Premier leagues and the future of cricket

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by DarthSImian That is your perception. T20 can also be seen as a very competitive event, which in itself consists of inherent pressure, commitment and skill from the players involved. Albeit a different kind of skill from tests, but skill nevertheless.

There is "skill" involved in being a good party person after a day's hard work. Whether that skill is important on its own or independently is the real question.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian That would be the purpose of some Hong Kong Sixes or some other All Star tournament but we are talking about professional T20 leagues. The idea is pure competition, that's all.

Yes, you can define anything as competition these days. Debating a point on these forums between Indian and Pakistani fans is competition on a scale at the other end of which sits something like an intense subcontinental test match - or a world cup final/semifinal.

That the major teams in a T20 tournament are owned by Bollywood stars should tell you all you need to know the difference between Hong Kong sixes / T20 entertainment and real cricket.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian There are many who have made name just from T20. For example, Sunil Narine. Yeah, he might have done well in ODIs or would do in tests, but he became prominent just because of his performances in T20. If people cheer him, it is not because he was a star already but because he has delivered in the COMPETITION.

There are only a handful of such players, and that they have made their own names in T20 doesn't mean that they sit in the same bracket as the real stars who made their names in tests or ODIs.

Your reasoning here is circular - you are measuring the player's stardom in the format and setup where he has excelled. How that player is perceived in broader cricket is something altogether different.

[Krishnan]

Originally Posted by DarthSImian I already answered it in the other thread. There is a better and exciting form of cricket, and that is why it is more popular than tests. Earlier, there was no other choice for viewers than ODIs and tests and that's why it used to have decent crowds. But, with the discovery of a better form, the popularity has shifted to it. Just because something was popular earlier doesn't mean that they should not introduce a more popular form. If there is something better, it WILL be introduce and it will replace older versions. Rule of life. Need to change with the popularity or remain on the minority.

1. T20 is a better form of cricket?good analysis,keep it up.for people like u,even 5 ovrs cricket will a better form of cricket than tests and one days.


2.there were no decent crowds earlier,there were full crowds.What minority?Lol ur contradicting yourself again and again.There was no minority anywhere and everyone used to watch tests and one days.You yourself change the majority into the minority and the complain its a minority now.

[DarthSImian]

Originally Posted by Krishnan 1. T20 is a better form of cricket?good analysis,keep it up.for people like u,even 5 ovrs cricket will a better form of cricket than tests and one days.

More exciting, more popular, more fun.

Better form of cricket? Easily.

2.there were no decent crowds earlier,there were full crowds.What minority?Lol ur contradicting yourself again and again.There was no minority anywhere and everyone used to watch tests and one days.You yourself change the majority into the minority and the complain its a minority now.

[/quote]

What contradiction? They used to have crowds because there was no other choice. Now, when there is an exciting form of cricket, of course, the test crowd will disappear. It is pretty elementary.

The test lovers are minority. Which is the meaning of the statement - change with the popularity or remain in the minority.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by DarthSImian More exciting, more popular, more fun. Better form of cricket? Easily. What contradiction? They used to have crowds because there was no other choice. Now, when there is an exciting form of cricket, of course, the test crowd will disappear. It is pretty elementary. The test lovers are minority. Which is the meaning of the statement - change with the popularity or remain in the minority.

I think you are confused between the arguments of popularity versus superiority. McDonald's is a popular restaurant - that doesn't mean the fine dining fans should start switching into it. To them, it's junk/fast food - yes, popular food, but junk/fast food. McDonald's makes more money than the fine dining chains, yes, but it remains junk/fast foods to the fine diners. Those who love McDonald's can laugh at the fine diners spending so much more time and money on those stakes and triple courses - and that's their perception.

While a similar dynamic is at work between tests and T20s, the problem is that T20 game cannot exist without the players who made their names on the test/ODI side. There are some exciting and some boring test players, something that reflects in their valuations, but those are the players people want to see. T20 is a convenient entertainment-driven opportunity to - proverbially - reach to the stars.

[DarthSImian]

Originally Posted by Ironcat I think you are confused between the arguments of popularity versus superiority.

Superiority is irrelevant. Superiority is also a perception, an opinion. When the two forms require different skillset, there is no question of comparing the two - each skillset is important for the respective form of the game. A T20 skill is not necessarily needed for test nor a test skill is necessarily needed for cricket.

McDonald's is a popular restaurant - that doesn't mean the fine dining fans should start switching into it

The only fault with that analogy is that fine dining taste's better than McDonald but McDonald is more affordable and hence makes money. It is the exactly other way round here. Tests are more affordable than T20 but T20 is more exciting and thus more popular.

