Bowlers benefitting from 20/20 Cricket

Illterate in cricketing terms...

You've heard the term "cricket illiteracy" before now... no?

Richard said:

Illterate in cricketing terms...

You've heard the term "cricket illiteracy" before now... no?

Click to expand...

Don't know. I can't read.

General illiteracy doesn't have to result in cricket illiteracy, though.

Nor the other way around, for that matter.

Don't think Twenty20 will have a big effect. Players playing any cricket will get better and that goes for whatever of the main three formats is played. You will see more variations from batsman and bowler. The lap shot over fine leg or that sweep shot Loye plays is the sort of thing you'll see more of (I'm not saying either shot are a direct consequence of Twenty20). Players will obviously get better at death over cricket (except if they're English) and I think you'll see an even greater ability by teams to accelerate the scoring as well as being a bit more exposed if a pitch offers a lot to bowlers or is difficult to time shots on. So in ODIs you'll see more 350+ scores on roads and probably more sub 200 scores on tricky pitches. Wickets will become more important because players will be able to convert wickets remaining in to fast runs more effectively.

Other than this we'll probably see more spinners and more really express bowlers.

Richard said:

How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.

Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by an effect, really. I'd say it has directly affected our ODI selection already; Messers Nixon & Yardy wouldn't have got a go without it, certainly.

Richard said:

How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.

Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is making that claim. Pretty much every opinion offered in this thread has been in the future tense.

In case you haven't noticed the thread was titled "bowlers benefitting from Twenty20". That use is in the current-tense.

BoyBrumby said:

Depends what you mean by an effect, really.

Click to expand...

I meant an effect on the way the players play the other games.

I'd say it has directly affected our ODI selection already; Messers Nixon & Yardy wouldn't have got a go without it, certainly.

Click to expand...

No doubting that (well, I'm not totally sure about Nixon, has always been regarded as a shrewd one-day "finisher", albeit without the not-outs to prove it), but mixing-up different game-forms has long been a problem in English selection.

Richard said:

In case you haven't noticed the thread was titled "bowlers benefitting from Twenty20". That use is in the current-tense.

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the thread title is a truncated sentence and reasonably meaningless without the reader embellishing it, it really is deemed irrelevant by the actual content of the posts in the thread, which are almost exclusively in the future tense.

Ffs, do you have to criticise every little thing?

Richard said:

In case you haven't noticed the thread was titled "bowlers benefitting from Twenty20". That use is in the current-tense.

Click to expand...

nice to see you take notice of what is posted, and not just the thread title

16 tins of Spam said:

Aside from the fact that the thread title is a truncated sentence and reasonably meaningless without the reader embellishing it, it really is deemed irrelevant by the actual content of the posts in the thread, which are almost exclusively in the future tense.

Ffs, do you have to criticise every little thing?

Click to expand...

Nope, and maybe if you didn't have such a pre-prejudiced attitude you might realise I don't.

Also, you might want to remember the basic "silence is assent" rule that I mostly adhere to - in that a post which is simply "I agree" is about the most boring thing in history.

Did I, incidentally, criticise one single post in the thread? If I had, you might have noticed me quoting from it.

It is you who are flailing around with the generalisations in this case.

Clapo said:

nice to see you take notice of what is posted, and not just the thread title

Click to expand...

Given that I didn't quote and contradict a single post, what exactly makes you think I didn't...?

Richard said:

How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.

Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.

Click to expand...

Richard said:

Did I, incidentally, criticise one single post in the thread? If I had, you might have noticed me quoting from it.

Click to expand...

Oh jeez, weasel words. So what if you didn't criticise a specific post? If you read through your initial post (which I've conveniently included for your perusal), you'll note that it was generally critical of anyone who has a particular opinion, which is bizarre because no-one here even expressed that opinion in the first place.

Exactly - which might just suggest to you that I was being critical of precisely no-one who had so far posted in this thread.

Well then what the hell was the point of the post?

Just admit it, you were ranting in response to the title without bothering to get an idea about what anyone actually thought about the subject at hand. You're so desperate to force your 'superior' knowledge upon us that what we think doesn't matter.

Bull****.

I was pointing-out a fact - whether I was pre-empting or replying is clearly irrelevant from where you're coming from.

And the fact is, I was pre-empting - I didn't have anything to say in response to what'd already been said, so I didn't reply to anything that had already been said.

Richard said:

I was pointing-out a fact - whether I was pre-empting or replying is clearly irrelevant from where you're coming from.

And the fact is, I was pre-empting - I didn't have anything to say in response to what'd already been said, so I didn't reply to anything that had already been said.

Click to expand...

Pre-empting? Give me a break. Why get so excited over a point of view that hasn't even been brought up?

Now we are to believe that every time you do something that is apparent to everyone else as making a mistake, you were either pre-empting, or simply hadn't bothered to make the point as in this example?

Umm, why?

16 tins of Spam said:

Pre-empting? Give me a break. Why get so excited over a point of view that hasn't even been brought up?

Click to expand...

Err - it had been brought-up - in the title.

Now we are to believe that every time you do something that is apparent to everyone else as making a mistake, you were either pre-empting, or simply hadn't bothered to make the point as in this example?

Click to expand...

You have been the only one recently who has seeked to pick as many non-existent holes as you can possibly find. It does get rather tiring, but as I said - I'm not the sort to give-up the ghost.

I made no mistake in making a general point reference to the title and not to any individual reply, and you'd do well to get that through your apparently-rather-thick skull.