sohum
Executive member
Well, to each his own. Personally, I'm not preconditioned to "any Test match is better than any T20 match". I'm a hardcore cricket fan but I sure ain't an unconditional one.The 5 day match, easily.
Again, you failed to understand my point. The ICC World Cup in West Indies in 2007 was a failure because it tried to be a money-grabbing adventure. The IPL is succeeding in spite of being the same. Which shows that the IPL knows something about marketing that the ICC does not. The fiasco stretches back even farther when, in 2003, the GCC's stupid conditional clauses in player contracts almost caused the Indian players to give the World Cup a miss.Yes, I do know what you mean. It's great cricket, and assuming it's held the way it should be in India, it should be another great tournament - not with all the cheerleaders and "entertainment" that is added to it. The cricket is supposed to be the main focus...no bands or anything playing.
While net cricket has its pros, I don't think there's any substitute for real cricket when preparing for a game. Sure, you will work on certain aspects of your technique better in the nets, but while in a real game, you're playing in real situations.So you are saying you'd be in better form if you hit 250 runs @ 40-60 with a strike rate of 120 for the test series coming up, or spending that time in the nets?
Then you should broadcast your sorrows to the players who obviously have their own benefits in mind. You can't just attack the IPL because its an easy target.That deeply saddens me.
All forms of cricket have negatives. Test cricket can be considered far too slow and if the competition is unmatched or the pitch is not ideal, then you could end up gaining very little over five days (case in point being the India-South Africa test match last year or maybe two years ago where Sehwag scored his second triple-ton). ODI cricket has had its share of trouble with the stagnating middle overs and the constant changing of the rules. Limited overs cricket was frowned upon when it was first introduced because it didn't comply with the purists notions of what cricket should be. I think we're seeing the same thing here. A game is not going to continue holding the same popularity till the end of time by staying the same. Even Test cricket has changed with things such as the rest day in between being done away with and mandating 90 overs of play a day.Yes, but there are more negatives than positives, IMO. That is why I don't like it, apart from the fact that I don't like the format of cricket, nor the way it is treated.