I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
but who cares?

But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.

It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.

At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
to score off it.

As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
roundabouts and what have you.

Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
better.

What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?

That seems a very valid objection, and it took me a bit of time
watching the overseas leagues to find a way in. Watching sport as a
pure neutral to appreciate the aesthetics is beyond most of us. We
want to be on someone's side: sport is about competition, and we want
to vicariously experience that thrill. And while I can sort of
understand why people from a franchise city might identify with their
"local" team, I can see no earthly reason why any neutral TV spectator
would care about a specific team on principle.

What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has got
the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon. Unless, of
course, an English player from the other side smacks 80 off 31 in
which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit difficult when
Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want Archer to knock
Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer back over his head
for 6.

Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't happened:
one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for 20 years at
best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what good one can out
of the situation. Moaning about the good old days simply stops you
enjoying what's on offer, because the good old days are gone forever -
as is true of every other sport.

Cheers,

Mike

On 13 Jan 2023, Mike Holmans wrote

> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from
> someone who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it,
> it's painful, but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very
> much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the
> pinnacle of this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid
> form of the game.

I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
equipment.
> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
> there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill
> in any decent game, and there will also be some moments of
> hilarity, and a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three
> players in the match whom you admire and quite a few other very
> good ones. Each ball is a separate puzzle as the batter tries to
> judge what the bowler is going to deliver given the field he's set
> and how and where he will be able to score off it.
>
> As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There
> are aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get:
> bowlers relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with
> four slips and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their
> wickets, batters mounting heroic resistance to save a match which
> seemed obviously lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure
> that they don't get too tired to be effective later in the day,
> and no doubt a few others. But Test cricket doesn't offer some of
> the things T20 does, so swings, roundabouts and what have you.
>
> Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the
> time, and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so
> they're often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The
> gaps between teams' ability is never so great that matches are as
> mind-numbingly tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or
> Aus v Eng last winter), which I made no effort at all to watch -
> Pak v NZ was a lot better.
>
> What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
> question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of
> watching?

> That seems a very valid objection, and it took me a bit of time
> watching the overseas leagues to find a way in. Watching sport as
> a pure neutral to appreciate the aesthetics is beyond most of us.
> We want to be on someone's side: sport is about competition, and
> we want to vicariously experience that thrill. And while I can
> sort of understand why people from a franchise city might identify
> with their "local" team, I can see no earthly reason why any
> neutral TV spectator would care about a specific team on
> principle.

Yup; I find that with all foreign domestic leagues. I have zero
personal links to Australia, for example, and can't imagine why I'd be
interested in the results of Sheffield Shield matches.

Even with links to NZ (my wife's family), I watch the occasional
international match but have never watched or followed the Plunket
Shield, or the NZ domestic T20 or 50-over league games.

> What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
> well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
> Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has
> got the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon.
> Unless, of course, an English player from the other side smacks 80
> off 31 in which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit
> difficult when Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want
> Archer to knock Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer
> back over his head for 6.
>
> Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
> dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't
> happened: one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for
> 20 years at best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what
> good one can out of the situation. Moaning about the good old days
> simply stops you enjoying what's on offer, because the good old
> days are gone forever - as is true of every other sport.

It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.

--
Cheers, Harvey

In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg21k9tst7jlr2p04b9@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>but who cares?
>
>But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>

Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
"Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
at least one of those criteria.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:32:25 GMT, HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
>format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
>equipment.

How long ago did he say that? I'm not sure that the implication is
anything like as apposite now as in, say, 2010. I shall keep an ear
open for his comments along those lines during the ILT20 (he's
commentating as I type).

Obviously it isn't a four-innings game over multiple days, but 99% of
games whose participants would say they were playing cricket are
single day, one innings per side, so unless all one-day cricket with
innings limitations is a ((H)E)GPWCE, I'd like to know why elite-level
T20 isn't real cricket.

As I understand Ben Stokes's view - and he is clearly the main driver
of the current policy - the county championship is very good at
producing what it has always been very good at producing: players who
are good at playing four-day cricket in English conditions. That
requires solid defence, stamina, patience, judgment and a bunch of
other stuff which Test cricketers need.

