General Cricket Discussion

[hardeepsingh]

Hey guys, check out my blog.
Posted my first post today about cricket. Please post your comments and thoughts on it.
cricketwithme.wordpress.com

Thanks

 

[PokerAce]

Disagree. The Hong Kong Sixes was not just in the 90s. It went on until last year, and finally was cancelled for this year. Since you claim that it was an early 90s phenomenon, I will assume that you did not follow the series in the past 3-4 years even though it had India playing in it. So, it is actually a clear example of an inconsequential tournament unlike the World T20 (and very much like the CLT20).

I know Hong Kong Sixes went on till 2012, however the point was it existed on TVs only in the 90s in India, and was naturally well followed. Subsequently it stopped being broadcast and naturally the viewership went down, especially in non internet days, where one could't follow it. It never got relaunched on TV, and its not reported on any of the major cricket websites, and thus was not accessible.

However till it was accessible it was a big deal.

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this - but T20 is the evolution of cricket and it is critical for cricket to stay alive.

T20 is not an evolution, its a perversion of cricket. Playing a good defensive shot is as much to be admired as a good cover Drive. In T20s though defensive shots are looked down upon, batsmen put no price on their wicket. Technically sound players are ridiculed, (just ask Misbah). Its okay to hit a senseless shot and get out, its hard to see it as evolution. Its very one dimensional, just hit sixes and fours and nothing else matters. Dumbing down cricket is hardly taking it to the next level. Anyway I know T20 has its fans, but I fail to see it from their point of view. Suffice it to say that if there was T10 world cup or T5 world cup, that would also have a lot of fans tuning in and caring about the result, but because fans will care is no reason to have a T10 or T5 ICC World Event, is it? Same holds true for World T20 and all Int'l T20s.

Here is why T20 will/must stay international and T20 World Cup will not be scrapped:

Views pointwise on this in Red

1. Money - the revenue generated from the last T20 World Cup was phenomenal. Even the revenue generated from one-off International T20s is huge.

I agree that T20's primary purpose is to generate money and players get a good living from it, so I am all for Domestic T20 Leagues. We want players to earn well. However, despite howsoever "huge" a one off T20 Int'l generates, it doesn't match surely to one full season of domestic T20 league anywhere. One match vs A whole league season and its obvious the latter generates more. So boards are welcome to exploit Domestic Leagues for their revenue, but to start hosting Int'l T20s just for the money is ludicrous. Int'l cricket, the highest level, is about quality cricket and not shameless ripping off fans for money in the name of cheap entertainment. So exploit domestic T20 by all means for money, but please don't bring the money grabbing attitude to the highest level.

2. Viewership - again phenomenal viewership for the 2014 Cup. It was reportedly 23% higher than 2012 and 57% higher than 2010 editions, clearly showing that the demand is there and more and more people are willing to watch it.

3. Casual fans - cricket cannot survive on the "purists" and T20 pulls in the casual fans like no other format. And I am sure, at least some percentage of those fans trickle over to the other formats as well, which is invaluable for the sport.

(Combined 2. and 3.) I assure you that if an even shorter format say T10 world cup came into existance, even more viewers will tune in. Less time to spend, and more sixes to be had. No reason to host a T10 world cup though is it. T20 does bring in new fans, and if a few then move over to One Days and Tests great. However its not like Int'l T20 is the thing that brings new fans. Domestic T20 leagues are doing that job already, and doing it very well. So let Domestic T20s continue to bring in new fans, and we don't need to play dumbed down cricket at the highest level for this purpose.

4. Associates - like I said, it is a great platform for Associates to compete with the big boys on an even keel. And it helps them financially as well. It will be beyond stupid to rob them of this experience.

The shorter the format, the more weaker teams have a chance, in any sport. In football, say India vs Germany were to happen, and instead of 90 mins the match lasted only 20 mins. Now its obvious that India was more likely to hold out for 20 mins, than it would over 90 mins. In 90s mins Germany could outplay India on so many levels that its not funny, but in 20 mins, India could hold out without conceding. India may be too extreme and example, but say Germany were to play Japan, or Australia, those sides would very likely not concede in 20 mins, and get away with a lot of nil-nil draws.

