Print

[vasiraju]

The ICC test world championship has been in the offing for ages. It was supposed to start this year, but thanks to TV rights, the Champions Trophy has a last hurrah.

There's not a massive amount of point in a "T2x Test". It's essentially the same as a a single 50 over innings, with the proviso that you have more opportunity to bat if you cock it up first time around. I'm not sure what impact it would have on spectator numbers.

 yeah, but since T20 is gathering more number of spectators i hope they were thinking of it (or may be the person who started the rumor thought of it)

[tim2000s]

yeah, but since T20 is gathering more number of spectators i hope they were thinking of it (or may be the person who started the rumor thought of it)

T20 has growing audiences because it lasts a couple of hours. If people don't want to spend the time watching a 40 over game, why would they turn up to a 2X20 over game? I can't imagine they would?

[lethalshrapnel]

It 'kinda' felt like Bell was out to me cos I could see the bail move just a wee bit(admittedly miniscule) in the frame where his foot was not yet on the ground. When Holding got furious with the decision my first thought was he is getting old and needs better glasses. But now that there's been such a hue and cry it's come to my attention that bail needs to be completely dislodged from the groove for it to be out. Is that the case?? There's a reason why I believed that only part of the bail needs to move for a batsman to be out - whenever the third umpire was called in for a run out, the 'moment of judgement', so to speak was invariably one end of the bail coming off or even sticking out a little. Its been like this for the last few years at least and especially so once we got them super slo mos. In the past it would have made sense for the entire bail to come off because the umpires could not have judged the exact moment at which the bail starts moving but that ain't the case now. Has some kind of discrepancy crept into how we interpret the rule because of the technology? Can someone clarify?

[tim2000s]

The rule is still when at least one bail is completely removed from the stumps. So, in bells case, if his foot were grounded before a bail is completely removed, then he should be not out as the wicket is not down until the bails are completely removed,.... Discuss?

[lethalshrapnel]

Ah. So he was not out for sure then! Nothing left to discuss there I'm afraid. Huge blunder by the third umpire, him being paid to do this and all. But like I said before the people controlling the super slo mos keep doing it wrong then. The moment where one bail comes off completely must be the fulcrum from which they go to and fro.

[csnew]

Ah. So he was not out for sure then! Nothing left to discuss there I'm afraid. Huge blunder by the third umpire, him being paid to do this and all. But like I said before the people controlling the super slo mos keep doing it wrong then. The moment where one bail comes off completely must be the fulcrum from which they go to and fro.

Let's not forget the 3'rd umpire was a Aussie.

[The Palmist]

Wasn't out but still he could have managed better expression while walking off.

[vasiraju]

Let's not forget the 3'rd umpire was a Aussie.

 Epic Punch of the day

[vasiraju]

T20 has growing audiences because it lasts a couple of hours. If people don't want to spend the time watching a 40 over game, why would they turn up to a 2X20 over game? I can't imagine they would?

 Hmmm, may be true, but still the idea was mainly making one day cricket interesting.  So two T20 innings might grip the audience more than a single 50 over game.

[Nickauger]

Then its not one day cricket anymore is it? Its a 2 chance t20 game!

[kouservice]

Hmmm, may be true, but still the idea was mainly making one day cricket interesting.  So two T20 innings might grip the audience more than a single 50 over game.

  Is cricket a sport  or a movie  ??  Do we really need to make it interesting ?? Than we should also add a romantic angle, a action sequence so that people can rush to watch the sport. I am not against T20 or any format but the reasoning given, I don't agree with. But anytime, a true Cricket lover will love to watch a Cricket not a movie. These days due to this approach we will soon be forced to change the basics and make it more sort of a WWF entertainment.

 

[vasiraju]

  Is cricket a sport  or a movie  ??  Do we really need to make it interesting ?? Than we should also add a romantic angle, a action sequence so that people can rush to watch the sport. I am not against T20 or any format but the reasoning given, I don't agree with. But anytime, a true Cricket lover will love to watch a Cricket not a movie. These days due to this approach we will soon be forced to change the basics and make it more sort of a WWF entertainment.

 

Nice and a valid answer. Every cricket lover likes test cricket. But due to this popular T20 thingy, everything is getting worse. Right from the skill to getting a contract to play rich cash leagues. Anytime, as u said cricket should not be boring for a cricket lover.

[tim2000s]

T20 encourages those who have never watched cricket to do so.

50 overs allows them to get drawn in to the longer formats.

Test cricket fulfils them when they can't get enough of the other two...