or 12, or 20 of these deliveries doesn't work in a Test match regardless of the way it goes and what urned high-risk shots and low-value-wickets into the underpinning of that format of the game.

This doesn't prove that their wickets are more valuable, only that they need to be more careful. If as Dwayne Bravo did yesterday, he played as if he was playing test cricket scoring a measly total off a limited amount of a balls, then clearly the opposite is true in T20, one may waste a fifth of the available balls for hardly any runs and playing as if one was playing test cricket would make a shambles of the game.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This doesn't prove that their wickets are more valuable, only that they need to be more careful.

By being more careful they are placing higher value on their wicket. It is necessary in order to prosper in the first class format. It's OK by me if your analysis is different. I am not going to be "offended" by what you think or say.

Originally posted by FMF
By being more careful they are placing higher value on their wicket. It is necessary in order to prosper in the first class format. It's OK by me if your analysis is different. I am not going to be "offended" by what you think or say.

clearly the two formats require a different approach, one cannot play T20 like test cricket and one should not play test cricket like T20, but this does not diminish in any way the strategies which are inherent to each format.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you dont think a batsmans wicket is important in T20? and is less valuable than in test cricket? really so you are chasing a good total and you have a single recognised batsman left at the crease, you dont think that that batsmans wicket is as important as say some middle order batsman in a five day test? Not only is it more valuable to the chances of effecting a victory but it increases in value as the game progresses.

In general in the IPL I think run-rate is more valuable than your wicket. Bravo blocking out a maiden almost cost CSK the game yesterday. The shorter the limit on the overs the truer this becomes. In a super over your wicket is worth virtually nothing ( in terms of protecting your wicket over scoring runs ). That's where the value argument comes from but it's really just shot selection.

Edit: I should write my responses a bit quicker.. I can't keep up with you two.