The point is would you then say Japan competed with Germany on an even keel. I mean its not even proper football. Over 90 mins Germany will win most hands down. Same applies to T20, and its just gives an illusion that the smaller sides are competing better, because the bigger side can only inflict so much damage in 20 overs. Its not really helping the bigger sides grow, and just giving a false impression about their development.

5. IPL will fall flat if T20 is scrapped as an international format - don't forget, IPL was born to cash in on India's success in WorldT20 2007. T20 existed before IPL for a long time but did not take off until it went international. Take out Intl T20 and the viewership for domestic T20 will definitely take a big hit (if it isn't already).

I doubt IPL will take a hit with Intl T20 being done away with. T20 evolved and flourished in England and infact became a rage even before there was any Int'l T20s. In India rest assured the craze for T20 is even bigger. Even if IPL does take a bit of a hit, how does it matter. How is cricket losing out on anything. IPL will not be totally wiped out, its here to stay regardless of Int'l T20. The people love T20, period. Its not like the only love Int'l T20s. As I said T20s flourished long before there even was Int'l T20. Even without Int'l T20, the people will love the domestic league. For starters apart from the obvious cheap thrill T20 has to offer, the domestic leagues offer fans the chance to see their fav players play along with the finest stars from the other cricketing nations as well. This experience is so unique that this alone will keep the Domestic T20 leagues alive.

So Domestic T20 which is welcome as it offers financial support to the players, doesn't need Int'l T20 to piggyback on. If anything its the Int'l T20s that are desperately trying to piggyback on the success of domestic T20 leagues and generate revenue.

 

[abhi_jacko]

Lots of misinformation and presumptions in your posts, just for the sake of argument

I know Hong Kong Sixes went on till 2012, however the point was it existed on TVs only in the 90s in India, and was naturally well followed

- Nope. 2008 onwards, its TV telecast was spread over Asia and Africa, with official TV/online telecast over North America, Europe.

T20 is not an evolution, its a perversion of cricket. Playing a good defensive shot is as much to be admired as a good cover Drive. In T20s though defensive shots are looked down upon, batsmen put no price on their wicket. Technically sound players are ridiculed, (just ask Misbah).

- Subjective and inaccurate. Technically sound shots are still appreciated. Technically sound players are still appreciated (Sachin, Kallis, ABD, Mahela, etc). There is just an equal room for unorthodox shots and destructive batting. Nothing wrong in that.

However, despite howsoever "huge" a one off T20 Int'l generates, it doesn't match surely to one full season of domestic T20 league anywhere.

- Even you know how ridiculous this argument is - you are comparing a league to a one of T20 game. Compare it to the T20 World Cup atleast.

Suffice it to say that if there was T10 world cup or T5 world cup, that would also have a lot of fans tuning in

- Not it is absolutely not suffice to say that. Totally presumptuous.

[Associates]
- I wont even go into the Associates argument - because you are once again assuming hypothetical situations instead of actually focussing on Facts. Fact = Associates benefit immensely from the T20 World Cup - financially and experience wise.

As I said T20s flourished long before there even was Int'l T20.

Where, how, when ?

 

[PokerAce]

Lots of misinformation and presumptions in your posts, just for the sake of argument

- Nope. 2008 onwards, its TV telecast was spread over Asia and Africa, with official TV/online telecast over North America, Europe.

Yes but not India, which is what I said my post. Who is being selective now, just for the sake of argument? I said it very clearly that it existed only in the 90s on TV in India. However since you must disagree on everything, you totally disregard what I wrote and make your own facts.

Just for fun - THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST. Now lets see you disagree with that

- Subjective and inaccurate. Technically sound shots are still appreciated. Technically sound players are still appreciated (Sachin, Kallis, ABD, Mahela, etc). There is just an equal room for unorthodox shots and destructive batting. Nothing wrong in that.

SRT Kallis and Mahela are not exactly T20 legends. They are legends from the longer formats already who are going to be appreciated wherever they play. They are not going to be judged in T20. Hence no criticism. Players who are not legends on their scale but still very good nevertheless and technically correct players like Misbah are abused, and given nicknames like Tuk Tuk.

Also the point is not about being technically correct, the point is that defense has not place in T20. Defense and offense are two equal parts of the armoury of any complete batsman. In T20 batting is made one dimensional and its all about playing attacking shots only (technically correct or unorthodox). A batsman must always be looking to score, and there is no longer a place for defense in T20s. As long as the runs are coming, its great.

