There'll be bhangra dancing in Banglore tonite!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

So you're telling me that if one plays T20 in a Test batting mode it will make a "shambles" of the T20 game? Isn't this dog-bites-man, robbie.

Put it this way, what would it take for both Cook and Compton to score tons in a double hundred opening partnership to make a solid start in, say, a T20 innings?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

I am well aware of the fact that the two formats are different. I don't like the T20 format, robbie. As cricketing contests go, I don't like it. It's a lesser kind of contest in my view. The fact that I no longer watch it - at all - is evidence of the degree to which I am dismissive of it! Does this "offend" you?

Originally posted by thaughbaer
In general in the IPL I think run-rate is more valuable than your wicket.

I was more or less able to accept this 'run rate v wicket' fact of life for the 50, 55 and 60 overs formats for years in the past. There was a bit of balance between throwing the bat and preserving the wicket, and even - in some cases - having to occupy the crease and see out a few maidens when things went wobbly. I never took to the John Player 40 over format. Too short albeit better than only 20 overs I suppose! England ODI series now come and go and I often only have a dim idea of what happens because of my lack of interest. No wonder I am dismissive of T20/IPL.

Originally posted by FMF
I am well aware of the fact that the two formats are different. I don't like the T20 format, robbie. As cricketing contests go, I don't like it. It's a lesser kind of contest in my view. The fact that I no longer watch it - at all - is evidence of the degree to which I am dismissive of it! Does this "offend" you?

No it does not offend me , its simply a failure to recognise that inherent differences will create specific strategies for any given format, none of which can be said to be inferior nor superior, its not a problem, honestly. Ok its not to your taste, that is fine, but it is to mine. Of course ill turn on the long wave and tune in to TMS for the Ashes, but noting compares to the IPL

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it does not offend me , its simply a failure to recognise that inherent differences will create specific strategies for any given format....

What "failure" are you talking about?

inherent differences will create specific strategies for any given format, none of which can be said to be inferior nor superior, its not a problem, honestly.

Of course one can have an opinion that one is inferior and the other superior when talking about sports or formats we like and dislike. Me thinking T20 is an inferior cricketing contest compared to longer formats does not involve passing any judgment on you or restricting your freedom to watch and enjoy IPL in any way whatsoever.

Originally posted by FMF
What "failure" are you talking about?

[b]inherent differences will create specific strategies for any given format, none of which can be said to be inferior nor superior, its not a problem, honestly.

Of course one can have an opinion that one is inferior and the other superior when talking about sports or formats we like and dislike. Me thinking T20 is ...[text shortened]... any judgment on you or restricting your freedom to watch and enjoy IPL in any way whatsoever.[/b]

Run-rate is the correct strategy to win a game in one situation and wicket preservation is the correct strategy to win in another. That one is better than the other is an illogical argument. You have to apply the correct strategy in the right situation. That one is better to watch than the other is an opinion.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
That one is better to watch than the other is an opinion.

My opinion, based on my analysis of the two formats, has been what I have been expressing all along. According to my views on the world of cricket, Gayle's runs were meaningless, even more so against that embarrassingly weak and inexperienced attack ~ one which possibly isn't good enough - Wright aside [with his 46 ODIs] - to take to the field for any of the England counties' T20 teams. This does not mean that Gayle's innings was not meaningful to you or meaningful to robbie. All we have been doing here is trading opinions.

Originally posted by FMF
My opinion, based on my analysis of the two formats, has been what I have been expressing all along. According to my views on the world of cricket, Gayle's runs were meaningless, even more so against that embarrassingly weak and inexperienced attack ~ one which possibly isn't good enough - Wright aside [with his 46 ODIs] - to take to the field for any of the Eng meaningful to you or meaningful to robbie. All we have been doing here is trading opinions.

In just 4 years of captaincy, Mahendra Singh Dhoni has emerged as one of India's most successful captain this cricket crazy country has seen. The captain cool has led the team to many first under his captaincy. Dhoni led Team India to No. 1 in the ICC Test Rankings for the first time in December 2009 and also closed the gap with Australia in one-dayers after winning the coveted 2011 Cricket World Cup. Dhoni started his captaincy career with the shortest format of the game and immediately led an inexperienced India Twenty20 squad to the inaugural ICC World Twenty20 victory in South Africa in September 2007. Soon after returning victorious in the World Twenty20, he was made the India's one-day international captain for the seven-match ODI series against Australia in September 2007. After serving the team as vice-captain for a while, Dhoni was made full-time Test captain of India during the fourth Test against Australia at Nagpur in November 2008 replacing Anil Kumble, who announced his retirement after the third Test. Dhoni made his mark in the international cricket soon after his ODI debut in December 2004 against Bangladesh. He scored a match-winning 148 against Pakistan in Vishakapatnam off 123 balls in his fifth ODI and announced his arrival in the international arena. Dhoni made his Test debut against Sri Lanka in December 2005. Similar to his one-day career, he slammed his maiden century (148) against Pakistan in 2006. His maiden ton came off 93 balls and is the fastest hundred scored by an Indian wicket-keeper.

MS Dhoni started his captaincy in the shortest format of the game and then took India to No1 Test rankings in 2009. What have you to say in this instance given your assertion that T20 has been detrimental to other forms of the game, clearly in the case of Dhoni and India, this is not true. Neither Dhoni , nor India has suffered.

Originally posted by FMF
My opinion, based on my analysis of the two formats, has been what I have been expressing all along. According to my views on the world of cricket, Gayle's runs were meaningless, even more so against that embarrassingly weak and inexperienced attack ~ one which possibly isn't good enough - Wright aside [with his 46 ODIs] - to take to the field for any of the Eng meaningful to you or meaningful to robbie. All we have been doing here is trading opinions.

What we were discussing was the ability to differentiate strategy from opinion and who has it.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
What we were discussing was the ability to differentiate strategy from opinion and who has it.

I don't have any problem differentiating between the strategy for limited overs cricket, on one hand, and first class cricket where there are two innings a side, on the other.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In just 4 years of captaincy, Mahendra Singh Dhoni has emerged as one of India's most successful captain this cricket crazy country has seen. The captain cool has led the team to many first under his captaincy. Dhoni led Team India to No. 1 in the ICC Test Rankings for the first time in December 2009 and also closed the gap with Australia in one-daye ...[text shortened]... rly in the case of Dhoni and India, this is not true. Neither Dhoni , nor India has suffered.

I have never disputed the fact that many top test players can play T20 well.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't have any problem differentiating between the strategy for limited overs cricket, on one hand, and first class cricket where there are two innings a side, on the other.

Yes I know. Which is why I was confused when you responded in the way you did.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never disputed the fact that many top test players can play T20 well.

What do you think about other factors which it has been argued are detrimental to first class cricket such as central contracts ?

Originally posted by thaughbaer
What do you think about other factors which it has been argued are detrimental to first class cricket such as central contracts ?

It's Friday night and I am on my way out for a drink or three and a long chat about the Bangladesh v Zimbabwe series. I'll be back.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never disputed the fact that many top test players can play T20 well.

No, but robbies assertion is the opposite. That a player raised on T20 can still play test cricket to a high standard. Dhoni would have been 22 when T20 was invented. I think it's probably a little early to tell whether long term standards of test cricket will fall and how you would gauge it. Certainly you might expect to see India sliding down the test rankings if the IPL remains the premier T20 league tournament.