Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Latest Matches => Topic started by: Arthur on May 22, 2009, 10:38:02 PM
-
Ok, this has been touched on in the Mongoose bat topic, but how do you all feel about the introduction of new equipment/rules in aid of the shorter forms of the game? Should this continue, such as double sided bats, fielding restrictions, free hits etc, or should cricket go back to it's purest form, nice and "simple", with Test cricket the pinnacle of the sport? This view seems to be dwindling and people clearly just want an evening out watching someone with a baseball bat smack a ball around for an hour (aren't they in the wrong country?).
The way things are now, with less time available, people are not willing to watch the game at its best, 5 days of tactical cricket, as they get bored too easily, particularly the current generation of kids. I think Test cricket should stay as the main form, and everything else should just be an aside. Nothing generates more anticipation and excitement as an Ashes series in this country or Australia, so why should a 2020 change this?
Leave cricket as it was meant to be, stop turning it into a money making scheme as this is clearly what it seems to be about these days, with the ECB being a prime example of those ruining the game.
-
i have to be honest and say that i don't agree with this malark, Test is and always will be the pinnacle of the game, i know all of my friends would rather watch a test then a 20/20
-
Many many moths ago i posted a topic on another forum about this subject, it was before the first IPL tournament was played. My thoughts ain't changed in any way and i believe that 20/20 will ruin cricket if its allowed to continue in its current form. International players are not opting out of tours to play in the ipl and boards like the ecb cant stop them. They can go cross to India and earn a years wages in 2 month in 20/20 without the trouble of long tours and time away from the family.
Many people believe certain players retired from international cricket so they could just play 20/20 and ear more than there standard contracts, Gilchrist , Warne , Hayden etc etc are lost on the big stage of international cricket. Two 20/20 tournaments in England next season whats that all about ? i do like 20/20 but not at the cost of international cricket as we have known it for hundreds of years. Its time the various cricket boards got tuff and stopped players from going to 20/20 tournaments as its test cricket and international cricket that has made the players worth the amount of money bid in the ipl.
-
i 100% agree with you arthur, concentrate on test cricket
-
What a load of rubbish. All the players playing in the IPL(Indian players) main ambition is to play Test cricket. Twenty20 gives these youngsters exposure. It makes people take notice of their talent. Example is Napier, without twenty20 who he ever got called up for England? I highly doubt it.
With regards to the boards being unable to stop their players from taking apart in the IPL is a lie. Boards are well within their rights to decline giving their players NOC. Also retired players can be giving a 2 year cooling period by their boards. So I doubt they would retire early.
-
Have just done the start of an interesting series of interviews on this subject that will be available in a few weeks.
-
I think saying stuff like "leave cricket as it is" is all nice in the land of fairytales, but unfortunately we live in the real world. Unless the game continues to adapt to the demands of the people, its popularity will dwindle. People have less time to watch cricket these days, and regardless of what any of you may think I would suggest a large proportion of the British public would consider test match cricket very boring, apart from the Ashes. Twenty20 is essential in getting money into the sport, getting kids interested and preventing money being lost to other sports that are also trying to commercialise.
I love watching test cricket, but there is something so aimless about it. There is no goal other than to win a series between two teams, whereas both the ODI and Twenty20 format boast the potential for world cups, triangular tournaments etc... and to me that is far more interesting than just a one off series (apart from the Ashes).
One other big problem I have with test cricket is the massive increase risk in injury there comes from it. It is incredibly demanding to be playing all day for 5 days on the trot, especially for fast bowlers. On the tour to the West Indies just gone, I was worrying myself sick that all those days in the field and endless overs from the fast bowlers would result in injury. Also we've all heard of playing getting "burnout" from playing so much (Marcus Trescothick and Graham Thorpe come to mind), and I strongly doubt that twenty20 cricket would carry such a risk of that occuring. I just love the concept of twenty20, I think it is so accessible to everyone, and given that one of the major difficulties with playing cricket is the time commitment, I just think its the saviour of the sport
-
i think that there are enough cricket fans over the world to support test cricket and i don't think it will die out at all. i mean, just try getting tickets for the ashes series... at cardiff 17,000 tickets went for each day in less than 45 minutes!!
-
Well Buck I have an Over 60 tournament coming up in a few months. Five straight days of 100 overs a day on these tired old bodies but we will do it.
As for injury well I broke down when I was 23 bowling on a wet wicket trying to win a match. Slipped on the greasy surface and my whole body weight collapsed on to my right knee. No reconstructions in those days. That was a two day match and we were almost through day one on one of the most terrifying wickets I have ever played on or seen. Oh no helmets in those days. Injuries can happen at any time.
As for burn out, you are either mentally equipped or you are not. Call it a casualty of the game because it can happen in any sport at any level.