- Even you know how ridiculous this argument is - you are comparing a league to a one of T20 game. Compare it to the T20 World Cup atleast.

Ha, you drop points you made at the drop of a hat the second it gets inconvenient. In case you forgot let me copy paste your words for you to read again -

Even the revenue generated from one-off International T20s is huge.

The point you made was One Off T20s generate "huge" revenue. Hence I said no matter how much revenue one off T20s may generate, Domestic T20 leagues generate even more revenue, to the point where its not even comparable So just stop meaningless T20s in the name of revenue, and generate whatever revenue in T20 domestic leagues. Highest level, Int'l level is not playing dumbed down cricket to rip off revenue from the fans. Generate all the revenue you want from Domestic T20 leagues and keep the highest level free from this money grabbing exercise.

- Not it is absolutely not suffice to say that. Totally presumptuous.

Ha, so you say T10 will not work. I am atleast basing this on the fact that as the game as gotten more and more compressed more and more fans have come in, and that trend may continue with T10s. Exactly what are you basing your dismissal of T10 on? Presumptous much?

[Associates]
- I wont even go into the Associates argument - because you are once again assuming hypothetical situations instead of actually focussing on Facts. Fact = Associates benefit immensely from the T20 World Cup - financially and experience wise.

Of course you can't address the hypothetical situation of a 20 min football match, because it flies into the face of your T20 helps Associates argument. FACT = The shorter the format, the lesser the damage that can be inflicted on the weaker opponent thus making it easy for them, and give the illusion that the weaker side is actually competing, and getting better. Someone in the ring against Mike Tyson for 9 rounds will naturally come off worse than someone against Mike Tyson in 2 rounds. So that he came off better after 2 rounds will give the illusion that the weaker boxer did quite well in the 2 rounds. Its still just an illusion and the boxes is not actually improving. Same is true for the T20 competitiveness of minnows. The weaker side is not competiting, just that the stronger side can only do so much damage in 20 overs, and thus the minnow escapes without getting a total mauling and ppl think, hmm the minnows are getting better.

Where, how, when ?

In 2003 England introduced T20 and it became a rage there and was a big deal soon. This was when there wasn't even an Int'l T20. The first T20 at Lord's for instance, drew a crowd of 27500, the highest attendance at the ground for a First Class game since 1953. No Int'l T20s had been played at that point and T20 was already breaking viewership records. Its popularity, even though there had been no Int'l T20s yet was already spreading to the rest of the cricketing nations. The first T20 in Australia (again before there was any Int'l T20) at the WACA had a sell out crowd of 20000. The first time the ground had been sold out in 25 years. So even before T20 Int'ls started, Domestic T20s alone had been drawing crowds bigger than ever before and selling out grounds without T20 Int'ls even having been played.

Once again, Domestic T20s did just fine and great for themselves and don't need Int'l T20 to piggyback on. Its the Int'l T20s trying to piggyback on the success of domistic T20 leagues. R

 

[abhi_jacko]

- Dude, HK Sixes has been telecast in India through the 2000s. I watched it on Star Cricket (or Star Sports) in 2012 in India.

- Guys like Mahela, Hussey have actually been praised a LOT for their grasp at the shorter format using their classical batting techniques.

- You totally did not get my point about one-off T20 Intls

- I never said T10 will or wont work. Just wanted to point out yet another hypothetical scenario with no basis

- 20 minute football match (check the last point)

- I give you the last point fair and square. I did not realize Twenty20 cup pulled such a big crowd in England. I am quite surprised to be honest that English fans embraced the idea so much back then. I wonder what numbers does Natwest T20 Cup put up these days.

 

[PokerAce]

- Dude, HK Sixes has been telecast in India through the 2000s. I watched it on Star Cricket (or Star Sports) in 2012 in India.

I must have missed HK sixes, if you say it was around in 2012 in India. But the point still is, those who knew of it tuned in. So the fans will watch anything that the team plays. So that there is fan interest is no reason to push a format.

- Guys like Mahela, Hussey have actually been praised a LOT for their grasp at the shorter format using their classical batting techniques.

Okay once again, the point is not about Technical batsmen vs Unorthodox batsmen, which you keep harping about. The point is about attacking shots vs defensive shot. In cricket, you can hit technically correct attacking shot as well as technically correct forward defence. I am not saying technically correct batsmen are looked down upon. One can be technically correct and aggressive at the same time. The focus is not on technique but on defense.

