ICC World T20 2016

Samid

He's no Bilal Ilyas Jhandir
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
49,404
Location
Oslo, Norway
The position names on that graph are hurting my eyes. Bloody Americans, why can't they just start playing cricket?
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
What's the drugs thing about?! Never read or heard about that before.
So to give a brief outline, cricket has extremely lax drug testing. It does not implement things like Wada's 'whereabouts' reporting (except in one case which I'll come back to) and generally does little more than urine testing.

Despite that, one player is due to be banned for testing positive for a banned substance (Kusal Perera), one has been banned for testing positive for a masking agent (Yasir Shah), and one is awaiting sentencing because he has the misfortune of being Jamaican, the one cricket playing nation that insists cricketers use Wada's whereabout system, and missed three tests over the past year (Andre Russell).

As for English cricket, I know for a fact that many players recreationally use drugs. The most high profile scandal involved Tom Maynard, and they had plans to tighten up testing, including taking hair samples after that (as an aside, can you think of an English cricketer who started shaving his hair after that news came out?) but still are nowhere near Olympic testing standards.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
Baseball games are dominated by pitchers. I believe the starting pitchers are on average the highest paid players in the MLB.

Then that suggests that bowling will innovate and improve a lot incoming years to balance out the contest. New bowlers like Bangladesh' Mustafiz and England's Willey show that their is plenty of room for new techniques to be perfected in ODI and T20. Just needs focus and committement from coaches and boards.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
The position names on that graph are hurting my eyes. Bloody Americans, why can't they just start playing cricket?
I often think that too. Surely baseball skills would lend quite neatly into ODI and T20 cricket. Just like the Chinese demonstrated in Beijing Olympics, find baseball players who have the right cricket physiques and then train them. I'm sure USA could produce a competitive T20 team in 4 years if the will was there.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
So to give a brief outline, cricket has extremely lax drug testing. It does not implement things like Wada's 'whereabouts' reporting (except in one case which I'll come back to) and generally does little more than urine testing.

Despite that, one player is due to be banned for testing positive for a banned substance (Kusal Perera), one has been banned for testing positive for a masking agent (Yasir Shah), and one is awaiting sentencing because he has the misfortune of being Jamaican, the one cricket playing nation that insists cricketers use Wada's whereabout system, and missed three tests over the past year (Andre Russell).

As for English cricket, I know for a fact that many players recreationally use drugs. The most high profile scandal involved Tom Maynard, and they had plans to tighten up testing, including taking hair samples after that (as an aside, can you think of an English cricketer who started shaving his hair after that news came out?) but still are nowhere near Olympic testing standards.

Thanks for explaining - very useful 101.

Yes makes total sense.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
You're not the first person who has said this today. It has its critics but I think it works and this is Cricket's best chance by far to truly globalize the game.
The thing that shone through for me in this tournament was the ridiculous level of skill required to perform some of the batting shots (eg: tennis like forearm arm smash for 6) some of the bowling (eg: wide Yonkers) and some of the fielding (eg: 2 man tag boundary catches). These are genuine cricket innovations that improve the game overall.

Likewise I love how the momentum can shift between teams in the matter of 2 overs. And also the inventiveness and speed with which captains have to calculate and execute ever changing strategies. Today's Final was thoroughly engrossing - it had it all and I was transfixed on the screen from the first ball to the last.

I grew up with king Viv, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Khan and Botham playing test cricket as a kid and loved it. Sat in front of TV for 5 full days and was thoroughly entertained. But I struggle to see its relevance into the future. Purists and older fans may not like it, but test cricket will die out in less than 10 years.
 
Last edited:

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,066
I often think that too. Surely baseball skills would lend quite neatly into ODI and T20 cricket. Just like the Chinese demonstrated in Beijing Olympics, find baseball players who have the right cricket physiques and then train them. I'm sure USA could produce a competitive T20 team in 4 years if the will was there.
They're not really similar sports tbh. Plus if you're good enough for baseball, it would be foolish switching to cricket. The MLB is a lot more lucrative than Cricket, even with the IPL and everything.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
One thing I don't understand is why Morgan did not bowl Moeen Ali when Adil Rashid clearly showed that spin was shackling the West Indies Batsmen. Makes no sense to me. Anyone have any plausible theory?
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
Lots of stories about Samuels being fined 30% of his match fee for swearing at Stokes in the press. I wish England would learn how to get this cnut out.

Stokes is highly skilled and a regular practitioner in the art of sledging. I don't have any sympathy for Stokes on that front.
 