But it doesn't generate the flexibility, ability to attack at all
times, or immediate pressures of T20, nor does it guarantee a
prominent role for even fairly moderate spinners who rapidly improve
as a result. On the other hand, T20 is pretty much useless for
developing pace bowlers - they need to already be very good to succeed
in T20. Unfortunately, T20 does rather encourage the slow-medium
variable pace merchants instead, which is a bit irritating, but I have
painful memories of watching a succession of 81 mph right arm over
English bowlers allegedly forming a Test pace attack in the 90s, which
is just as bad.

>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.

When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.

You-know-who likes to tell people about how much better cricket was
when they played on unfit pitches which had originally been left
uncovered to provide more hazard for the 18th century nobility. They
were betting huge sums on the games and added spice to the gambling by
allowing for games to become farcical when rain intervened. It had
nothing to do with providing a fair test of skill, because it actively
militated against it. Nor do I understand how the game was better when
played with inferior and dangerous equipment. It may have been more
difficult, but the Eton Wall Game is extremely difficult and extremely
stupid; difficulty is not the sole determinant of quality, especially
if, as happened in cricket's past, it led to players with very limited
techniques better suited to defence than getting on with winning the
game.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 4:19:32 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:32:25 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
> >format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
> >equipment.
> How long ago did he say that? I'm not sure that the implication is
> anything like as apposite now as in, say, 2010. I shall keep an ear
> open for his comments along those lines during the ILT20 (he's
> commentating as I type).
>
> Obviously it isn't a four-innings game over multiple days, but 99% of
> games whose participants would say they were playing cricket are
> single day, one innings per side, so unless all one-day cricket with
> innings limitations is a ((H)E)GPWCE, I'd like to know why elite-level
> T20 isn't real cricket.
>
> As I understand Ben Stokes's view - and he is clearly the main driver
> of the current policy - the county championship is very good at
> producing what it has always been very good at producing: players who
> are good at playing four-day cricket in English conditions. That
> requires solid defence, stamina, patience, judgment and a bunch of
> other stuff which Test cricketers need.
>
> But it doesn't generate the flexibility, ability to attack at all
> times, or immediate pressures of T20, nor does it guarantee a
> prominent role for even fairly moderate spinners who rapidly improve
> as a result. On the other hand, T20 is pretty much useless for
> developing pace bowlers - they need to already be very good to succeed
> in T20. Unfortunately, T20 does rather encourage the slow-medium
> variable pace merchants instead, which is a bit irritating, but I have
> painful memories of watching a succession of 81 mph right arm over
> English bowlers allegedly forming a Test pace attack in the 90s, which
> is just as bad.
> >It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
> >they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
> >back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
> >anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
> >the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
> When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
> types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
> to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
> age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
>
> You-know-who likes to tell people about how much better cricket was
> when they played on unfit pitches which had originally been left
> uncovered to provide more hazard for the 18th century nobility. They
> were betting huge sums on the games and added spice to the gambling by
> allowing for games to become farcical when rain intervened. It had
> nothing to do with providing a fair test of skill, because it actively
> militated against it. Nor do I understand how the game was better when
> played with inferior and dangerous equipment. It may have been more
> difficult, but the Eton Wall Game is extremely difficult and extremely
> stupid; difficulty is not the sole determinant of quality, especially
> if, as happened in cricket's past, it led to players with very limited
> techniques better suited to defence than getting on with winning the
> game.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Because it is one dimensional . Next!