A more suitable analogy is Scott Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby and say Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Both require skill to write, the latter is more popular than the former but the former's fan perceive it to be the best around.

While a similar dynamic is at work between tests and T20s, the problem is that T20 game cannot exist without the players who made their names on the test/ODI side. There are some exciting and some boring test players, something that reflects in their valuations, but those are the players people want to see. T20 is a convenient entertainment-driven opportunity to - proverbially - reach to the stars.

Wrong, it just seems like that because test comes with years of historical baggage against T20 which is just around 7 years old. You have many stars like Sunil Narine who are making their name with T20 alone and as time progresses T20 will be self-sufficient.

[praveen]

Its kinda ironic that T20 and IPL is sparking a silent revolution for the survical of test cricket. More fans are worried now about the death of the format, more fans are suddenly rating Tests as the pinnacle of success and class and even if we see the current scenario the currentl ENG-WI tests is a welcome relief amidst the excess IPL games on display.

Its unfair to typecast all indians as T20 fans and ignorant of the beauty of tests. India needs to be in good health , test matches wise , for the format to survive. As we are dropping down the rankings presently, more pundits and fans are getting alarmed of the real depth available in our squad now. Also i'm sure EVERY youngster picking his cricketing kit knows test matches are the real deal, whom are we kidding? (chris gayle is an exception) If he feels otherwise, its only because he is not capable of entering the country's test squad.

The solution is easy. Control the flow of test matches, excess T20s will make viewers earn for tests. From an Indian stand point, i can advise the BCCI to adopt seasons for playing cricket. Have a home (fall and spring)season , identify marquee grounds, plan the opponents and promote it better, well in a nutshell adopt the current australian model. We fans should also reward good cricketers and no matter how many sixers gayle bashes, place chanders on a slightly higher pedestal, making gayle wonder what should he do more to earn that respect.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by DarthSImian Superiority is irrelevant. Superiority is also a perception, an opinion. When the two forms require different skillset, there is no question of comparing the two - each skillset is important for the respective form of the game. A T20 skill is not necessarily needed for test nor a test skill is necessarily needed for cricket.

Superiority may be a convenient "perception" for your argument, but in most things in life, superiority is very objective. An i7 processor is superior to an i3 processor in terms of performance. The leading test players (Gayle for his team, KP, ABDV) excel and dominate in T20s - but not the other way around. Your flagship T20 player, Narine, is clueless in other formats. You need to prove that T20 requires a skillset that the test players are unable to master. Superiority is pretty objective in this instance.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian The only fault with that analogy is that fine dining taste's better than McDonald but McDonald is more affordable and hence makes money. It is the exactly other way round here. Tests are more affordable than T20 but T20 is more exciting and thus more popular. A more suitable analogy is Scott Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby and say Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Both require skill to write, the latter is more popular than the former but the former's fan perceive it to be the best around.

Wrong. Your argument is that of popularity and accessibility by general population of two competing products. The two books you mention have nothing in common other than that they are books. They are neither substitutes, nor competitors. The OP of this thread, on the other hand, is all about competition.

Tests are way more expensive than T20s - you need to invest up to 40 hours of your viewing time per match in tests. T20s? Hardly 3 hours. Your main customer base is NOT in the stadium.

So, back to the proper analogy, McDonalds is a general-public-inclusive, eat-it-all-in-15-minutes way to monetize dining out. A place such as Wayfare Tavern only appeals to those who want to and have the resources to spend not 15 minutes but maybe 3 hours of their evening time in having a multiple-course meal complete with a genuine dessert and 30-year-old bottle of wine.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian Wrong, it just seems like that because test comes with years of historical baggage against T20 which is just around 7 years old. You have many stars like Sunil Narine who are making their name with T20 alone and as time progresses T20 will be self-sufficient.

You have been using Narine for your last 20 posts. About time you came up with a second name.

[DarthSImian]

Originally Posted by Ironcat Superiority may be a convenient "perception" for your argument, but in most things in life, superiority is very objective. An i7 processor is superior to an i3 processor in terms of performance. The leading test players (Gayle for his team, KP, ABDV) excel and dominate in T20s - but not the other way around. Your flagship T20 player, Narine, is clueless in other formats. You need to prove that T20 requires a skillset that the test players are unable to master. Superiority is pretty objective in this instance.