A good defense is a vital part of any batsmen, and in T20 there is no room for defense. Batsmen are okay as long as they are attacking ,whether with the right technique like Jayawardene, or with Unorthdox shots like Dilshan. But right technique or unorthodox technique, the batsman must always be attacking. The art of defense, which is so important has not place in T20, and hence batting in T20s is very one dimensional. Just always try to hit a boundary. As long as a batsman is doing that, whether with right technique or not, he is fine. There is no place for a defensive shot in T20 cricket. So you see its not about technique, but defense, and defense has no place in T20.

- You totally did not get my point about one-off T20 Intls

Look we both agree that the main job of T20 is money. What I am saying is generate all the money you want at the level of Domestic T20s, but keep the highest level, Int'l level free from this money grabbing exercise. You play an Int'l cricket match for quality, not because fans will come in and you will get rich. It can be the secondary objective okay, but we both know in T20 its all about the money, and the quality of cricket is very one dimensional. So its unfit for Int'l level.

- I never said T10 will or wont work. Just wanted to point out yet another hypothetical scenario with no basis

But there is a basis, as the game as gotten more and more compressed more and more fans have come in. Tests to One Days, One Days to T20s. Thus T20s to T10s are likely to be even more popular. But just because they may work is no reason to start playing them at the Int'l level is there.

- 20 minute football match (check the last point)

What last point.

- I give you the last point fair and square. I did not realize Twenty20 cup pulled such a big crowd in England. I am quite surprised to be honest that English fans embraced the idea so much back then. I wonder what numbers does Natwest T20 Cup put up these days.

 

[abhi_jacko]

In order of your points:
- Convenient
- Defensive shots are actually quite valuable if you remember all those low scoring T20s.
several KKR matches at the Eden Gardens.
- I fundamentally disagree with your "unfit for Intl. level"
- Hypothetical situations make for good discussions. Not very useful as arguments

 

[PokerAce]

In order of your points:

- Convenient
No. Fact.
- Defensive shots are actually quite valuable if you remember all those low scoring T20s.
several KKR matches at the Eden Gardens.
No. Defensive shots have no place. The target is to hit as many to the boundary as possible. Defensive shots get in the way of that. Maxwell and Gayle are not T20 legends because of their great defense, in low scoring matches.Actually in the entire history of T20 no one became famous for their defense in low scoring matches. For whacking the ball out of the park - many.
- I fundamentally disagree with your "unfit for Intl. level"
Let's see how many levels on which cricket is designed to test a player does T20 test a player on. Defense - No. Patience - No, Endurance - No, Technique - No (So many players with little or no technique thrive in T20s. They would get murdered in Tests and even One Days). Not to mention with the boudaries in T20 brought in, Batting is a piece of cake. Thus is T20 Fit for Int'l Level - NO.
- Hypothetical situations make for good discussions. Not very useful as arguments[/QUOTE]
Hypothetical situations that tie in to an actual situation are brilliant arguments. Ppl on loose ground can't counter them, and when they are clearly so flummoxed by the hypothetical argument that they have nothing concrete either factually or hypothetically, they resort to making sweeping statements like Hypothetical situations are not arguments,

 

[abhi_jacko]

LOL. Here are some samples of your "facts" -

- I was unaware of HK6's being broadcast on TV. So clearly, the rest of the world must be unaware too.
- I don't "think" T20 is fit for International level, so it must be true.
- T20 pulled in viewers, so obviously T10 will also pull in viewers.
- What actual situation does a 20minute football match tie into ? It has never happened (officially). So we will never know what different factors would come into play, how the strategies would change, etc.

I am definitely flummoxed by all these facts/theories

About T20 not testing a player - Mental endurance, Fitness, Instant reactions to a situation. Strategy and execution still hold prime importance. Bowlers are especially put to test here as they try to outwit the batsmen. Second chances are rare. Partnerships/pacing the innings are still tricky.

It is not the perfect format, far from it. But it still requires a certain skillset and is not just a matter of showing up in the middle.

 

[Aalay]

 

[PokerAce]

LOL. Here are some samples of your "facts" -

LOL Here is a great example of your "Facts" based on dumb assumptions -
- You are totally ignorant of the fact of how succesful domestic T20 was without there even being an Int'l and so that must mean Domestic T20s cannot work without Int'l T20s. So just because you don't know something automatically makes your dumb assumptions true.
- Batsmen in T20 are renowned for their defense, especially in low scoring games.
- Being technically correct means being defensive.
- Just because you know about Hong Kong Sixes being broadcast, the everyone else must also know it.