As for 20/20 being the saviour of cricket, well it is a money earner for those interested in making large sums of money including the bookmakers but that is a different story.
-
i think theres nothing wrong with it being a moneymaking thing, if 2020 is what is needed for more people to turn towards crickert then surely we shouild embrace it, i hate the fact that a lot of people in my school say cricket is gay and for ponces and s##t like that, if 2020 makes them start to like the sport then its a brilliant addition to the game. dont get me wrong, i would rather watch a test match as well, but these days children are more interested in ball sbeing smacked out of the park every over. 2020 is a bruilliant addition to cricket and provides more variety and entertainment for many people
-
I don't know - you look at the 20-20 and the IPL. Lots of Aussies have been very successful in this yet most would have grown up playing 2 day club cricket. I am sure this has helped develop their game. If there is an 100% focus on 20-20 I wonder if it will actually stun the growth off the players.
-
Well Buck I have an Over 60 tournament coming up in a few months. Five straight days of 100 overs a day on these tired old bodies but we will do it.
As for injury well I broke down when I was 23 bowling on a wet wicket trying to win a match. Slipped on the greasy surface and my whole body weight collapsed on to my right knee. No reconstructions in those days. That was a two day match and we were almost through day one on one of the most terrifying wickets I have ever played on or seen. Oh no helmets in those days. Injuries can happen at any time.
As for burn out, you are either mentally equipped or you are not. Call it a casualty of the game because it can happen in any sport at any level.
As for 20/20 being the saviour of cricket, well it is a money earner for those interested in making large sums of money including the bookmakers but that is a different story.
Wow... "Injuries can happen at anytime"... of course that is true, but if you could reduce the chances of it, why would you not want to? My point is cricket involves very unnatural movements, and fortunately the top players have excellent physiotherapists and sport scientists on hand to reduce risk. But this can only help to a certain extent, and test cricket increases the risk massively compared to 20/20 and ODIs both in the long run and the short run. I am fed up of hearing your generation saying "no helmets in our day", why is that something to state so proudly?
As for your comment on burnout art, I don't know if your ignorance even deserves a reply.
Your skepticism on twenty20 is no surprise either, given your age. I bet you'll say, "we've played test cricket for years, did us no harm". Unfortunately it is attitudes like yours that hold the game up. I greatly enjoy test cricket, but I think they could spice it up a lot more.
-
Well Buck I have an Over 60 tournament coming up in a few months. Five straight days of 100 overs a day on these tired old bodies but we will do it.
As for injury well I broke down when I was 23 bowling on a wet wicket trying to win a match. Slipped on the greasy surface and my whole body weight collapsed on to my right knee. No reconstructions in those days. That was a two day match and we were almost through day one on one of the most terrifying wickets I have ever played on or seen. Oh no helmets in those days. Injuries can happen at any time.
As for burn out, you are either mentally equipped or you are not. Call it a casualty of the game because it can happen in any sport at any level.
As for 20/20 being the saviour of cricket, well it is a money earner for those interested in making large sums of money including the bookmakers but that is a different story.
Playing a five day match increases the chances of an injury ocurring though. Yes injuries occur in one day matches but in a test match there is the potential for there to be 400 extra overs. Fatigue increases, the muscles tire and they lose their ability to maintain stabilising contractions which could cause a joint injury.
Your point about no helmets is irrelevant, they still don't wear helmets in some cases today.
Also with your comments on 'burnout'. It is nothing to do with you are mentally prepared or not. Surely the fact that Marcus Trescothick could bat under pressure and score a ton is proof he had the mental preparation.
Burnout is a loose term they give, encompassing all manners of fatigue both mental and physical. They just use it in the press as most people don't understand Sport Psychology, I doubt you yourself do.
-
20-20's should replace ODI's but Test cricket should always be the highest form of the game.
-
Sheesh, I wear a helmet now and wish they were around when I was younger.
As for burnout there are methods of player management by coaches and other coaching staff to minimise the effects of this happening. Player rotation is onemethod of course. However I have seen 'burnout' in 16 year olds who just don't want to play anymore in many sports not just crciket. Mental 'burnout' does indeed happen and it can happen at all levels of sport and it is much, much harder to repair than general physical burnout. Just because you can perform one day under extreme pressure does not mean that that particular performance has not had a negative effect on your future performances or, at least at the start, your personal expectations of future performances.
Playing injured at any level will mreult in a loss of performance and possible permanent injury. Loss of performance for top line players (at any level) often does have a negative mental effect which often does lead to a slide in performance levels. Teaching people how to avoid mental 'burnout' in anything is a specialist task and success or otherwise in the endeavour is never ensured. In any team both at work and play the various states of preparation in all things varies from person to person. A good coach or manager can get the most out of all the varying states by their skillful mangaement of each person and this of course is a bigger part of management the higher up the ladder on gets.
