World T20 thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
viccarlton said:
Totally different...................................as you well know.
Click to expand...

Are you saying when club cricketers play 20 overs it is proper cricket,but when first class ones do it's not!

What confuses me is before T20 was even heard of in first class cricket,fans have always wanted to watch the ball hit out of the park and loved watching the likes of Richards,Sobers and Botham do exactly that,it's not new!

Now fans can see that more often instead of just enjoying the spectale some have this snobberish view looking down on it.

As long as the Ashes remains the pinnacle of the sport, T20 should be enjoyed for the fanastic watch it is.

Of course
it's proper cricket,proper crickekers are the cricketers that adapt their game to what ever format,that what makes Root such a good one.

And of course getting beat in a World cup final is more disappointing and important that getting beat in a run of the mill test match against New Zealand.
 


Voice of fair play said:
Are you saying when club cricketers play 20 overs it is proper cricket,but when first class ones do it's not!

What confuses me is before T20 was even heard of in first class cricket,fans have always wanted to watch the ball hit out of the park and loved watching the likes of Richards,Sobers and Botham do exactly that,it's not new!

Now fans can see that more often instead of just enjoying the spectale some have this snobberish view looking down on it.

As long as the Ashes remains the pinnacle of the sport, T20 should be enjoyed for the fanastic watch it is.

Of course
it's proper cricket,proper crickekers are the cricketers that adapt their game to what ever format,that what makes Root such a good one.

And of course getting beat in a World cup final is more disappointing and important that getting beat in a run of the mill test match against New Zealand.
Click to expand...
It's the contrived field placings/power plays etc. that makes it an entity in it's own right, it's not proper cricket because basically bowlers are like lambs to the slaughter, yes everyone likes to see runs scored but through the skill of the batsmen using their guile to manipulate the ball beyond a field set by the opposing captain, not just throwing the bat at every opportunity knowing that if you can get it over the infield you're going to score runs.

I watched the T20 World Cup and enjoyed it, I will be at the Riverside to watch us play as well, hopefully we'll do well and reach finals day, I even went to the Rose Bowl the time we made finals day ( Chanderpaul thought it was a test match) I wasn't gutted when we didn't perform the way we wanted them to, I take it for what it is, bish bash bosh.
 
Sweeper said:
You've got no idea what happened in those seconds, but the umpire always has the right to reverse his decision. Even if he gave him out, he was well within his rights to then ask for clarification from the third umpire, if the the guy at square leg had indicated that it may not have carried. It's completely different to DRS - the batsman didn't review anything.
Click to expand...

The principle is exactly the same. Technology was used to overturn a decision made by an umpire. The umpire would not have asked for clarification as he gave him out and it looked out in real time. Somebody and I would like it clarified who it was only reviewed that decision after they saw a replay. which is wrong. It is clearly not the same as checking for no balls because in that instance the umpires had not mad a decision. In this case they had and it was wrongly overturned and in effect it cost us the game. When the umpire gave Simmons out lbw if replays had shown the ball had pitched outside leg he wouldn't have been recalled so why was Samuel in this case.

wicketkeeper said:
The principle is exactly the same. Technology was used to overturn a decision made by an umpire. The umpire would not have asked for clarification as he gave him out and it looked out in real time. Somebody and I would like it clarified who it was only reviewed that decision after they saw a replay. which is wrong. It is clearly not the same as checking for no balls because in that instance the umpires had not mad a decision. In this case they had and it was wrongly overturned and in effect it cost us the game. When the umpire gave Simmons out lbw if replays had shown the ball had pitched outside leg he wouldn't have been recalled so why was Samuel in this case.
Click to expand...

Also if a player had been given out caught behind and replays showed he hadn't hit the ball the decision would not have been changed.
 
Last edited:
wicketkeeper said:
Totally different. In that case he was not given out by the umpire as they were all obvious catches. The umpires themselves used the video technology to check there was no ball.

In the Samuels case the umpire gave him out - he raised his finger. It is clear that someone else not the umpires queried that decision after watching a replay.
Click to expand...

