Rik E Boy wrote:bayman wrote:reb, if you don't like it DON'T WATCH IT, the crowds around the WORLD suggest it is popular, we had from memory about 13,000 to the last t20 match in adelaide if it was a 50 over match there would be less than half that & at shield matches you get the mums, dads, wives, girlfriends (or both) & mal at the games, so with the old adage of 'bums on seats' this WILL CONTINUE during the school holidays when the kids (future of the sport) take mum & dad to the cricket, so whinge all you want it wont change a thing & the revenue raised in this form of cricket is covering the losses that shield & to a lessor extent o.d.d games create
regards bayman
ps, as i said if you don't like it DO NOT WATCH IT & btw i take it as a form of entertainment, whether blokes make 0 or 50 makes no difference to me in regards to their ability because it is just that type of game, for the new people going a few might go to the other forms of the game & it is made to be played like footy, rugby etc...a winner after 3 hours
I know all this mate. I don't like it and I don't watch it. I understand about the cashola side of things but I sincerely believe that the game will turn out for the worse long term. Cricket is the battle between bat and ball. Test cricket provides that battle but already players like Shane Bond of New Zealand are turning their backs on test cricket to chase the Rupee in the subcontinent. I reckon Warney in particular would still be playing Test cricket today if the Teeball cash wasn't on offer. He had a shoulder injury and also a year suspension during his career so I don't really buy 'I knew it was time' line with that player.
I might sound like a stick on the mud about this but I am not against innovation in the game. I am not opposed to one day cricket or even day night test matches if they can get the pill right. But any resemblence between Teeball and Cricket is strictly co-incidental and I reckon in 20 years time we'll be lucky to have six nations playing test cricket and for mine that is bad for the game.
regards,
REB
It's frustation REB. I know, I feel exactly the same way. I grew up watching cricket in the 60s and 70s where a country would come to Australia for a 5 month tour. Test players had at least 2-3 matches in Sheffield Shield to hone skills for the Test series, usually of 5.
It was great. We saw so much of our best players in 4 or 5 day matches where they were able to play disciplined cricket. We saw great players performing monumental, memorable tasks.
These days, the Aussie team is usually overseas somewhere and doesn't arrive home well into the Aussie season. We play a couple of tests against a minnow nation, and then a 3 Test series that is over in about 4 weeks so we can get on with a host of crappy 50 and 20 overs matches before shuffling the team off somewhere overseas again. My 1st class cricket summer is all over just 1 week into January, having commenced 6 weeks earlier.
Those of us who don't like truncated cricket can't watch it because all we see is quality batsmen getting out to undisiplined shots, bowlers totally restricted in where and when they can bowl, etc. For those of us who enjoy the art of watching a master batsman building a classic innings, or watching a great bowler weaving their magic around a batsman, limited over cricket just doesn't do it for us.
No point in directing the finger at poor crowds in Sheffield Shield. All that has become is a feeder competition, so most cricket supporters who aren't the least bit interested in where these players come from totally ignore it. Far too much time is devoted to meaningless limited over games that are forgotten a couple of weeks later.
And people say "if you don't like it, don't watch", that's precisely what I do. When peole ask me what I think of 20/20 I tell them, "It's okay I guess, but I prefer cricket".
