[diabloo]

Key word in your post is the word 'highlights'. Nobody wants to watch full test match. They want highlights. T20 is exactly that.

Originally Posted by deepakhon

Yesterday night in one of the channels, I was watching the highlights of an old India Vs England test match where India needed 438 to win in its last Innings.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by Eddy

I think the bidding was a one time process for 3 years. Now its trading like it happens in the EPL and other soccer leagues.

Originally Posted by Proxima

Is the amount for a 3 year term or is this a yearly pay?

this money is just a one year retainer.

[rks]

Give me good old-fashioned Test cricket any day. I have been following cricket for decades and I have to say that modern Test cricket has improved in many respects. Better equipment, TV coverage, instant replays, third umpire, minimum of 90 overs per day (so no time-wasting, a curse of Test cricket in the past), better fielding standards, and above all, fewer draws.

But unfortunately cricket has become big business and is no longer a gentleman's game. The biggest curse of the modern game is professionalism, wherein money-spinning becomes more important than playing for the country. With that comes the curse of match-fixing, chasing personal records at the expense of the team, greed, wheeling-dealing and politics (senior players ganging up to make life difficult for promising youngsters), etc., etc.

All of the latter disadvantages will be seen to the fullest extent in IPL, which, in my opinion, will be full of fixed games, mainly to keep spectator interest alive and the money flowing. It will be a circus like WWF. Neil Harvey, a former Australian great of the Bradman era, said that he switches off the TV when 20/20 games are on. I fully agree with him, though I don't grudge anybody their pleasure from watching the 20/20 stuff.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by rks

All of the latter disadvantages will be seen to the fullest extent in IPL, which, in my opinion, will be full of fixed games, mainly to keep spectator interest alive and the money flowing. It will be a circus like WWF.

I think this is taking it a little too far, without any proof. Please note that there are international players who are playing this game. A fixer will be a fixer, be it an ODI, test match or an IPL game. So if IPL is fixed, then chances are that all forms of cricket are fixed. But that is another debate altogether

[deepakhon]

Originally Posted by diabloo

Nobody wants to watch full test match. They want highlights. T20 is exactly that.

I would love to. I just love watching test matches. I have got up at odd hours early in the mornings and bunked many a class during my college days to watch test matches. Even today, I get up early in the mornings to watch Australia series.

There are die hard fans of test matches and I am one of them. I acknowledge though that the numbers are dwindling.

[Nitin]

I'm really glad that Zee Sports (in the US) has re-runs of the 1979 Test matches b/w India & England,at Lords. Really nice to see the good old form of cricket.

[diabloo]

Symonds stunned by IPL offer - Symonds was taken aback after learning that the Hyderabad franchisee of the IPL has bought him for a huge USD 1.35 million.

Ponting surprised at his low price - Ponting went to Kolkata for $400,000. "I thought I might have been able to attract a little bit more than that," Ponting said.

[CaAT]

My final time on this topic. Apologies if you find this rather too long.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

All over the world???

A classic case of nit picking, eh? I thought we were discussing cricket and the 'whole world' knows that only a select few countries play it. So when I referred to T20's popularity all over the world, I thought it would be taken as 'cricket playing nations all over the world' and not Latin America, Scandinevia, China, S Korea, Azherbaijan, Uzbekistan and et al. Or was I expecting too much?

My observations were based on the following facts:

a) Spectacular success of the inaugural T20 world cup.
b) Huge crowds that throng almost all the T20 matches in England
c) The increasing popularity of Stanford league and WICB's subsequent decision to accept it as the official T20 tournament in West Indies
d) It's popularity in Australia and NZ. Remember, almost 84 k people watching the recent T20 tie between Australia and India.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

It better be serious with such astronomical sums of money involved. Its pure, sheer entertainment, not cricket, the only skill you need is to whack the ball on a wicket which will most probably be a run-riot. A 3-4 over whirlwind knock can make or break a career and its SAD for cricket. Besides I am very sure SRK will use this as a publicity medium for all his future movies.

Somehow, we can accept Vijay Mallya promoting his products/himself through cricket or Motosports, although he is connected with neither of them in anywhich way. We even accept Indian Cements buying the Chennai team and Decan Chronicle buying the Hyderabad team. But deep inside our minds we attach Bollywood with 'loose masala talks' and cannot envisage it as a fledging industry.

Btw, what is your objection to Shahrukh based on? That he promotes his films though cricket or he will be doing it through T20 cricket? If it is the latter, you will remember that the entire theme of India's tour to England last year was based on 'Chuk De India' and SRK was very much a part of it. If it is the former, then it is altogether a different matter of debate. It is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Let a 20-20 cricketer make it to test cricket except those who are already there. We all know how dhoni was a big failure in the test series down under. Besides its very very ambitious to even think that this will affect the way people play test cricket.