RH

On 1/13/2023 8:38 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 4:19:32 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 14:32:25 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> I agreed with the way David Lloyd (an early and vocal supporter of the
>>> format) described it: a highly entertaining game played with cricket
>>> equipment.
>> How long ago did he say that? I'm not sure that the implication is
>> anything like as apposite now as in, say, 2010. I shall keep an ear
>> open for his comments along those lines during the ILT20 (he's
>> commentating as I type).
>>
>> Obviously it isn't a four-innings game over multiple days, but 99% of
>> games whose participants would say they were playing cricket are
>> single day, one innings per side, so unless all one-day cricket with
>> innings limitations is a ((H)E)GPWCE, I'd like to know why elite-level
>> T20 isn't real cricket.
>>
>> As I understand Ben Stokes's view - and he is clearly the main driver
>> of the current policy - the county championship is very good at
>> producing what it has always been very good at producing: players who
>> are good at playing four-day cricket in English conditions. That
>> requires solid defence, stamina, patience, judgment and a bunch of
>> other stuff which Test cricketers need.
>>
>> But it doesn't generate the flexibility, ability to attack at all
>> times, or immediate pressures of T20, nor does it guarantee a
>> prominent role for even fairly moderate spinners who rapidly improve
>> as a result. On the other hand, T20 is pretty much useless for
>> developing pace bowlers - they need to already be very good to succeed
>> in T20. Unfortunately, T20 does rather encourage the slow-medium
>> variable pace merchants instead, which is a bit irritating, but I have
>> painful memories of watching a succession of 81 mph right arm over
>> English bowlers allegedly forming a Test pace attack in the 90s, which
>> is just as bad.
>>> It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>>> they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>>> back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>>> anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>>> the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
>> When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
>> types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
>> to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
>> age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.
>>
>> You-know-who likes to tell people about how much better cricket was
>> when they played on unfit pitches which had originally been left
>> uncovered to provide more hazard for the 18th century nobility. They
>> were betting huge sums on the games and added spice to the gambling by
>> allowing for games to become farcical when rain intervened. It had
>> nothing to do with providing a fair test of skill, because it actively
>> militated against it. Nor do I understand how the game was better when
>> played with inferior and dangerous equipment. It may have been more
>> difficult, but the Eton Wall Game is extremely difficult and extremely
>> stupid; difficulty is not the sole determinant of quality, especially
>> if, as happened in cricket's past, it led to players with very limited
>> techniques better suited to defence than getting on with winning the
>> game.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Because it is one dimensional . Next!
>
> RH

Nobody cares about your opinion of T20 and whether you watch it or not.

On 1/13/2023 5:17 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>
> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
> there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
> any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
> a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
> whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
> separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
> to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
> to score off it.
>
> As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
> aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
> relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
> and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
> mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
> lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
> too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
> But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
> roundabouts and what have you.
>
> Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
> and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
> often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
> teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
> tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
> winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
> better.
>
> What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
> question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?
>

I always root for India and Sri Lanka.

Any team against Paki pigs

NZ vs Aus, Eng

SA vs Aus

WI vs Aus Eng NZ Pak Afg SA Bangladesh

Afg vs Bangladesh Pak

Ire vs Aus, Eng, NZ, Bangladesh, Afg, SL

Eng vs Aus tough call. It depends on players in the teams. Usually
England if Steve Smith, Tim Paine in ozzie team.

> That seems a very valid objection, and it took me a bit of time
> watching the overseas leagues to find a way in. Watching sport as a
> pure neutral to appreciate the aesthetics is beyond most of us. We
> want to be on someone's side: sport is about competition, and we want
> to vicariously experience that thrill. And while I can sort of
> understand why people from a franchise city might identify with their
> "local" team, I can see no earthly reason why any neutral TV spectator
> would care about a specific team on principle.
>
> What I do is care about players. I want the English players to do
> well, along with Kieron Pollard, Rashid Khan, Dre Russ, Wanindu
> Hasaranga, and a number of others I like, and the team which has got
> the most players I like gets my support for the afternoon. Unless, of
> course, an English player from the other side smacks 80 off 31 in
> which case I'm pleased they won instead. It gets a bit difficult when
> Jofra Archer bowls at Jos Buttler since I want Archer to knock
> Buttler's stumps over and Buttler to smack Archer back over his head
> for 6.
>
> Wishing T20 had never been invented or that it hadn't become the
> dominant format is fine, but it's like wishing Brexit hadn't happened:
> one can regret it, but it's not going to be undone for 20 years at
> best, so one might as well learn to cope and get what good one can out
> of the situation. Moaning about the good old days simply stops you
> enjoying what's on offer, because the good old days are gone forever -
> as is true of every other sport.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 16:19:28 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>>It's also pointless moaning about the how good the old days were, as
>>they invariably weren't all that good. (I recall reading some years
>>back of studies which seemed to confirm that the "golden age" of
>>anything - sport, society, film, music -- invariably dates to before
>>the person calling it that was old enough to remember it.
>
>When it comes to music, that's only the case for dedicated historian
>types. "Studies show" (in those vague terms which make it impossible
>to assess the validity of the studies) that any individual's golden
>age of music is almost certainly the period when they were aged 15-25.

Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.

max.it

In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnfcnta1gs70t9g1grei@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it 40
>years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.

I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
Tramps or their version of the song. But I must have heard the Judy
Garland version of the song at least a dozen times.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On 13/01/2023 18:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/13/2023 5:17 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>>
>> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
>> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>>
>> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
>> there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
>> any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
>> a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
>> whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
>> separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
>> to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
>> to score off it.
>>
>> As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
>> aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
>> relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
>> and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
>> mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
>> lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
>> too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
>> But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
>> roundabouts and what have you.
>>
>> Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
>> and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
>> often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
>> teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
>> tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
>> winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
>> better.
>>
>> What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
>> question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?
>>
>
>
>
> I always root for India and Sri Lanka.
>
> Any team against Paki pigs
>
> NZ vs Aus, Eng
>
> SA vs Aus
>
> WI vs Aus Eng NZ Pak Afg SA Bangladesh
>
> Afg vs Bangladesh Pak
>
> Ire vs Aus, Eng, NZ, Bangladesh, Afg, SL
>
> Eng vs Aus tough call. It depends on players in the teams. Usually
> England if Steve Smith, Tim Paine in ozzie team.

I think many people can easily pick a side in international matches. In
my case, I usually support the underdog if England, Scotland and Ireland
aren't involved, except on the rare occasions when the underdog is
Australia.

However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
played today):

Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers

--
David North

On 13/01/2023 19:55, John Hall wrote:
> In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnfcnta1gs70t9g1grei@4ax.com>, max. it
> <max@tea.time> writes
>> Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>> all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
>> 40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
>
> I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
> Tramps

or even The Trammps. No, I didn't know they had a double 'm' until I
googled them, but I had heard of them, vaguely.

--
David North

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:27:53 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
>played today):
>
>Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
>Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
>MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
>Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers

Yup. I've sort of adopted MICT because of their bowling attack -
Curran, Archer, Stone and Rashid Khan. Stone was superb today,
although the batters hadn't done enough for it to matter as much as it
had a right to.

And Joe Root was taking excellent catches after making 26 off 21 as an
opener. He said afterwards that he was really enjoying learning how to
play at the top of the innings because of the new skills he was
picking up.

But I really don't care who wins as long as there's a good game.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.

I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.

I've always preferred the ebb and flow of the longer format and maybe as I'm a bowler I enjoy the fact that T20 feels as though it's bowlers to the slaughter constantly.

The one thing I will give T20 credit for though is making me enjoy 50-over formats more - even though I imagine they're dead and buried if cricket is to survive? Genuinely enjoyed the Royal London Cup games last summer.

Richard

On 13/01/2023 22:19, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.

I don't watch many, but put on the current Super Smash match just in
time to see Will Young almost hit 6 6s in an over off Louis Delport. He
was caught on the boundary going for the last one.

--
David North

On 1/13/2023 2:19 PM, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> I'll admit it's my least favourite format, but if it's on telly, I'll stick it on, because it's cricket and I like watching cricket.
>
> I've always preferred the ebb and flow of the longer format and maybe as I'm a bowler I enjoy the fact that T20 feels as though it's bowlers to the slaughter constantly.
>
> The one thing I will give T20 credit for though is making me enjoy 50-over formats more - even though I imagine they're dead and buried if cricket is to survive? Genuinely enjoyed the Royal London Cup games last summer.
>
> Richard

ODIs will slowly lose interest and die if the administrators don't do
something to enliven the boring middle overs, especially when humans'
attention span is getting shorter and shorter every passing day.