As for the rest of your ranting.

- I was unaware of HK6's being broadcast on TV. So clearly, the rest of the world must be unaware too.
You were aware of Hong Kong Sixes and watched it - FACT - Fans will watch whatever format their team plays.
Also because you watched, and presumably so did the other fans who were aware of it, it shows there is interest from the fans, and thus by your logic of Fan interest and T20, just because there is fan interest in it, even Hong Kong Sixes must be promoted heavily.

- I don't "think" T20 is fit for International level, so it must be true.
You "Think" T20 is fit for Int'l Level - So it must be True

- T20 pulled in viewers, so obviously T10 will also pull in viewers.
FACT - As game has got more and more compressed more and more viewers have been pulled in. Tests to ODI, increased viewership, ODIs to T20s all led to increased viewership. So T10 will likely continue that trend.

What do you have to counter this with, lets see your total and utter ignorance of this trend. Either that or some alien visiting you and whispering in your Ears, don't bother about the trend, with T10s that trend will definitely break.

- What actual situation does a 20minute football match tie into ? It has never happened (officially). So we will never know what different factors would come into play, how the strategies would change, etc.

A 20 min football match ties into a 20 overs a day, with has been reduced from the 90 overs a day that a team has to (ideally) bat a day in tests. If a football match that lasts 90 mins was also reduced to 20 mins, don't tell me that the weaker teams would not be getting away with a lot of nil nil draws. Shortening a game makes it easy for the weaker opponent, giving the illusion that the weaker side is competing.

Also since hypothetical arguments outside cricket are clearly above your level, perhaps a cricketing one will do. If Afghanistan and say SL played a test, then tests SL batting first would probably score 600 or 700 runs, but in the 20 overs they can only score much less, because its only 20 overs, a shortened game. Thus in tests SL can absolutely maul Afghanistan by an innings and a gazillion runs, with Afghanistan scoring 150 odd each innings. In T20s that cannot happen and Afghanistan's 150 or even 120, will give the illusion that they competed. When its not the case, just that the stronger side cannot fully pound the weaker side in 20 overs.

I am definitely flummoxed by all these facts/theories

I know. Not sure you do though

About T20 not testing a player - Mental endurance, Fitness, Instant reactions to a situation. Strategy and execution still hold prime importance. Bowlers are especially put to test here as they try to outwit the batsmen. Second chances are rare. Partnerships/pacing the innings are still tricky. It is not the perfect format, far from it. But it still requires a certain skillset and is not just a matter of showing up in the middle.

Hahaha, Its good of you to post this and make me laugh about how T20 tests a player's ability to do blah blah blah. T20s has just one skillset - just swing the bat, even when that shot makes no sense at all. Even if this senseless shot takes a top edge and goes over the shortened boundaries for a six, you are a genius, and if you hold out at third man, try the same senseless shot again next match. What a skillset that is.

You are clearly too much in love with your fav crickets hitting sixes over school boy boundaries and calling themselves heroes to see sense here.Then in real cricket when the same lot cannot bat out 30 overs an innings, you think oh what is happening, these guys are so good at hitting sixes. What is going wrong, it must all be the captains fault. Sack the captain, its clearly his fault that guys who can clear school boy boundaries in T20s fall flat and embarrass themselves in tests.

T20 is cool for it gives the players a chance to earn a good living. Apart from that its not even cricket.

 

[adriatomy]

I am big fan of Brain Lara. The Lara's match-winning achievement of 153 not out adjoin Australia in Bridgetown, Barbados in 1999 has been rated by Wisden as the additional best batting achievement in the history of Test cricket, abutting alone to the 270 runs denticulate by Sir Donald Bradman in The Ashes Test bout of 1937. Muttiah Muralitharan, rated as the greatest Test bout bowler anytime by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack,and the accomplished wicket-taker in both Test cricket and in One Day Internationals (ODIs), has hailed Lara as his toughest adversary amid all batsmen in the world.Lara was awarded the Wisden Leading Cricketer in the Apple awards in 1994 and 1995 and is additionally one of alone three cricketers to accept the celebrated BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year, the added two actuality Sir Garfield Sobers and Shane Warne

