26 Apr 13
6 edits
Its rather interesting, in today's IPL match, Adam Gilchrist, captain of the Kings XI
Punjab, placed a field setting of 7-2 and loaded the offside with slips and gully etc, in
order to attack the batsmen and get early wickets. Now in such situations its
understood that the bowler bowls wide of off stump. One of the commentators
astutely noted that in test cricket the batsmen are at liberty to simply leave the ball,
scoring no runs in such a field setting.
Now when one puts this into perspective in T20, it takes on a whole new dimension,
because greater accuracy is not only demanded of the bowler, anything too straight
or not wide of off stump and he will be punished severely but for batsmen also who
may be chasing on average a run rate of seven or more an over, the provision of
simply ignoring the ball is not really an option.
Will FMF now recognise this and state that in T20 cricket, such a field placing calls for
greater accuracy on the part of both bowler and batsman?
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMany T20 bowlers generally get tonked for 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or even more an over. All kinds of field settings are used in Test cricket and bowlers use various lines and lengths in combination with them. Good for T20 bowlers if they are able to bowl wide of the off stump consistently. There are periods of play in test cricket where fields are set and bowlers bowl to it. Packing the offside field and then sending down ball after ball wide of the stump with pressure on the batsman to take a swish at them because there are only 120 balls in total is not the kind of cricket I enjoy.
Its rather interesting, in today's IPL match, Adam Gilchrist, captain of the Kings XI
Punjab, placed a field setting of 7-2 and loaded the offside with slips and gully etc, in
order to attack the batsmen and get early wickets. Now in such situations its
understood that the bowler bowls wide of off stump. One of the commentators
astutely note ...[text shortened]... cket, such a field placing calls for
greater accuracy on the part of both bowler and batsman?
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by thaughbaerFair comment. Then again, India and Australia - two countries where T20 is arguably in the ascendancy - have both slipped from the top of the Test rankings to third and fourth respectively in recent years. We shall see, I suppose, whether this is a blip of sorts, or whether the over-emphasis on the ultra short version of the game is taking a toll. It remains to be seen.
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.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by thaughbaerDhoni has a decidedly mediocre average in test cricket. He has scored only 6 hundreds in 77 matches. Furthermore, he has scored only 9 hundreds in 118 other first class games and has an average of only 37 or so. The relatively less feted Matt Prior, for instance, is easily a better player of test and first class cricket. Dhoni will be remembered as an excellent practitioner of the limited overs game, and not for his abilities in tests.
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.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIndia have been sliding down the rankings table under Dhoni. He averaged 31 against England in 2011 when India's performances appeared to be virtually captainless; only 20 in Australia the following 'winter' when the whitewashed India again seemed like a rudderless shambles, and 31 when England beat India in India last year [which, pre-Dhoni, hardly anyone was able to do].
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.
India's rise and fall is probably best explained by the rise and fall of their powerhouse top order with the likes of Sehwag, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Gambir and others. Look at Pujara, who's recently broken into the Test side: averaging 65 after 13 tests, 4 tons already, already 25 years old and he's only played a relatively small number of T20s.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFbut dear FMF you were asked that in consideration of the format of T20 would not such a field placing demand greater accuracy from both batsman and bowler?
Many T20 bowlers generally get tonked for 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or even more an over. All kinds of field settings are used in Test cricket and bowlers use various lines and lengths in combination with them. Good for T20 bowlers if they are able to bowl wide of the off stump consistently. There are periods of play in test cricket where fields are set and bowlers bowl to ...[text shortened]... ke a swish at them because there are only 120 balls in total is not the kind of cricket I enjoy.
27 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThis has to do with ageing rather than any involvement in T20. Ganguly's own captaincy was marred by controversy, even his captaincy of the Mumbai Indians was controversial. Dhoni is by contrast a calming influence, rock solid, who unlike lets say Gambhir who vents his feelings (look at his outburst against Virat Kholi or his own bowlers) and is the perfect choice. Test sides go up and down, look at this Australian side that is to face England in the Ashes, its almost incomparable with the legendary side which had Warne and McGrath in it or the Pakistanis under Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram.
