Braden StokesThe IPL: as I expected.
April 26th 2008 07:43
Now that the IPL has been running for about a week, I can see that the cricket delivered is very much as I suspected. Last night, I had the privilege of watching Kumar Sangakkara make a brilliant 90-odd, full of really beautiful cricket shots. Unfortunately, from what I've seen thus far, these kinds of innings are - and will be - few and far between. For every fine shot there are several hopelessly mistimed balls flying for four (or even six), batsmen playing reverse sweeps (unsuccessfully) to their first ball, and bowlers picking up undeserved wickets as batsmen clear the front leg (or both legs!), and swing across the line.
The only game so far that has resembled cricket more than tee-ball was the match between Kolkata and the Deccan Chargers because it was played on an absolute minefield of a pitch. Obviously, this meant that batsmen couldn't simply swing through the line at every ball and resulted in a relatively absorbing contest. Other than this, the conditions for batsmen are simply too good. I was not as surprised as some after Brendan MacCullum's 150 in the first match, because I knew it was just a matter of time before a batsman swung hard enough, often enough and got lucky enough. I'm not trying to take away from his achievement, but just to point out that the conditions of the game are all designed to aid run-scoring. Remember that to make a very good score, you only have to survive about 50 to 70 balls (if that).
Not only are pitches too good and boundaries too small, but the ball seems to be rocketing across the outfield: anything that beats the infield is four. I don't know much about the famous Indian dew, but have they also developed a new species called "Grease Grass". While watching a few games, I had a strange feeling that something was missing, and I finally figured our what it is: running between the wickets. So fast are the outfields that you hardly see batsmen run two, let alone three.
The unfortunate thing about this is - apart from batsmen getting credit for extremely poor cricket shots - that one of the great features of one-day cricket (and Test cricket for that matter) is gone. Often, the team that manages to pick up clever two's and three's when the field is back wins the game. However, in 20-20 where it's 1, 4, 6 or nothing, this is largely taken out of play. Similarly, we don't see much great fielding, as both infielders and outfielders hardly have a chance - mainly because infielders aren't left there very long.
The more I watch, the more I see great features of the game of cricket that are sadly missing from 20-20. It simply is a severely impoverished version of cricket which does little to support the broader game. In fact, it probably acts to undermine it by drawing spectators away from Tests and one-dayers and attracting a new audience with little (if any) knowledge of the longer game. It would be sad if, some time from now, this farce became what people think cricket is.
The only game so far that has resembled cricket more than tee-ball was the match between Kolkata and the Deccan Chargers because it was played on an absolute minefield of a pitch. Obviously, this meant that batsmen couldn't simply swing through the line at every ball and resulted in a relatively absorbing contest. Other than this, the conditions for batsmen are simply too good. I was not as surprised as some after Brendan MacCullum's 150 in the first match, because I knew it was just a matter of time before a batsman swung hard enough, often enough and got lucky enough. I'm not trying to take away from his achievement, but just to point out that the conditions of the game are all designed to aid run-scoring. Remember that to make a very good score, you only have to survive about 50 to 70 balls (if that).
Not only are pitches too good and boundaries too small, but the ball seems to be rocketing across the outfield: anything that beats the infield is four. I don't know much about the famous Indian dew, but have they also developed a new species called "Grease Grass". While watching a few games, I had a strange feeling that something was missing, and I finally figured our what it is: running between the wickets. So fast are the outfields that you hardly see batsmen run two, let alone three.
The unfortunate thing about this is - apart from batsmen getting credit for extremely poor cricket shots - that one of the great features of one-day cricket (and Test cricket for that matter) is gone. Often, the team that manages to pick up clever two's and three's when the field is back wins the game. However, in 20-20 where it's 1, 4, 6 or nothing, this is largely taken out of play. Similarly, we don't see much great fielding, as both infielders and outfielders hardly have a chance - mainly because infielders aren't left there very long.
The more I watch, the more I see great features of the game of cricket that are sadly missing from 20-20. It simply is a severely impoverished version of cricket which does little to support the broader game. In fact, it probably acts to undermine it by drawing spectators away from Tests and one-dayers and attracting a new audience with little (if any) knowledge of the longer game. It would be sad if, some time from now, this farce became what people think cricket is.
| 125 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
Sydney Diary
Personals
Brisbane Diarystar
Comment by Julian Fernando
Comment by Nick Bendel
Sport: The Australian Disease
For that reason, although I have been watching the IPL, I have been doing so sceptically. I don't wish it too much success, because I fear that it will undermine the unique charms of test cricket.
By the way...you can find my own IPL article here: Really Long Link