On 1/13/2023 12:27 PM, David North wrote:
> On 13/01/2023 18:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/13/2023 5:17 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>>> but who cares?
>>>
>>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>>>
>>> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
>>> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>>>
>>> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),
>>> there will be a couple of dozen amazing feats of incredible skill in
>>> any decent game, and there will also be some moments of hilarity, and
>>> a few horrible blunders. There'll be two or three players in the match
>>> whom you admire and quite a few other very good ones. Each ball is a
>>> separate puzzle as the batter tries to judge what the bowler is going
>>> to deliver given the field he's set and how and where he will be able
>>> to score off it.
>>>
>>> As an exhibition of cricketing skills, what's not to like? There are
>>> aspects of Test cricket which you definitely don't get: bowlers
>>> relentlessly swinging it on or about the top of off with four slips
>>> and a gully and batters fencing to preserve their wickets, batters
>>> mounting heroic resistance to save a match which seemed obviously
>>> lost, having to manage the bowlers to make sure that they don't get
>>> too tired to be effective later in the day, and no doubt a few others.
>>> But Test cricket doesn't offer some of the things T20 does, so swings,
>>> roundabouts and what have you.
>>>
>>> Games tend to remain competitive for a greater proportion of the time,
>>> and there are regularly spectacular swings in fortune, so they're
>>> often interesting, even fascinating short stories. The gaps between
>>> teams' ability is never so great that matches are as mind-numbingly
>>> tedious as the recent Tests between Aus v SA (or Aus v Eng last
>>> winter), which I made no effort at all to watch - Pak v NZ was a lot
>>> better.
>>>
>>> What I can see as a problem for some is the "who do I support?"
>>> question. If you don't care who wins, what's the point of watching?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I always root for India and Sri Lanka.
>>
>> Any team against Paki pigs
>>
>> NZ vs Aus, Eng
>>
>> SA vs Aus
>>
>> WI vs Aus Eng NZ Pak Afg SA Bangladesh
>>
>> Afg vs Bangladesh Pak
>>
>> Ire vs Aus, Eng, NZ, Bangladesh, Afg, SL
>>
>> Eng vs Aus tough call. It depends on players in the teams. Usually
>> England if Steve Smith, Tim Paine in ozzie team.
>
> I think many people can easily pick a side in international matches. In
> my case, I usually support the underdog if England, Scotland and Ireland
> aren't involved, except on the rare occasions when the underdog is
> Australia.
>
> However, I think Mike was thinking more of fixtures like (from those
> played today):
>
> Dubai Capitals v Abu Dhabi Knight Riders
> Khulna Tigers v Rangpur Riders
> MI Cape Town v Durban's Super Giants
> Sydney Thunder v Perth Scorchers
>

Indian fans usually support the SA teams which are owned by their IPL
T20 franchises.

Delhi Capitals fans support Dubai Capitals

Kolkata Knight Riders -> Abu Dhabi

Mumbai Indians -> Cape Town

When it comes to Australia BBL, it obviously depends on their favorite
players and affinity to the cities like attending college or vacations,
work related, friends and family there etc.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:38:27 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/01/2023 19:55, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <lcb3shdpequuebdnfcnta1gs70t9g1grei@4ax.com>, max. it
>> <max@tea.time> writes
>>> Just when you thought The Tramps singing 'Zing went the strings' was
>>> all new and the greatest song ever, you hear Judy Garland singing it
>>> 40 years earlier and realise that The Tramps butchered it.
>>
>> I may be showing my age when I confess that I've never heard of The
>> Tramps
>
>or even The Trammps. No, I didn't know they had a double 'm' until I
>googled them, but I had heard of them, vaguely.

The ,most cringy version was the Chet Atkins instrumental; fantastic
talent and remarkable skill but he picked the wrong tune that time.

I'm a fingerstyle guitarist. I haven't played in public or done any
tuition in 20 years. People would ask who my playing was influenced
by.
It's a bit like T20 when there are a few of your favourite players on
both teams and you're watching the performances rather than the match
as a whole. I like most of the big guitar based bands but my favourite
guitarist and the one who had the most impact on my playing and still
does is Freddie Phillips..

max.it

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:17:40 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> but who cares?
>
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>
> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>
I'll watch it if it's on but it's not something I'll go out of my way to see more of

I think the way people play in T20s results in a lot less elegant shots than you get in first class cricket
I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying

It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give Rupert Murdoch money...

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying

That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my perspective
depending on format.

In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
accurately-set field.

In essence, what enjoyment you get out of a cricket match depends a
lot on how much you're prepared to put into it. At one extreme is
"this is what I like and any deviation from that standard is a
disappointment" and at the other is like being a pet dog who appears
to believe that whatever it's doing is its favourite thing ever.