The most interesting aspect of umpiring for me is watching, at times, the disintergration of technique of a player brought about by pressure, either real or perceived, note well the words real or perceived. If you live and play 'in the moment' then pressure only exist for the ball being bowled at that moment and nothing else matters. Difficult concepty for many people to grasp because most pressure is never real it is only perceived by the person 'suffering the pressure'.
As for not understanding what burnout is, try sitting as chairman of the board for a major company and see if you understand or at least appreciate so called 'burnout'. Adds a new and larger dimension to what happens or appears to happen on the sporting field.
-
Why do I need to sit as the Chairman of the Board to understand Burnout?
It is an exhaustive psychophysiological response exhibited as a result of frequent, sometimes extreme and generally ineffective efforts to meet excessive training and competitive demands. Burnout involves a psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical withdrawal from a formerly enjoyable activity in response to excessive stress or dissatisfaction over time. (Smith, 1986)
Just because you can perform one day under extreme pressure does not mean that that particular performance has not had a negative effect on your future performances or, at least at the start, your personal expectations of future performances.
What do you actually mean by this?
The theory of self efficacy tells us that if someone performs well in a situation, then due to the 'Performance Accomplishments' aspect of Self Efficacy they would have raised Self-Efficacy and thus be able to repeat their performance.
Many top players actually find a degree of anxiety to be facillitative to performance. the fact that they have a raised pulse before they go out to band is the somatic way of telling them they are ready for performance.
You mention that players technique disintegrates in times of pressure? Generally isn't most pressure experienced at the end of a cricket match when chasing a tight run rate or trying to keep the opposition from scoring? At the end of the match you will have been playing for a good few hours so technique is more likely to deterioate due to fatigue.
Eysenck's Processing Efficiency Theory (1992) is based on the assumption that individuals have a limited pool of attentional resources. If a player is experiencing anxiety then this anxiety will be consuming the attentional resources leaving less free resources to devote to the task in hand.
Your comment about pressure never being real and only applying to the person in question is silly. You could say that about all emotions
-
Trescothick and Thorpe suffered from problems off the field and very real, not all the facts are in their biographies, some will not be wanted to be discussed here. They caused stress in their minds and that led to them not being able to perform at the highest level. Nothing to do with the cricket or its pressure's.
It would be the same for me if I suffered from the same problems as them, which 6 years ago I did and it had the same effect for a while. Burnout to me is like loving a food type and being force fed it every meal time, pretty soon it will make you sick and you will crave a change. Sensible exposure would allow you to enjoy it. Cricket is a job, but not many of us take the work home and everywhere we go...
-
One of the true arts of life is to understand what pressure really is. Living in the moment when everyone else is felling 'pressure' is an interesting state of being.
The subject will be expanded on in later postings etc and perhaps it is not accepted by many so called sport's educators but like much of the training of umpires, it is just verbal rubbish designed to promote the being and talks of so called experts.
Pressure or what people suppose is pressure can be eliminated. Oh and I and many others dispute that an elevated heart beat at the time of going out to bat means you are ready for the task.
If mental 'disintergration' was not part of tearing apart performance of the opposition why is taught and practisied so rabidly as a tactic in many sports?
Why do you need to sit as Chairman of the Board to understand burnout? Well perhaps then you would learn that almost all burnout is self inflicted. You either learn how to handle such things or you don't and often fail at crucial times. Handling 'pressure' is simple but then again it costs people a lot of money to understand what is being said.
-
I totally agree with Talisman about the analogy of your favourite meal... This is why I feel a lot of talented youngsters are being put off the sport because of the amount of time commitment they have to make. If the shortened form of the game was promoted more at all levels, it would spark much more interest. When it comes to a 20 over game I would jump at the chance to play... Its a good chance to make a few runs, but if you do get out, you don't end up sitting there for hours and then having to go and field for another 3 hours. You might come out with some more crap about "never had a problem in our day with 50 overs", and that may be true to a certain extent, but people lead much busier lives these days and just because you didn't have a problem with it does not mean it shouldn't be changed for the better.
As for your comment about pressure art, of course there are techniques to help you live in the moment and manage the nerves that come with it, but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that any professional cricketer is an enlightened Buddhist Monk. We are only human, and of course over time we can work on the realisation of what "pressure" is, but its easy for you to say "there is no pressure, this game doesn't really matter". The reason professional cricketers got to that level is largely because of their willingness to win and the competitive pressure they put on themselves to achieve victory. With that comes anxiety, fear of failure etc. and not only that the nature of the sport means, especially for batsman, where your performance relies on delicate reactions to incredibly brief stimuli, that players are very vulnerable to their performance being affected whether positively or negatively.
