On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 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.

"The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH

On 1/15/2023 3:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> "The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH

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

On 14/01/2023 17:53, mike wrote:
> 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.

There's a men's team called Desert Vipers in the ILT20, and the last
time I checked, stags were male.

It seems less ridiculous than calling cricket teams "Thunder",
"Lightning" and "Storm", which will eventually (if it hasn't happened
already) lead to "Thunder v Lightning abandoned due to rain".

--
David North

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@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.
>
I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?

I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:13:34 PM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 14/01/2023 17:53, mike wrote:
> > 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.
> There's a men's team called Desert Vipers in the ILT20, and the last
> time I checked, stags were male.
>
> It seems less ridiculous than calling cricket teams "Thunder",
> "Lightning" and "Storm", which will eventually (if it hasn't happened
> already) lead to "Thunder v Lightning abandoned due to rain".
>

i hope so!

1 of the most ridiculous is garden route badgers in RSA. actually
i think their full name is 6 gun grill garden route badgers. i believe
theyr based at Oudtshoorn which was the centre of the ostrich industry
until they got wiped out by chinese bird flu a while back, otherwise they
could have been called the Oudtshoorn Ostriches.

mike

On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 03:17:30 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?

There weren't big crowds when the IPL was held there during lockdown.
They were sometimes a bit bigger, actually, when Pakistan were using
the grounds as home, but even then they were county 50-over
attendances. But an Indian TV channel has lots of money and doesn't
get a slice of the IPL and have decided they want some eyeballs.

I wouldn't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, and I'm
particularly unhappy about the ILT20, which isn't just greedy
commercialism but blatant sportswashing into the bargain.

However, it is pretty good evidence that the format is very popular.

You can accept that it's an integral part of cricket's ecosystem and
that it's as valid a format as the others, and that performance in the
format is not at all irrelevant to likely performance in others
(although not necessarily equivalent). That's what you'd probably do
if you cared about the sport's continued existence.

On the other hand, if your main interest in cricket is parading your
prejudices, complaining that things aren't as boring as they used to
be and producing adoring assessments of players you've never seen, you
can ignore it and declare it irrelevant, thus confirming your own
irrelevance to modern cricket.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:44:09 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/15/2023 3:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > "The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.

"Yes, nurse. Just let it pass... RH

On 1/15/2023 6:33 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@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.
>>
> I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
>

No T20 batter deliberately plays/hits to get out, EXCEPT in abnormal
cases like Ashwin being sent as pinch hitter at #3 or #4 who gets out in
"late stages" to accommodate a powerful hitter.

> I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format

Mistiming.

If you take a deep breath and think about what you said, you will
realize the Naivete in your own comments.

On 1/15/2023 8:34 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:44:09 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/15/2023 3:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.
>
> "Yes, nurse. Just let it pass... RH

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

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 7:56:30 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/15/2023 8:34 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:44:09 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 1/15/2023 3:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> "The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.
> >
> > "Yes, nurse. Just let it pass... RH
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.

"It is pathetic , doctor, just watching the poor creature repeating the same thing over and over again... " RH

On 1/16/2023 12:20 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 7:56:30 AM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/15/2023 8:34 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 1:44:09 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2023 3:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:13:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The subcontinental patient is having a temper tantrum, doctor..." RH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.
>>>
>>> "Yes, nurse. Just let it pass... RH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody cares about your "opinion" of T20 and whether you watch it or not.
>
>
> "It is pathetic , doctor, just watching the poor creature repeating the same thing over and over again... " RH

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@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.
>>
>I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
>and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
>
>I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format

Unless you are hitting the ball along the ground, tip and run style,
hitting the ball in the direction of a fielder especially in the air
is always a risky idea.
How is it that a 'big six' that leaves the ground looks better usually
than a nicely placed shot that splits the field for 4?

I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.

max.it

On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.

Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
"by the book" players, so open to innovation.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Godfrey

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 11:17:40 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> But I'm genuinely curious why other people don't enjoy T20 very much.

I'll answer as a player, rather than a spectator.

To be more specific, as a batsman (who often opens).

At my skill level (upper village cricket) going the tonk is still quite risky. We can't play the reverse sweeps off quicks. Our bats aren't maximum thickness wonderbats, so 6s aren't assured even with a well-timed shot.

It takes most of us a little bit of time to get our eye in, as we don't do the pre-game warm ups pros do.

So T20 rarely feels like I can maximise my own skill.
I don't feel that when I'm playing other limited over cricket (we play both 35 overs and 50 overs)(plus of course 2-day cricket).
50 overs is my preferred limited overs to play. But I can't stand watching it.
T20 is my least preferred to play, but I do watch it (both on TV and at the Gabba).