Chanderpaul will be clueless in T20s. Trott will never dominate in T20. Your point being? Those skilled in tests need not be skilled in T20s and the same can be said the other way round.

See how I can use the same arguemnt the other way? That is why superiority is a perception. A processor can be compard because there is an objective form of measurement - speed. THere i nothing objective in talking about cricket skills in tests and T20s. Just perception about the respective skills.

Wrong. Your argument is that of popularity and accessibility by general population of two competing products. The two books you mention have nothing in common other than that they are books. They are neither substitutes, nor competitors. The OP of this thread, on the other hand, is all about competition.

Both are books and both are very different in terms of the enjoyment it gives the reader. Those preferring literary excellency will love Gatsby and those preferring a fantastical universe will prefer LOTR. In the same bookstore, they can very well compete against each other. A bookowner would know which book to stock.

Similarly, T20 and tests are different forms of cricket but varying in their popularity. Both require their respective skills and different set of customers. An organiser would know which form to focus upon, based on the viewers.

So, back to the proper analogy, McDonalds is a general-public-inclusive, eat-it-all-in-15-minutes way to monetize dining out. A place such as Wayfare Tavern only appeals to those who want to and have the resources to spend not 15 minutes but maybe 3 hours of their evening time in having a multiple-course meal complete with a genuine dessert and 30-year-old bottle of wine.

Again, McDonald may be FAST food but it is inexpensive and bad tasting than fine dining. T20 is way more exciting than tests and that is why its popularity. Not because people have less time to invest.

You have been using Narine for your last 20 posts. About time you came up with a second name.

T20s is just 6 years old and has mainly been played by "stars". When it has a historical baggage like tests or ODIs, there will be more names. Narine is just the starting point. In the future, you will hear names like Levi, Rahane etc who will become popular through T20s.

[Green Leopard]

Didn't T20 give Warner to Test cricket! That is sacrilegious! I hope he is the first and last.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by DarthSImian Chanderpaul will be clueless in T20s. Trott will never dominate in T20. Your point being? Those skilled in tests need not be skilled in T20s and the same can be said the other way round. See how I can use the same arguemnt the other way? That is why superiority is a perception. A processor can be compard because there is an objective form of measurement - speed. THere i nothing objective in talking about cricket skills in tests and T20s. Just perception about the respective skills.

Hah, it was too easy to predict this response. Several test cricketers don't want to, don't care to, don't have to, or don't need to adapt to or excel at T20s. I've given you examples of those who do want to or care to. And they did it like a knife through butter.

You need to give us examples of your T20 players who mastered tests. I don't know of Chanderpaul's motivation (maybe he doesn't give a hoot) - but the argument doesn't need him. To prove T20's supposedly equivalent skillset, you need to provide us examples of T20 cricketers hacking it in tests.

That's how logic works.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian Similarly, T20 and tests are different forms of cricket but varying in their popularity. Both require their respective skills and different set of customers. An organiser would know which form to focus upon, based on the viewers.

Sure, like I said, an entrepreneur can choose to open a fast food restaurant or a fine dining one. Running a fast food restaurant has its own nuances. Doesn't change the original argument though that one format is simply a dumbed down/more accessible version of the other.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian Again, McDonald may be FAST food but it is inexpensive and bad tasting than fine dining. T20 is way more exciting than tests and that is why its popularity. Not because people have less time to invest.

I'm not sure what evidence you have to prove (A) McDonalds is bad tasting or (B) T20s are more exciting. The only fact supported by evidence today is that both T20s and McDonalds are shorter/quicker versions, designed for a larger population, of something more specialized.

Originally Posted by DarthSImian T20s is just 6 years old and has mainly been played by "stars". When it has a historical baggage like tests or ODIs, there will be more names. Narine is just the starting point. In the future, you will hear names like Levi, Rahane etc who will become popular through T20s.

The evidence points to the contrary. In its 6 years of life, T20s have produced a single name - who can't even feature in the starting XI in tests. For me, this is sufficient evidence that the format cannot produce any real names. It must borrow "stars" from other formats.

[someone21]

Originally Posted by Ironcat The evidence points to the contrary. In its 6 years of life, T20s have produced a single name - who can't even feature in the starting XI in tests. For me, this is sufficient evidence that the format cannot produce any real names. It must borrow "stars" from other formats.

What is real names? Are all players playing in T20s fake names? Bad logic from you again and time again.

[Ironcat]

Originally Posted by someone21 What is real names? Are all players playing in T20s fake names? Bad logic from you again and time again.

Oops, my mistake, this discussion is rated PG13.