-
Art
One of the true arts of life is to understand what pressure really is. Living in the moment when everyone else is felling 'pressure' is an interesting state of being.
The subject will be expanded on in later postings etc and perhaps it is not accepted by many so called sport's educators but like much of the training of umpires, it is just verbal rubbish designed to promote the being and talks of so called experts.
Pressure or what people suppose is pressure can be eliminated. Oh and I and many others dispute that an elevated heart beat at the time of going out to bat means you are ready for the task.
If mental 'disintergration' was not part of tearing apart performance of the opposition why is taught and practisied so rabidly as a tactic in many sports?
Why do you need to sit as Chairman of the Board to understand burnout? Well perhaps then you would learn that almost all burnout is self inflicted. You either learn how to handle such things or you don't and often fail at crucial times. Handling 'pressure' is simple but then again it costs people a lot of money to understand what is being said.
I really don't know what you are trying to say in your first two sentences, so I can't respond much to them.
You and many others dispute what I said about a raised heart beat? In 1995 Jones & Swain conducted a study where they took 133 male cricketers aged 16-43. They were then split into two groups Elite - County first team and Full International- and Non-Elite - Semi proffesional and below.
They were then asked to complete the CSAI-2. The non elite athletes did not find cognitive anxiety facilliatative to their performance at all. The elite athletes did.
The non- elite athletes however did feel that some somatic anxiety (raised pulse, sweaty palms, butterflies etc) was facilliative to their performance and the Elite athletes even more so.
So if you want to dispute this, the best way would be to conduct your own experiment.
I do not know what you are trying to say by your fourth sentence either.
I've already explained what Burnout is and why I don't need to be the Chairman of the Board to understand it and the latter half of the last sentence is also not very clear as to what you mean.
-
I totally agree with Talisman about the analogy of your favourite meal... This is why I feel a lot of talented youngsters are being put off the sport because of the amount of time commitment they have to make. If the shortened form of the game was promoted more at all levels, it would spark much more interest. When it comes to a 20 over game I would jump at the chance to play... Its a good chance to make a few runs, but if you do get out, you don't end up sitting there for hours and then having to go and field for another 3 hours. You might come out with some more crap about "never had a problem in our day with 50 overs", and that may be true to a certain extent, but people lead much busier lives these days and just because you didn't have a problem with it does not mean it shouldn't be changed for the better.
Yes but what does T20 give you? If you get out, you know that there is, in many cases, tomorrow or the day after to get another chance. This means your head won't be completely concentrated on the one innings, whereas in Tests or longer formats you have the annoyance of, if a specialist bat, standing in a field contemplating and trying to work out where to improve as you have time to think. T20 is just a bish-bash-bosh form of the game that can be enjoyable watching the top players get 170+ in their innings, but when you play at a lower level totals are often sub-100 which makes a very boring match. I'd much rather be on 90 after 20 but then go on to 200 off 50, at least that's interesting to watch.
As for burnout, pro's get it and that's understandable. Being away from home and family for months at a time can be traumatic for some and stressful for most. Take this summer, England will be fine despite having a very long summer. Australia however may find it difficult as they are away for several months.
-
There are other ways of training in these matters that are out of mainstream and as such are 'controversial".
Then again some of us have never been into mainstream thinking on various matters.
There is a interesting aside here and that is whether sports people in reality mean much in absolute stress or pressure testing. I guess if you are in the sport then it means something but performing year in year out at high levels in corporate presents various opportunities in both real life and training situations. In sport you have a limited number of years to perform, in corporate you can rise rather rapidly to the top with diligence and education and stay there for a very long time..
So perhaps with a lot of real experience, many years instead of a handful, pressure becomes virtually non existant because you know what, how and when to react and you know how to pick off those who show signs of 'stress'.
The downside of looking and feeling at ease in all situations is that many people, believing popular (and studied) modern hype, fail to understand the situation and believe you can't be trying!!!. Interesting to watch what happens.
There is a lesson here if you want to study and understand.
-
Can someone define pressure? Until someone can say it then everything else seems to be worth nothing.
If you can get a vast amount of cricket experience, cricketing ablility, confidence, knowledge about the game and a good mindset and doesn't get crippled from injury. then you will be a successful cricketer. Confidence, knowledge about the game and mindset takes care of pressure. Sure there will be a fear of failure. If anybody can put this stuff together then they will do well at any form, let alone 20/20. Sachin Tendulkar is a prime example. Vast cricket experience. yep. cricketing ablility, der. confidence, yup, knowledge, very much so and a good mindset. check. Thats why he has done so well for so long.
I challenge someone to find a cricketer who had all of these and without political influence failed.