 

[abhi_jacko]

@PokerAce - You continue to stamp your opinions as facts, and it is impossible to have a sane discussion on whimsical grounds. Besides you make way too many presumptions about what I am saying instead of reading what I actually said. Take a look at what you call "my dumb assumptions" - I never said any of those things if you had actually registered what I was trying to say

And the latest presumption - I am defending T20 as an international format, so I must obviously love players who are good at hitting sixes more than, what you label as, "real cricket". Plus you bring in the MSD topic again out of the blue, but I will assume (and hope) that was in jest more than anything

I had almost written a couple of replies trying to correct your opinion about my opinion on T20 v/s Real Cricket, but I realize it will be an exercise in futility

 

[PokerAce]

@PokerAce - You continue to stamp your opinions as facts, and it is impossible to have a sane discussion on whimsical grounds. Besides you make way too many presumptions about what I am saying instead of reading what I actually said. Take a look at what you call "my dumb assumptions" - I never said any of those things if you had actually registered what I was trying to say

And the latest presumption - I am defending T20 as an international format, so I must obviously love players who are good at hitting sixes more than, what you label as, "real cricket". Plus you bring in the MSD topic again out of the blue, but I will assume (and hope) that was in jest more than anything

I had almost written a couple of replies trying to correct your opinion about my opinion on T20 v/s Real Cricket, but I realize it will be an exercise in futility

Even I was trying to make you see sense about how T20 is not real cricket, but its been an exercise in futility too. Anyway never mind me doing it. Here is an article, see if it helps. If it does then great, if it doesn't, then well lets agree to disagree.

World in Sport | Why International T20s Should Be Done Away With

 

[War]

One cannot really compare a full football season, to a cricket T20 season. Football clubs is a full time employment. A cricket league lasts barely two months. Why should a player be denied the right to earn, in December, because the league he played for finished in May. There is no conflict at all. So for the 20 days where a conflict can arise (CLT20), I think that an over-ride clause is a good enough solution to it.

Think of Over-ride as a loan concept in football. Where the team with Over-Ride 1, loans the players to team with Over-ride 2, with the option to recall. The player can play for Over-Ride 2 team, when Over-Ride 1 is not playing, but once Over-Ride 1 matches get underway, whether or not there is a conflict (CLT20) with Over Ride 2 team, the player is then effectively recalled to his original side. Once Over-Ride 1 matches finish, he is then free to go back on loan and play for Over-Ride 2 team (not in the same competition of course).

I think even with football analogy with Over-Ride as effectively a loan, scenario works.

At risk going around in circles with this one, but again this idea makes no sense considering what a proper "champions league" should be.

As i said, in football the idea is to for champions/top 3 teams of each national league battle off to see if their team skills/talent that made them national champions is good enough to be international/continental champions.

They key facet of this "team skills/talent" is the core players that make each team tick: Barcelona Messi/Xavi/Iniesta, Jueentus - Pirlo/Buffon/Tevez, Bayern - Lahm/Robben/Muller, Man City - Toure/Kompany/Aguero, Madrid - Ronaldo/Benzema/Ramos/, Chelsea - Terry/Costa/Fabregas etc etc

These football teams when they get to the champions league level are not broken up. However for well documented reasons it is in cricket because the tournament is biased towards to three cricket boards who ridiculously control it (mainly the IPL teams) & that defeats the purpose of a champions league.

The tournament simply cannot work with world cricket, given the dynamics of star player movement that essentially helps each countries T20 leagues have a star attraction. T20 leagues should simply be individual national tournaments.

In cricket international cricket is takes paramount. Domestic cricket is the background noise that is simply their to provide nation teams with players.

On a bilateral tour regardless of how many T20s are played, 1, or 2, or 3 or 5 or 7, that series is still irrelevant in the context of a tour, and the outcome of the T20 series on the tour would still be utterly pointless.

Any bilateral tour is about the tests. The ODIs for the side losing the test series serves as consolation in atleast we won something kind of a way. If the side winning the tests also wins the ODIs then it re-affirms its dominance. T20 regardless of 2 or 3 or 5, will still not fit in the picture at all.