Ayush_reddevil

Éire Abú
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
10,750
I keep saying this again and again but one of the first things limited overs cricket needs is to change the one bowler can only bowl 20% of the total overs rule. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 6 each and you will see a completely new dimension to T20. I absolutely love T20 cricket but I am a bit afraid that it's just becoming far too much about power hitting and slogging, you need to look at the ground sizes as well as the dew as well. In a game so short you have to reduce how important factors like the toss are
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
I keep saying this again and again but one of the first things limited overs cricket needs is to change the one bowler can only bowl 20% of the total overs rule. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 6 each and you will see a completely new dimension to T20. I absolutely love T20 cricket but I am a bit afraid that it's just becoming far too much about power hitting and slogging, you need to look at the ground sizes as well as the dew as well. In a game so short you have to reduce how important factors like the toss are
I also think they should introduce a rule for 8 runs if you hit the ball OUT of the stadium or say over 90m

I'm being serious... 6 is too uniform a reward for some vastly different shots.
 

Red Devil 26

Premature Examination
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,334
Location
Sydenham
I am a cricket purist as well but it is hard to deny that T20 is the only way you can globalize cricket. So railing against it is futile. It is the future.

It is also important to grasp the criticism of T20 by fans of another era. It is not someone just being a hipster. Cricket's simplest definition is as being a contest between bat and ball. Some of the most talented, colorful, celebrated and beloved cricketers have been bowlers. In T20 you see an all time great bowler in Steyn being rendered completely helpless. There is little chance of any bowler capturing the imagination of the audience in this format ala batsmen.

That's not just down to the pitches but also the fact that bowler's participation is limited to just 4 overs. In fact overly bowler friendly pitches turn out boring T20 contests more often that not. Even in ODIs it is hard to strike the right balance between bat and ball when it comes to pitches and there too the balance has swung to one side way too much in the last decade.

So what is the consequence of such format which favors batsmen so much over bowlers? Eventually one particular skill set of the game will be in much much more demand than the other. In fact we probably have already seen impact of this, with a real drop in quality of bowlers in this era. It is only going to get worse. And this will hurt the game of cricket overall, even if T20 ends up bring in more countries and audience.
That's a very good point. It bothers me that genuinely good bowlers don't seem to be able to find a niche in T20 cricket. I guess it's a challenge for them to come up with the variety to be more effective in this format, but it's quite incredible seeing quality bowlers being dispatched or overlooked entirely. The likes of Southee and Boult didn't even get a game for NZ.
 

shabz

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
2,595
Location
Manchester
One thing I don't understand is why Morgan did not bowl Moeen Ali when Adil Rashid clearly showed that spin was shackling the West Indies Batsmen. Makes no sense to me. Anyone have any plausible theory?
They saw what happened to Benn even though Badree was having great success. Ali does not have many variations like Benn and is a basic off spinner that can be used to put in overs when the team needs it, he wasn't worth the risk. He would have possibly been smacked around the ground and England had capable seamers to take it to the end.
 

suheilsworld

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
3,427
Location
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Loving this to bits! Have supported West Indies from the time I started watching cricket. It's tough being a West Indian fan in the last 20 years or so but moments like these make you realize why everyone loves them! What a game! What a finish! Loved Sammy's speech in the end. Spot on and really hope the board gets things straight. Read somewhere that the new board chairman who has been here for last 2-3 years is trying to sort a lot of things and hope we can get this T20 momentum into 50 over game at least. Test cricket success is still far away but in limited over game I am sure we can build a team from this T20 team.
 

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,777
Location
Mumbai
Those tweets make him the greatest cricketer that ever lived. GOD. MESSIAH.
 

KM

I’m afraid I just blue myself
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
49,737
Regretting the fact that I didn't WUM the English supporters after the final, just like some of them did after our semi final exit but then I guess class shows in the end :)
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,187
Location
Interweb
@sammsky1 baseball comparisons are off. Good Pitchers are actually essential to any winning team. In Baseball, the game is not affected by pitch too.
In T20s, bowlers are being encouraged to try on skills that are not in tune with conventional teachings. Hence why the best T20 bowler in Malinga, was a below average test bowler. Infact according to many on here, he was not even a good ODI bowler!
 

Insanity

Most apt username 2015
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,206
Location
Location
Although, the zone for a pitcher in baseball is very small, he is neither constrained by the flatness of the deck, nor he has to deal with a wide and heavy bat.

One way to bring a little parity is to allow bowlers to scuff the ball within permissible limits. No foreign substances or use of a sharp/abrasive tool, but an allowance to rough the ball. They need to revisit the 'anything outside leg is a wide' rule. Also, allow more over the shoulder balls in an over.
 