If you want to like T20, you can find a way to. If you don't want to
like it, you can find any number of reasons not to. Same with Test
cricket and any other format.

I don't like the 100 because I don't see the point of a very slightly
different format with dreadful TV presentation. So I say. But is what
I really mean that I'm so accustomed to being able to judge a T20
situtation that it's just jarring to have to try and adjust
expectations by 10-20% to understand what's going on?

I can't be bothered to put any more effort into T10 than I already
have. My objection to that is similar to what Richard was saying about
T20 v longer forms - there isn't enough ebb and flow.

But again, how much ebb and flow you perceive depends on how much
you're prepared to perceive, which in turn depends on how much you
have already perceived. 15-20 years ago, if a team needed 50 off 3
overs, I'd assume the game was over. Today, if certain batters were in
or at least still in the hutch, I'd back them to get it because I've
seen it happen multiple times. And I've also seen teams take 5 wickets
for 8 runs in the last 3 overs to win by 3. So I'll watch a bit longer
- I tend to leave early, as it were, when I can't see any reasonable
path for the likely result to change.

Being a fussy eater limits the range of restaurants in which you can
get a good meal. The village idiot reminds me of a guy I used to know
at work who only ever ate sausage, chips and beans and regarded
anything else as disgusting or as foreign muck. I'm allergic to fresh
mango, recoil at excessive capsaicin and want eggs to be adulterated
as, say, Yorkshire pudding rather than served fried or scrambled. I
like the fact that I can go to more restaurants and have a good time
than the other bloke.

>It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give Rupert Murdoch money...

That's no longer true in the UK, where BT Sport has the rights to some
of them. I'm not sure how much of Sky TV in the UK Murdoch now owns,
either: I know some of it's been sold for regulatory reasons.

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/14/2023 5:29 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:17:40 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> but who cares?
>>
>> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>>
>> It is not Test cricket, and good Test cricket is still the pinnacle of
>> this sport, but that doesn't make it the only valid form of the game.
>>
> I'll watch it if it's on but it's not something I'll go out of my way to see more of
>
> I think the way people play in T20s results in a lot less elegant shots than you get in first class cricket
> I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder annoying
>
> It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give Rupert Murdoch money...

Have you tried willow.tv

On 14 Jan 2023, Mike Holmans wrote

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
><hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I also find the number of balls lofted directly to an outfielder
>> annoying
>
> That's interesting. To me, that reveals that I change my
> perspective depending on format.
>
> In a Test, I'd certainly blame the batter for getting out. In T20,
> though, I'd congratulate the bowler and captain for bowling to an
> accurately-set field.
>
> In essence, what enjoyment you get out of a cricket match depends
> a lot on how much you're prepared to put into it. At one extreme
> is "this is what I like and any deviation from that standard is a
> disappointment" and at the other is like being a pet dog who
> appears to believe that whatever it's doing is its favourite thing
> ever.
>
> If you want to like T20, you can find a way to. If you don't want
> to like it, you can find any number of reasons not to. Same with
> Test cricket and any other format.
>
> I don't like the 100 because I don't see the point of a very
> slightly different format with dreadful TV presentation. So I say.
> But is what I really mean that I'm so accustomed to being able to
> judge a T20 situtation that it's just jarring to have to try and
> adjust expectations by 10-20% to understand what's going on?
>
> I can't be bothered to put any more effort into T10 than I already
> have. My objection to that is similar to what Richard was saying
> about T20 v longer forms - there isn't enough ebb and flow.
>
> But again, how much ebb and flow you perceive depends on how much
> you're prepared to perceive, which in turn depends on how much you
> have already perceived. 15-20 years ago, if a team needed 50 off 3
> overs, I'd assume the game was over. Today, if certain batters
> were in or at least still in the hutch, I'd back them to get it
> because I've seen it happen multiple times. And I've also seen
> teams take 5 wickets for 8 runs in the last 3 overs to win by 3.
> So I'll watch a bit longer - I tend to leave early, as it were,
> when I can't see any reasonable path for the likely result to
> change.
>
> Being a fussy eater limits the range of restaurants in which you
> can get a good meal. The village idiot reminds me of a guy I used
> to know at work who only ever ate sausage, chips and beans and
> regarded anything else as disgusting or as foreign muck. I'm
> allergic to fresh mango, recoil at excessive capsaicin and want
> eggs to be adulterated as, say, Yorkshire pudding rather than
> served fried or scrambled. I like the fact that I can go to more
> restaurants and have a good time than the other bloke.
>
>> It also doesn't help that to watch a lot of it I'd have to give
>> Rupert Murdoch money...
>
> That's no longer true in the UK, where BT Sport has the rights to
> some of them. I'm not sure how much of Sky TV in the UK Murdoch
> now owns, either: I know some of it's been sold for regulatory
> reasons.