If a side loses the test series, and then the ODI series, but wins T20s series is it adding anything to the tour in anyway. Will this side go, well we are sh!t at Tests and ODIs but we won the T20s, so YAY Party !! T20s on a bilateral tour are not even a proper side show, let alone a series to aspire to win. I mean yes a side is playing it so it may as well try and win it, but thats about the only motivation to win a T20 bilateral series.

Nah that's now how cricket works or how tours are viewed at all last i checked watching cricket almost 20 years now.

A tour is about all three formats. At the end of the day despite the faulty ranking system, each team plays tests series with the aim of being the # 1. And both limited overs formats have world cups, so each bilateral series is essentially preparation for that. Whether its early stage rebuilding or as most teams are right now are in full fine tuning mode ahead of the 2015 cup.

Int'l T20 just don't fit. They are not cricket enough to be played at the Int'l level. Play them at the domestic level, get the players to earn money have a good living, and that is welcome and quite frankly T20s only use. I am fine with Domestic T20 for this reason alone. Players earn well, and we all want that, administrators earn good money, so the infrastructure can improve, again a welcome step.

This can be achieved by just playing T20 at the domestic level, no purpose is served playing T20 internationally. T20 doesn't make some a better player, and if you leave the finances aside, the impact on players in purely cricketing terms of T20 is largely negative. Bowlers become negative in their thinking, wanting to just restrict runs instead of taking wickets, batsmen learn that its okay to hit a senselessly ambitious shot and get out. How is T20 improving anyone as a player.

The art of defense one of the most valuable tools to any complete batsman is actually looked down upon in T20s. Play a good defensive shot and everyone goes what the hell is wrong with the batsman. I mean T20 makes sense financially but not in cricketing terms. No one can say T20s leagues are so popular because the quality of cricket on display is very high. Its just the finances. Int'l T20 doesn't even add much financially, so why play it at all.

Any board earns much more from their T20 league, than the odd Int'l T20 here or there. Let T20 exist for financial reasons but only at the domestic level. CLT20 though it brings conflicts, does make more sense with the Over-Ride loan system.

If CLT20 doesn't work still, then scrap it by all means. However Int'l T20s all kind and manner, must definitely be stopped immediately.

I 100% agree that T20 compromises some skills of some cricketers. It will well documented the format would not suite certain type of defensive/orthodox batsmen of recent vintage who were successful in test/decent in ODIs i.e: Cook, Kirsten, Dravid, Thorpe, Laxman, Atherton, Mark Richardson, Clarke, Amla, Langer, Mark Taylor, Cullinan, Ranatunga, Chris Rogers etc etc

It wouldn't suite fast bowlers who mainly line & length bowlers/swing bowlers: Hoggard, Anderson, Caddick, Fraser, Doull, Stuart Clark, Corey Collymore, Vent Prasad, Gavin Larsen ETC

And we all know unless a spinner has great variety & guile - the restrictive spinners who tend to bowl darts become satellites.

Of course also the format helps average cricketers who properly failed struggled in other format due to their one dimensional style of cricket have revived careers: Dwayne Smith, Yuvraj, Yasir Arafat, Utappha, Cooper, James Franklin etc & give a few old players who can't cut it in the other formats a extra lifespan.

The format is simply for any batsman who can hit boundaries frequently, spinners who have guile. Fast bowlers still haven't worked out how to bowl, cause even Dale Steyn gets smoked in T20s strangely often. Only Malinga & Gul have mastered the art of bowling yorkers at T20.

But what makes a good T20 game of quality hitting from batsmen is something that can be appreciated, just like qualities that is needed to be a good test/ODI player.

The problem with T20s on a whole as i always say comes back to lack of ICC leadership.

Since T20s took off globally after the T20 world cup 2007, the ICC has failed to control the rise of T20s globally set the global narrative to administrators, players, fans which should have been: test 1st, ODIs 2nd, T20s 3rd.

World cricket administrators may talk like this believe in that order, but like politicians act in reverse. India came in with the dumb IPL & CPL creations since they have the financial power to do it & the lame duck ICC & other boards have just followed the BCCI money.

If we had a proper sane schedule of world cricket for starters with every tour being a standard 3 tests/odis/3t20 per tour & everyone playing each other home/away in a structured manner (top 8 nations - would revoke BANG/ZIM test status) this would be a non discussion. But as it stands every minute somebody is always thinking that either T20s or ODIs should go at international level, which is wrong.

The problem is too many T20 leagues.