Curran’s contribution with the bat won the game, or made it possible to win the game, and he did well with the ball too. I have no doubt that Kholi will be picking up MOTM at some stage in this series.
Curran certainly changed the game and I'm delighted for him, I just thought Kohli was awesome. I suppose it's right to give it to the winning side and on that basis, well deserved.
Away from England for a minute...did anyone see the Surrey v Middlesex T20 blast game last night at the Oval ? A packed house that saw Middlesex post 221 in their 20 overs and Surrey chase it down with 4 overs left (Finch scoring 50 in 16 balls and 117 not out in 52 balls) I know it’s not the game for some of the purists amongst the cricket fans but it’s the future of cricket.
I was at Lord's on Thursday to see Middlesex lose to Sussex. Middlesex aren't great at the moment, but I was following their scores last night and thought that 221 should be enough. How wrong could you be? That Surrey score suggests that they could have got 280 or more batting first! Twenty20 is nothing on a good Test match, though, and we've just seen a sensational one.
I’m not too sure you are in the majority there Stroller....the old fellas and the purists most definitely think like that, but the youngsters all want to see sixes and excitement....and that’s what T20 cricket delivers. For every exciting Test finish....there seem to be more boring ones. Only time will tell.
Awesome hitting, wasn't it? Finch is some player, as is Jason Roy. I can understand why some people don't like T20, but you can't deny that it's entertaining. The Mrs refuses to have test cricket on TV, but will happily watch T20 with me. Can only be a good thing to get more people into cricket who would otherwise think it's a dull sport. Went to finals day last year, was a great day out. Going again this year.
Yep, soon the kids will graduate to rounders, less rules to pretend to understand. I quite enjoy 20/20, but it’s only about batting, how many would go away satisfied with one team getting 90 for three and the other getting the runs for 6 wickets in 19.3 overs after two brilliant defensive bowling performances?
Spoken like a true traditionalist Stan. Of course batting is still the major force of T20 cricket but while you have bowlers like Rashid Khan and Sunil Narine who can change the game in their 4 alloted overs, it is becoming much more than that.
I’m sure you are right Stainsey, this is the future of cricket, it works commercially and will even more so with 100 ball games etc, as long as they keep it simple so someone with no knowledge can turn up and enjoy. Which is a good thing. And Test cricket is doing itself no favours with home teams having a massive advantage and most matches being very one sided, todays being an excellent exception. But there will always be some of us who prefer the cat and mouse, the ebb and flow of a long format match between two evenly matched teams. Or we will while the format still exists. The idiots who started this test on a Wednesday, depriving themselves of a weekend of full houses want shooting. Plus test cricket needs a 3/4 day county game and for the life of me I’ve never understood how that survives commercially, it certainly isn’t a spectator sport. One thing that would make 20/20 even better is preparing really dangerous, uneven pitches which are green and take spin. I’d love to see some slogging when the ball darts up into your throat after pitching on a length. And I am a total hypocrite as when I played semi seriously I treated every game as a 20/20 even though the format didn’t exist back in the Middle Ages.
I couldn’t agree more with your post, Stan. If the dinosaurs that are involved in test cricket really want to keep the format going then I think they need to make a lot of changes and start appealing to a younger audience...pitches and timings of the matches are massive problems. How else they can broaden the formats appeal ? I really don’t know......I would honestly be sad to see Test cricket go, even though it really isn’t my cup of tea, but sadly I can’t see it being around in 20 years time. Heard about the new format being talked about and in the planning ? 100 balls a side.....I kid you not.
Yep, 100 balls, ten ball overs, switching bowlers within the over. Next up two 50 ball innings per side, boundaries of 100ft maximum, bonus runs if you score three sixes in succession, out if you fail to score for three balls, the jazzing up options are endless. Test cricket will die anyway if they try to jazz it up too much, it’s about patience and nuance, with occasional outbursts of explosive action. They should just run it better and perhaps cut down the number of matches.
My 5 year-old grandson would probably agree with you. I've been glued to the Test for the last few days and when he was sitting with me yesterday he said 'Grandad, does cricket ever finish?'
I do also think that because of its nature, it’s very hard to have some kind of league, therefore most matches (except the Ashes series) are pretty much meaningless to most. I like your changes to the 20/20 format.....and even though it might of been said in jest, I could see them appealing to the youngsters....as you say....the options are endless.
However it goes the greatest experience to be had in cricket, past, and future (for a limited time) is following England round Australia on an Ashes tour. Especially if England win. Although the format is complicated I like the look of the new league system for UEFA international teams. Perhaps cricket should take a look.
Preferably, but if needs be the Kookaburra, just as long as it’s the same one. If the home team bias continues I wouldn’t be averse to letting the away team have choice of batting or bowling first, though it would be regrettable as the toss is an important element of the fun
Speaking as a complete idiot here when it comes to cricket balls.....but does the different type of ball make that much of a difference ? And does that also mean the colour of the ball has some effect ? Genuine question