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 12:03:36 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 06:33:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:21:57 AM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 05:29:03 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> >> <hamis...@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.
> >>
> >I dunno, if somebody can drive the ball direct to long-on then I can't help but feel they could hit it either straight or to mid-wicket. If they're hitting a pull shot straight to midwicket then they should be able to get it squarer.
> >and if they have to hit it straight at the fielder in the deep maybe don't loft it?
> >
> >I can see it if they're a big six hitter and they're trying to clear the boundary and fall a couple of feet short but when they pick out the deep fielder 10-15m in from the rope I think it's bad batting in any format
> Unless you are hitting the ball along the ground, tip and run style,
> hitting the ball in the direction of a fielder especially in the air
> is always a risky idea.
> How is it that a 'big six' that leaves the ground looks better usually
> than a nicely placed shot that splits the field for 4?
>
> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>
> max.it

Bradman was made for it because he scored at a tremendous rate in FC cricket,.

Hobbs was likened to Trumper before WW1 .

RH

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>
> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.

That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
for the Australian side.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>
>> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
>>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
>>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>
>That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>for the Australian side.

Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
shots than he was in Tests.
--
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 1/16/2023 8:22 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
>>>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
>>>
>>>      Much the same way as Root.  Superior placement, splitting the
>>> field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball.  Can't quite imagine Bradman
>>> playing ramps;  but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
>>> once he'd seen them in action.  Hobbs likewise.  Neither of them were
>>> "by the book" players, so open to innovation.
>>
>> That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
>> more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
>> Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>> able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>> for the Australian side.
>
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.

Gavaskar scored a century before lunch in Delhi if I am not mistaken but
he wouldn't make it to T20 team.

One fast century doesn't prove that he will be a great T20 player.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:22:26 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <27pash9059chntaj9og8jsu0d7t7nnepso@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes

>>Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
>>able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
>>for the Australian side.
>
>Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
>a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
>allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
>pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
>shots than he was in Tests.

One can say roughly the same of Root, who's a very good player of T20
but can't get into the current England side, much to his own
disappointment.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 3:33:06 AM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> In message <27pash9059chntaj9...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:40:57 +0000, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 16/01/2023 12:03, max.it wrote:
> >>> I wonder how Bradman or Hobbs would have approached T20.
> >>
> >> Much the same way as Root. Superior placement, splitting the
> >>field, 2, 3 or 4 practically every ball. Can't quite imagine Bradman
> >>playing ramps; but I'd guess he might well have tried reverse shots,
> >>once he'd seen them in action. Hobbs likewise. Neither of them were
> >>"by the book" players, so open to innovation.
> >
> >That was what immediately occurred to me. Hobbs before WW1 was even
> >more adventurous, so I'd expect him to have been a great T20 player.
> >Bradman, like Root, isn't ideally suited to the format but would be
> >able to succeed - but he'd probably not be an *automatic* selection
> >for the Australian side.
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball, anyone who could score
> a hundred before lunch in a Test (as he did at Headingley in 1930), even
> allowing for faster over rates back then was clearly capable of scoring
> pretty quickly. And no doubt in T20s he'd be more willing to play aerial
> shots than he was in Tests.

Bradman chose not to loft the ball, he could do it if he wanted to, his feeling was that he hit the ball well enough that he didn't need to take the risk
He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
in another he late cut between keeper and 1st slip, then between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd...
He also tells the story of what he calls the best shot he ever played, he was going down the pitch, got beaten in flight so went back to try and recover his ground when he slipped and was falling. On the way down he managed to late cut the ball away from the keeper for a single.

According to Illingworth's book on the Ashes on the 1930 tour of England he took Larwood for 90 runs/100 balls in tests

I think he'd do ok although he would have to make adjustments to how he played.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while

In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>
I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:33:06 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Even though I believe he rarely lofted the ball

He rarely lofted the ball because he didn't *want* to.

I'm sure he would've been capable of doing so better than his peers, just as he was better in all other batting skills.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 10:55:29 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bradman chose not to loft the ball, he could do it if he wanted to, his feeling was that he hit the ball well enough that he didn't need to take the risk

https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/3758013/the-dons-ton-in-22-balls/

Bradman scoring a 22-ball century. Versus a lowly team, sure, but he could motor.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:31:55 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:06:15 PM UTC+11, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:55:27 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He was also capable of adjustment, in one match he got the opposition to nominate where he'd hit each ball before it was delivered and did it for a while
>> In county matches, once he'd reached his century he would ask the
>> keeper who deserved to take a catch and then present him with a dolly.
>>
>I think that's a story about Trumper, apart from 48 when he was saving energy for the tests Bradman tended to keep punishing county attacks

Peter Judge saw it happen in 1948. Though not off his bowling. And the
Somerset bowler whose autobiog was "The hand that bowled Bradman" also
recounts it.

Cheers,

Mike