IMO, a good cricketer will remain good irrespective of the format. Players like Brett Lee, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Sanggakara, Jayasuriya have done well in all three forms of the game (Tests, ODIs and T20s). Likewise, there is no reason for me to believe why a good T20 player will not (or cannot) do well in the longer version of the game.

Having said that, just like One Day matches had it's own specialists in Bevan, Jadeja, Robin Singh etc, T20 too will also have it's own.

Wait for couple of years and you will see many players currently playing in the Stanford league graduate to the West Indian test team. As for India Rohit Sharma is most likely to make to the test grade in near future.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Besides its very very ambitious to even think that this will affect the way people play test cricket.

ODI cricket has certainly changed the way test cricket is played today. Importantly, it has changed for better. But when ODIs began taking roots in the late 70s, people ridiculed it as 'pyjama cricket' or 'circus cricket'. Ditto with T20 cricket. Already, we are seeing 200 runs being scored with alarming ease in T20 cricket. 400-450 runs/day could well be the norm in test cricket too. Who knows, the bowlers may device newer deliveries to get better of the batsmen, considering that the current playing conditions are heavily biased against the. Who knows, ICC itself will be forced to change the conditions in favour of bowlers.

As RKS said in one of his posts, Test cricket itself has evolved big time over the last few decades. Those who have watched the game three/four decades ago will vouch for it. But it also needs to keep evolving in order to remain popular, not only amongst the 'classes' but also the 'masses'. If T20 acts as a stimulus for that change, I am all for it!

Afterall, as they say, the only thing that is constant in cricket is.... Change!

T20 was born because English Cricket Board needed cash to sustain the county cricket. Moreover, ODI cricket was becoming increasingly predictable in the mid overs. I believe if Test cricket is to be made popular beyond the limited countries that play the game today, T20 is THE format to adopt.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I said it with all sincerity and with no offence to anyone. Afterall people love entertainment its just that I have other better ways of entertaining myself.

My gripe against you was your painting everyone who loves T20 with the same brush of 'test cricket haters'. I believe the coming generation (I am not young enough to be called Gennext) will simply love T20 cricket. Whether the Test cricket continues to charm them or not, only time will decide. So will the ICC...

[CaAT]

Originally Posted by rks

Neil Harvey, a former Australian great of the Bradman era, said that he switches off the TV when 20/20 games are on. I fully agree with him, though I don't grudge anybody their pleasure from watching the 20/20 stuff.

Harvey and Keith Miller remain two of my favourite cricketers from Sir Don's invincible team of 1948. No two doubts about his batting class, but are you aware what they call him down under? A 'rent a quote' former player!

gosh! My friends from BBC should watch me defending T20 and saying things about Harvey. They would probably faint.

[Surprise]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

this money is just a one year retainer.

I was under the impression that bidding amount goes to BCCI and not to players as they would have already hired these guys into IPL and aution is for - WHICH TEAM ARE THEY INTO?

, Ishat Sharma (19 yrs) with less than 20 wicket in his international car............................

[diabloo]

Whats the fuss? 19yr old gets $950K, so what? Thats his value for his abilities in T20 game.

Originally Posted by Surprise

, Ishat Sharma (19 yrs) with less than 20 wicket in his international car............................

[tsk1979]

Its like the stock market, you bet on future value.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by CaAT

A classic case of nit picking, eh? I thought we were discussing cricket and the 'whole world' knows that only a select few countries play it. So when I referred to T20's popularity all over the world, I thought it would be taken as 'cricket playing nations all over the world' and not Latin America, Scandinevia, China, S Korea, Azherbaijan, Uzbekistan and et al. Or was I expecting too much?

Nit pickings... not quite. West Indies cricket is almost on the brink, they dont even have the money to support contracts of all their players. Zimbabwe in my book is gone already, Sri Lanka doesnt have new talent coming up and so is pakistan. Of all the major cricket playing countries except a few, all the other one's are facing the heat. ICC desperation can be seen clearly in the ongoing under 19 world cup, where the entry is free for all.

Originally Posted by CaAT

My observations were based on the following facts:
a) Spectacular success of the inaugural T20 world cup.
b) Huge crowds that throng almost all the T20 matches in England
c) The increasing popularity of Stanford league and WICB's subsequent decision to accept it as the official T20 tournament in West Indies
d) It's popularity in Australia and NZ. Remember, almost 84 k people watching the recent T20 tie between Australia and India.

For how long, 20-20 is still an infant and is in its honeymoon period primarily because of the media hype. I dont know for how long people would want to see 20-20 game which is spineless and pure luck than test fo temperament, ability and skill. All said and done it might be spectator friendly but it has diluted all that was good with cricket.

