England and Windies to play winner takes all games

[Will_NA]

Why does an employee at Microsoft get paid more than an employee at your local software company? Because his employer makes more money. Twenty20 makes money quickly. The only way to stop the Twenty20 machine is to stop going to the games--so if you don't want them to proliferate, don't go, and tell your friends not to go as well.

Speaking out of two sides of one's mouth will not help Test cricket.

Firstly, you obviously missed my point. If Test cricket is the highest level of the sport (like the Premiership is in terms of English football), it seems ironic that most of money a sportsman earns comes from a format that was only invented 5 years ago and is widely accepted as the least (for need of a better word) skilful form of the game. Therefore, that makes your microsoft argument completely redundant seeing as it's obvious (again to use a football analogy) Premiership players will earn more than Rhyman's Southern Division as it genrates more money.

Secondly, I don't go to see Twenty/20 games and nether do my friends and I would only do anything about the growth of the sport if I feared it would ioveratke Test cricket or even ODIs which it won't.

Thirdly, you'll have to explain your final comment as I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Left_Hander]

I'm growing sick of this Twenty20 format. Cricket Australia did the right thing and limited their Twenty20 matches to once per summer but now they are extending to two. A Twenty20 in between a Test series and the One Day matches gives that nice balance.

My friend once said to me that I preferred Test cricket because I am a defensive batsmen. And that statement has a lot of fact to it and he tries to be very aggressive (and gets out lots) but doesn't mind Twenty20. My point is maybe for some fans they decide what their favourite format is because of their batting style.

EDIT: I have been to two Twenty20 games, one Australia vs England and the other NSW vs QLD which was a tribute match to Glenn McGrath. Thing is that if a friend has two tickets to the cricket and they are for a Twenty20 would you say no because they were Twenty20. Now I don't get to the cricket that much (Try once per year) but I certainly would turn down the offer of going to a game just because I didn't like the format.

 

[Left_Hander]

Sorry for the douple post.

Though wouldn't these games be better for developing cricketing countries. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh (to some extent), Scotland, Ireland, Holland and many others would benefit from money like this to improve facilites and attract crowds to the games that they have in their own countries. The reason no one would want to put money into that would be because it wouldn't attract revenue, but isn't cricket about trying to promote the game and strengthen the smaller nations.

 

[sohum]

Firstly, you obviously missed my point. If Test cricket is the highest level of the sport (like the Premiership is in terms of English football), it seems ironic that most of money a sportsman earns comes from a format that was only invented 5 years ago and is widely accepted as the least (for need of a better word) skilful form of the game. Therefore, that makes your microsoft argument completely redundant seeing as it's obvious (again to use a football analogy) Premiership players will earn more than Rhyman's Southern Division as it genrates more money.

I do not see how your point made the Microsoft argument redundant. Your local software company may have better programmers than Microsoft, but that does not change the fact that Microsoft makes way more money. It is not ironic that people playing the most money-generating version of the game get paid the most--it is logical...

 

[Will_NA]

I do not see how your point made the Microsoft argument redundant. Your local software company may have better programmers than Microsoft, but that does not change the fact that Microsoft makes way more money. It is not ironic that people playing the most money-generating version of the game get paid the most--it is logical...

I didn't make that point. I didn't say that it was ironic that players playing in the form generating the most money make the most money, I stated the irony that the most money to be found in a sport was in a form over 100 years the junior of that of the original.

 

[sohum]

I didn't make that point. I didn't say that it was ironic that players playing in the form generating the most money make the most money, I stated the irony that the most money to be found in a sport was in a form over 100 years the junior of that of the original.

Whatever, man, this argument is becoming uninteresting and nitpicky. You win.