Murdoch sold his interest in Sky television to Comcast in 2018; AIUI
he no longer owns any of it at all.

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:32 PM UTC, Adrian wrote:
> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
> >but who cares?
> >
> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
> >
> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
> at least one of those criteria.
>

I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
of the anti growth coalition.

Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.

The cricket isnt so bad, some of it is amazing, but its all the other shite
which puts me off ever going to a match plus I prefer watching the longer
formats of the game. But I will watch it occasionally to see how england
players get on in the t20s leagues abroad. I notice that jacks nearly
hit a 100 tother day.

mike

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:53:54 -0800 (PST), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>
>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.

I appear to be able to tolerate it for T20 but not the 100, where
there is even more silliness.

But those seem to me perfectly respectable reasons for not liking the
format. If the look of the thing is unpleasant, nobody's making you
look at it.

On the other hand, it does close off your options for watching
cricket.

>The cricket isnt so bad, some of it is amazing, but its all the other shite
>which puts me off ever going to a match plus I prefer watching the longer
>formats of the game. But I will watch it occasionally to see how england
>players get on in the t20s leagues abroad. I notice that jacks nearly
>hit a 100 tother day.

That also seems highly rational. Particularly since you note that some
of the cricket is amazing.

What I object to now is saying that different formats are not valid
examples of good cricket. There is cricket I don't enjoy very much,
but that of itself doesn't make it bad cricket. Bad cricket is when I
imagine that even I could do better than the klutzes out in the
middle.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <fa0a0d8c-d34c-4986-8950-440d6bbc3ef5n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:32 PM UTC, Adrian wrote:
>> In message <d7h2shtmamoj9vhcg...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >I assume there will be one extremely silly reply to this from someone
>> >who doesn't watch the game and knows so little about it, it's painful,
>> >but who cares?
>> >
>> >But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.
>> >
>> Before I retired, I worked at a place where we had a wide range of
>> cricket enthusiasts. Some were mere spectators, others club players,
>> and at least one who scored at national level (on his days off).
>> Although not universally agreed, there was a general agreement that
>> "Proper Cricket" had two key features, and they applied from village
>> matches right up to tests. Firstly it had a tea interval and secondly
>> it was played in whites. T20 (and other short formats) fail to satisfy
>> at least one of those criteria.
>>
>
>I agree on both counts, but not liking something for aesthetic reasons
>usually gets u marked down as anti progress, out of touch or even part
>of the anti growth coalition.
>

Oi, I resemble at least one of those remarks.

>Many people criticise the cricket as a slogfest, but the aspects I find
>most off putting are the ghastly team colours, the flame
>throwers that go off at a boundary, the awful noise coming from the
>loadspeakers the whole time, the gormless numpties on the public
>address system trying to whip up the crowd as if its cage fighting,
>the ridiculous team names - stags for men teams, vipers for women -
>a system of marketing which seems stuck in 70s sexual stereotyping.
>

I'll freely admit that I haven't seen any of the T20 games, but the odd
bits that I've heard on the wireless and reports elsewhere have
confirmed my view that it isn't for me.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 13:17:40 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

> At the 4 overseas player level (IPL, CPL, BBL, SAT20, PSL, ILT20),

Even though the T20 games are typically much better attended than the sumtotal of 4 county days, I see that they've forgotten to tell the locals there's a game on in the ILT20 (that yes, I've got on in the background). Maybe 6 tournaments is overkill and T20 franchises are tending towards greedy commercialism?

Richard