Originally Posted by CaAT

Somehow, we can accept Vijay Mallya promoting his products/himself through cricket or Motosports, although he is connected with neither of them in anywhich way. We even accept Indian Cements buying the Chennai team and Decan Chronicle buying the Hyderabad team. But deep inside our minds we attach Bollywood with 'loose masala talks' and cannot envisage it as a fledging industry.

I took an example of SRK. I may have taken Vijay Mallya's example too. Its big money and they are not out to do charity and I know for a fact that they care a dammmm about the development of cricket. Its only about money.

Originally Posted by CaAT

Btw, what is your objection to Shahrukh based on? That he promotes his films though cricket or he will be doing it through T20 cricket? If it is the latter, you will remember that the entire theme of India's tour to England last year was based on 'Chuk De India' and SRK was very much a part of it. If it is the former, then it is altogether a different matter of debate. It is not going to happen.

I have no objection, I just said that its not cricket. Afterall one doesnt spend 500 crores and get nothing in return. For a businessman he is, I wont be surprised if he earns double the amount he has spent at the expense of you and me.

Originally Posted by CaAT

IMO, a good cricketer will remain good irrespective of the format. Players like Brett Lee, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Sanggakara, Jayasuriya have done well in all three forms of the game (Tests, ODIs and T20s). Likewise, there is no reason for me to believe why a good T20 player will not (or cannot) do well in the longer version of the game.

If Brett Lee, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist were doing well in 20-20 I dont see how they lost to India. Besides there are only handful cricketers which can do well in both test and 20-20.
Lets put it this way an average player can do well in 20-20 but not in test cricket.

Originally Posted by CaAT

ODI cricket has certainly changed the way test cricket is played today. Importantly, it has changed for better. But when ODIs began taking roots in the late 70s, people ridiculed it as 'pyjama cricket' or 'circus cricket'. Ditto with T20 cricket. Already, we are seeing 200 runs being scored with alarming ease in T20 cricket. 400-450 runs/day could well be the norm in test cricket too. Who knows, the bowlers may device newer deliveries to get better of the batsmen, considering that the current playing conditions are heavily biased against the. Who knows, ICC itself will be forced to change the conditions in favour of bowlers.

The way is see it, 20-20 will dilute all other forms of cricket with such huge money flowing in. Do you really think if a player does well in 20-20 and if it becomes popular with the masses, he needs to play any other form of cricket? I couldnt have imagined a player getting 6 crores just for a single season.... for what.... 20-20 games which arent even official!
If it isnt just about money, then I would love to know what it is all about?

Originally Posted by CaAT

As RKS said in one of his posts, Test cricket itself has evolved big time over the last few decades. Those who have watched the game three/four decades ago will vouch for it. But it also needs to keep evolving in order to remain popular, not only amongst the 'classes' but also the 'masses'. If T20 acts as a stimulus for that change, I am all for it!

You mean to say all the other sports havent evovled at all? Evolution is not a force but a process. And its not India or Sri Lanka or XYZ who have changed the way its played, they have only evolved with Australia who really changed the way its played with their result oriented approach and they all played one-day cricket too.

Originally Posted by CaAT

Afterall, as they say, the only thing that is constant in cricket is.... Change!

I hope it was change for good as well. All we are doing is to make cricket compete with soccer which is now a rage outside and is the most played sport in the world. The basic nature of cricket is that it can never be played like soccer but we are tryin too hard, spoiling the game as we go along. What next.. a 10-10, if I dont have time for a 20-20, I need viewers!

Originally Posted by CaAT

T20 was born because English Cricket Board needed cash to sustain the county cricket. Moreover, ODI cricket was becoming increasingly predictable in the mid overs. I believe if Test cricket is to be made popular beyond the limited countries that play the game today, T20 is THE format to adopt.

Cricket can't be football.... it will be predictable to some extent, thats the basic nature of the game.

Originally Posted by CaAT

My gripe against you was your painting everyone who loves T20 with the same brush of 'test cricket haters'. I believe the coming generation (I am not young enough to be called Gennext) will simply love T20 cricket. Whether the Test cricket continues to charm them or not, only time will decide. So will the ICC...

I dont know how a test cricket lover can even term 20-20 games as cricket.

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by diabloo

Ponting surprised at his low price - Ponting went to Kolkata for $400,000. "I thought I might have been able to attract a little bit more than that," Ponting said.

Reality bites hard....

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Surprise

I was under the impression that bidding amount goes to BCCI and not to players as they would have already hired these guys into IPL and aution is for - WHICH TEAM ARE THEY INTO?

, Ishat Sharma (19 yrs) with less than 20 wicket in his international car............................

Each of his delivery is worth more than 1 lakh rupees! Beat that!