India have been sliding down the rankings table under Dhoni. He averaged 31 against England in 2011 when India's performances appeared to be virtually captainless; only 20 in Australia the following 'winter' when the whitewashed India again seemed like a rudderless shambles, and 31 when England beat India in India last year [which, pre-Dhoni, hardly anyone was a tons already, already 25 years old and he's only played a relatively small number of T20s.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you didn't mention that Dhoni hasn't always been all that good at test cricket and has been at the helm during India's decline when you you were describing how good you thought he was. When all is said and done, he will not be remembered as a great test player. Not at all. If you are really impressed with him a player, that's fine. He's more or less the same age as Matt Prior, who has got better and better as a batsman [averages over 50 in the latter half of his career], and who has also improved as a keeper. Perhaps it's the almost 700 limited overs games he's played that has resulted in Dhoni not being as good a wicket keeper batsman in a comparable number of tests as Prior is, with his 350 or so limited overs games. Such conjecture is the life blood of following this sport.
this has to do with ageing rather than any involvement in T20. Ganguly's own captaincy was marred by controversy, even his captaincy of the Mumbai Indians was controversial. Dhoni is by contrast a calming influence, rock solid, who unlike lets say Gambhir who vents his feelings (look at his outburst against Virat Kholi or his own bowlers) and is th ...[text shortened]... n the Ashes, its almost incomparable with the legendary side which had Warne and McGrath in it.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy are we imagining people playing test cricket in a T20 game? The two formats necessitate different strategies and approaches. And what has come to pass if players are bowling the ball wide of the off stump over and over again? Why celebrate bowling "accurately" wide outside the off stump? I prefer a cricket contest where bowlers spend more time bowling accurately on off stump or an inch or two outside. It makes for a far more enjoyable contest between bat and ball.
than a bowler or batsman playing under test conditions, did i not make that obvious?
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFYou also seem to prefer watching a player at the crease for 103 minutes without scoring a single run, a luxury that simply would not be tolerable under T20 conditions, but each to their own. I have proven than in the T20 format, given the fact that the batsmen cannot leave the ball as he can under test conditions, this takes greater accuracy and courage on his part and greater accuracy for the bowler who has not the luxury, in such a field setting, of bowling one or two inaccurate balls.
Why are we imagining people playing test cricket in a T20 game? The two formats necessitate different strategies and approaches. And what has come to pass if players are bowling the ball wide of the off stump over and over again? Why celebrate bowling "accurately" wide outside the off stump? I prefer a cricket contest where bowlers spend more time bowling accura ...[text shortened]... ump or an inch or two outside. It makes for a far more enjoyable contest between bat and ball.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe day long drama that unfolded on the last day of the final test of the final test - resulting in England clinging on to draw the test and save the series - has got nothing to do with the "T20 conditions", robbie. They are different versions of the game. Different strategies. Different scenarios. Different kinds of contest. You prefer one and I prefer the other.
You also seem to prefer watching a player at the crease for 103 minutes without scoring a single run, a luxury that simply would not be tolerable under T20 conditions, but each to their own.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFdecline?
But you didn't mention that Dhoni hasn't always been all that good at test cricket and has been at the helm during India's decline when you you were describing how good you thought he was. When all is said and done, he will not be remembered as a great test player. Not at all. If you are really impressed with him a player, that's fine. He's more or less the same ...[text shortened]... 350 or so limited overs games. Such conjecture is the life blood of following this sport.
India are only slightly below England who are second in test standings and number one in the ICC ODI standings (England are second) and third in the T20 standings (England are fifth)
http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/current/page/211271.html
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFThis is not strictly true FMF, i can appreciate both, you on the other hand are completely dismissive of T20, which is fine.
The day long drama that unfolded on the last day of the final test of the final test - resulting in England clinging on to draw the test and save the series - has got nothing to do with the "T20 conditions", robbie. They are different versions of the game. Different strategies. Different scenarios. Different kinds of contest. You prefer one and I prefer the other.