The Ramdin catch in a earlier game was exactly the same, the batsmen was back to boundary rope and the new batsman out before he got recalled as the ball had touched the ground after review by the third umpire.
 
SAFC 2012 said:
Dunno why johnson bothers, he talks absolute shite and makes stuff up to suit what ever point hes trying to make :lol:
Click to expand...

:confused: what you on about? Everyone is agreeing and making the same points here. You really are such a child. Stick to the football will you. You are a WUM of the highest order.

Boinger said:
Just breezing through this thread, and seeing other reports, I cant believe Stokes is getting stick. A sad sign of modern times I'm afraid, where everything is always someones fault. Tripped over pissed....Councils fault, dodgy footpath etc

Sometimes you have to say the better team/man won, as in this case.....bell-ends to a man mind!
Click to expand...

Completely agree, the blame culture just annoys the hell out of me.
 
viccarlton said:
It's the contrived field placings/power plays etc. that makes it an entity in it's own right, it's not proper cricket because basically bowlers are like lambs to the slaughter, yes everyone likes to see runs scored but through the skill of the batsmen using their guile to manipulate the ball beyond a field set by the opposing captain, not just throwing the bat at every opportunity knowing that if you can get it over the infield you're going to score runs.

I watched the T20 World Cup and enjoyed it, I will be at the Riverside to watch us play as well, hopefully we'll do well and reach finals day, I even went to the Rose Bowl the time we made finals day ( Chanderpaul thought it was a test match) I wasn't gutted when we didn't perform the way we wanted them to, I take it for what it is, bish bash bosh.
Click to expand...

I guess its a question of preference so will have to agree to disagree mate

I just don't like a fanastic cool timed innings from Butler for example knocking of a score diltuted been called not proper cricket
 
Last edited:
Boinger said:
Just breezing through this thread, and seeing other reports, I cant believe Stokes is getting stick. A sad sign of modern times I'm afraid, where everything is always someones fault. Tripped over pissed....Councils fault, dodgy footpath etc

Sometimes you have to say the better team/man won, as in this case.....bell-ends to a man mind!
Click to expand...
no way was it stokes fault. we were done by a beast. i thought england were brilliant in the field bar four balls at the death.
 
stephen cartwright said:
no way was it stokes fault. we were done by a beast. i thought england were brilliant in the field bar four balls at the death.
Click to expand...

I agree, Stokes bowled a poor ball, which heaped the pressure on himself and gave Braithwaite confidence. The others were unbelievable shots, I mean he was like 6ft 8 and he was swinging himself off his feet. They were going 95m unbelievable hitting

There was an article on BBC which has annoyed the fuck out of me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35957892

This is disgrace, road to redemption for what? There is no exact science, he could have bowled an awful full toss and got a wicket etc. It isn't like missing a penalty in a penalty shootout
 
johnson said:
I agree, Stokes bowled a poor ball, which heaped the pressure on himself and gave Braithwaite confidence. The others were unbelievable shots, I mean he was like 6ft 8 and he was swinging himself off his feet. They were going 95m unbelievable hitting

There was an article on BBC which has annoyed the fuck out of me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35957892

This is disgrace, road to redemption for what? There is no exact science, he could have bowled an awful full toss and got a wicket etc. It isn't like missing a penalty in a penalty shootout
Click to expand...
Stokes should have bowled full and wide,he bowled in his arc and therefore more easy to hit for sixes. Still gotta give brathwaite credit, unbelievable hits.

That article is a load of crap.
 
mackembhoy said:
Stokes should have bowled full and wide,he bowled in his arc and therefore more easy to hit for sixes. Still gotta give brathwaite credit, unbelievable hits.

That article is a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah you could debate that, but he could also have hit that for 6, you don't know

What I mean is, its not a clear cut bad act is, its debatable. Every ball can be hit for 6, every ball can take a wicket.

Jordan on the semi final got 2 wickets in his last few overs that were right in the slot, perfect length to hit, but the blokes hit them straight to the fielder and they were out

Stokes has nothing to be sorry for, that article is a load of shite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top