Nighteyes

Another Muppet
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
25,467
I keep saying this again and again but one of the first things limited overs cricket needs is to change the one bowler can only bowl 20% of the total overs rule. Allow 2 bowlers to bowl 6 each and you will see a completely new dimension to T20. I absolutely love T20 cricket but I am a bit afraid that it's just becoming far too much about power hitting and slogging, you need to look at the ground sizes as well as the dew as well. In a game so short you have to reduce how important factors like the toss are
Nah. Totally against this.

I'd rather they abolish the power plays altogether. Batsmen don't really need them to score big.
 

zing

Zingle balls
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
13,804
I am a cricket purist as well but it is hard to deny that T20 is the only way you can globalize cricket. So railing against it is futile. It is the future.

It is also important to grasp the criticism of T20 by fans of another era. It is not someone just being a hipster. Cricket's simplest definition is as being a contest between bat and ball. Some of the most talented, colorful, celebrated and beloved cricketers have been bowlers. In T20 you see an all time great bowler in Steyn being rendered completely helpless. There is little chance of any bowler capturing the imagination of the audience in this format ala batsmen.

That's not just down to the pitches but also the fact that bowler's participation is limited to just 4 overs. In fact overly bowler friendly pitches turn out boring T20 contests more often that not. Even in ODIs it is hard to strike the right balance between bat and ball when it comes to pitches and there too the balance has swung to one side way too much in the last decade.

So what is the consequence of such format which favors batsmen so much over bowlers? Eventually one particular skill set of the game will be in much much more demand than the other. In fact we probably have already seen impact of this, with a real drop in quality of bowlers in this era. It is only going to get worse. And this will hurt the game of cricket overall, even if T20 ends up bring in more countries and audience.
I think T20 is good, but the many leagues around the world are rubbish

have long held this view. World T20 has always been a great tournament.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
38,187
Location
Interweb
I think T20 is good, but the many leagues around the world are rubbish

have long held this view. World T20 has always been a great tournament.
Yes. For every 2 years or so it is great fun but we do seem to be entering an era where T20 cricket will be the bread and butter. Part of the reason is that 'casual' fans seem to be find it the most entertaining form and that is where the money is.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
To be fair, he has the talent that would make the English fans go 'He may be a cock, but he's our cock'.
Only works when you u can back it up by winning like Keane or SAF.

He was spanked hard yesterday. Hope he uses experience to make himself a better but more humble player.
 

fishfingers15

Contributes to username and tagline changes
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
27,115
Location
YESHHHHH, We'll GOOO for it.
Only works when you u can back it up by winning like Keane or SAF.

He was spanked hard yesterday. Hope he uses experience to make himself a better but more humble player.
I don't understand this 'humbleness' requirement to be honest. He's a great talent and he has done well for England and he's one of the main reasons the English team has turned their fortunes around. Him being humble has nothing to do with his disastrous over. His success so far goes hand in hand with his brashness.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
I don't understand this 'humbleness' requirement to be honest. He's a great talent and he has done well for England and he's one of the main reasons the English team has turned their fortunes around. Him being humble has nothing to do with his disastrous over. His success so far goes hand in hand with his brashness.
What I meant is he only gets sympathy from the abuse when he can deliver upon his bravado. He can be whetever he likes to be, but yesterday he was all mouth and no actions.

For a supposed world class professional Cricketer who should be able to execute what his brain intendo, his last over was bordering on incompetent. 4 meat pies for Braithwaite to talk into. Of course there was skill from the batsman, but Stokes balls allowed the shots to be possible.

Had he been a more humble man, he would give getting more sympathy now.
 

prath92

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
12,322
Location
India
ODI cricket has become a really batsmen orienteed games. They should remove the powerplays or make it like 5 overs. And increase no.of bouncers allowed to 3 per over or so. Remove Free hits but instead give 2 runs for each no ball.

And increase ground size. T20 can have smaller ground dimensions but ODI cricket should have huge grounds making it harder to hit sixes
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
I think the problem with ODI cricket is that its just the worst of the two games. It doesn't have the ebbs, flows, and pressure of test match cricket. It doesn't have the excitement and drama of T20 cricket.

The first 10 overs of powerplay are fine, the last 15 overs are fine, but its the middle 25 where teams are content to push and nurdle that ruin it for me.

I honestly thought the ECB had the right idea reducing it to 40 overs per side, not only did it shorten the game (and lets be honest ODI cricket is a massive time investment) but it kept the good bits of ODI cricket largely in-tact.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
I really wouldn't miss ODI's. I suppose that's easily said, when you're an England cricket fan, and don't quite enjoy its history as much as supporters of teams that won a tournament or two, but I don't see what it offers (or even potentially offers) that isn't served better by the other two forms.

Would much prefer to have more international 20 over cricket, in its place (it's silly how little of it there is).