PDA

View Full Version : T20 over Test Cricket?


mahbubH
May 13, 2009, 03:53 AM
WI captain's view ..

Chris Gayle has said that he doesn't want to captain West Indies for much longer because of the pressure the job entailed.

Gayle also said that he "wouldn't be so sad" if Test cricket eventually gave way to the Twenty20 version and hit back at Andrew Strauss, who had criticised the West Indies captain for arriving from the IPL just two days before the start of the Lord's Test, asking the England captain to "stay out of [other] people's business".
"To be honest with you there's a possibility I might give it [captaincy] up - I will be giving it up shortly," Gayle told the Guardian. "It's definitely not something I'm looking to hang on to. I need some time for myself, to be honest with you, it's a lot of travelling. There's always something you have to go and do, you know, extra. Lunch or dinner, some other thing, there's always something for the captain. I'm not that type of person. I can't take on too much. So soon I will be handing over this captaincy. I [will] soon finish with it."
Gayle, who took over the captaincy from Ramnaresh Sarwan in 2007, said he was looking for potential successors. "We're still looking at quite a few," he said. "So we just have to wait and see when the selectors decide - or whosoever decides. Then I'm ready. The chairman pointed out to me they want me to actually be the captain for right now. We have to see how it goes. I said, 'Don't be too long, though'."
Gayle took over the captaincy in the absence of Sarwan who was injured for the ODI series against England in 2007. The West Indies board initially rejected the selectors' move to appoint Gayle before reversing its decision. Gayle revealed that he was reluctant to take over the captaincy and had to be persuaded into the role. "At the time when I was asked I didn't want to be the captain," he said. "That's when it all started. We won the series and then I said to them, whenever Sarwan is fully fit, I am ready to step down. Maybe they saw something different, something totally different, and they asked me to be captain.
"I thought hard about it. I didn't want to be captain. I wanted to have more free time. I didn't want that added pressure at that particular time, but they actually insist, insist, insist, so I said OK. So I thought, just get on with it."
Gayle was then preferred as captain over Sarwan for the 2007-08 tour of South Africa. He resigned at a West Indies directors' meeting last July following the home series against Australia due to disagreements over selection but was persuaded to stay on by WICB president Julian Hunte.
Gayle was the subject of much criticism for extending his IPL stint (http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/403074.html) with the Kolkata Knight Riders and joining his West Indies team-mates only 48 hours before the first Test at Lord's, a match which they lost inside three days. Strauss had said that "we wouldn't want our players to arrive two days before" a Test. He added that it was important for Test cricket to get the attention it deserved and that it shouldn't be devalued in "any way, shape or form".
Gayle, however, responded to Strauss's comments by saying that the matter "doesn't concern him". "Focus on his team, don't worry about West Indies, don't worry about me. Tell him don't sleep with Chris on his mind, tell him get Chris off his mind," Gayle said.
While Gayle said he wouldn't be worried if the primacy of Test cricket were to be reduced, he said Strauss ought to be because the England captain may not be able to adapt to the shorter format. Strauss, who is England's Test and ODI captain, isn't part of the squad for the World Twenty20 in June.


"I wouldn't be so sad [about the demise of Test cricket]," Gayle said. "Some other players would be. Maybe Andrew Strauss would be sad. Maybe he will be sad if Test cricket dies and Twenty20 comes in. Because there is no way he can make the change. So tough luck. I like Twenty20. Who doesn't? Maybe a couple of the Englishmen wouldn't like to play Twenty20."
© Cricinfo

Surfer
May 13, 2009, 04:22 AM
To each his own. We may say we like tests better than T20s. But Gayle is entitled to his own choices. If enjoys T20s and does not like tests, its his choice.

mahbubH
May 13, 2009, 04:36 AM
To each his own. We may say we like tests better than T20s. But Gayle is entitled to his own choices. If enjoys T20s and does not like tests, its his choice.
I would not create a new thread based on your comments. He is a very good cricketer that is why we value his comments regarding future of cricket.

Abid_Khan
May 13, 2009, 04:38 AM
Yeah, all hail Gayle, hes a respected citizen lol, probably informally sledging Strauss there so there can be some "anger" or "hatred" (not literally) in their next test match

Baundule
May 13, 2009, 04:48 AM
British journalism! I do not see any problem in what Gayle has said. It is his choice, if he enjoys both formats, or gives priority to one above the other. His arriving two days before the match is a matter between him and his employee and it is certainly not Strauss's concern. The journalist should criticize Strauss's comments than twisting Gayle's speech and putting their own words in Gayle's mouth to portray him as an enemy to test cricket.

Sovik
May 13, 2009, 06:06 AM
If he wants to give up captaincy thats fine but he had the potential and i don't see anyone but bravo who could lead this team

Surfer
May 13, 2009, 11:13 AM
I think the English need to learn to concentrate in their own problems......and they have plenty. They have not been doing very well in either format of the game. Ashes is coming closer and in all probability they will be thrashed yet again.

Sovik
May 13, 2009, 01:06 PM
Chris Gayle has claimed his comments about Test cricket were misinterpreted, but is under huge pressure going into the second Test at Chester-le-Street

MohammedC
May 13, 2009, 01:21 PM
I demand a poll for this thread.:-X

Neel Here
May 13, 2009, 01:22 PM
with those pitches in WI and elsewhere test match cricket is doomed much more by board officials than players like gayle. after all its their personal matter which version to play.

what cricket administrators can do is to use money gained from T20 to increase payment for test matches by a big margin.

Murad
May 13, 2009, 01:28 PM
Gayle is lazy!

Tigers_eye
May 13, 2009, 01:34 PM
with those pitches in WI and elsewhere test match cricket is doomed much more by board officials than players like gayle. after all its their personal matter which version to play.

what cricket administrators can do is to use money gained from T20 to increase payment for test matches by a big margin.
Post of the week for me.

++++

Board officials = money hungry luichaa people!!

When 1st innings continues in the fifth day .... That even when the first team declared ....

thebest
May 14, 2009, 11:22 AM
what cricket administrators can do is to use money gained from T20 to increase payment for test matches by a big margin.
In your dream only. The cricket administrator with the exception of the Aussies are worst of the lot of all sports (those I am interested) administrators .

AsifTheManRahman
May 14, 2009, 11:39 AM
Play both and get rid of ODI cricket - too long, yet not long enough.

Zeeshan
May 14, 2009, 12:01 PM
T20: a quick one in bathroom stall
ODI: one-night stand
Test: long term marriage...

Akib
May 14, 2009, 12:14 PM
Play both and get rid of ODI cricket - too long, yet not long enough.

I actually agree with this. ODI's can be replaced with 20/20 easily.

Nafi
May 14, 2009, 12:18 PM
T20: a quick one in bathroom stall
ODI: one-night stand
Test: long term marriage...

Its more like

20/20: A couple of one-night stands

ODI: A dating relationship with movies and ice cream

Test: A long term marriage


I like the food analogy

20/20: a greasy cheeseburger

http://wowdavao.com/catalog/images/cheeseburgerLG.jpg


ODI: Nandos Chicken meal

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2574751773_567217f249.jpg


Test: A big Steak dinner

http://www.geneandgeorgetti.com/images/ph_menu_steak1.jpg




I like ODI, because it matches my life style

kalpurush
May 14, 2009, 11:19 PM
T20: a quick one in bathroom stall
ODI: one-night stand
Test: long term marriage...

Its more like

20/20: A couple of one-night stands

ODI: A dating relationship with movies and ice cream

Test: A long term marriage


Twenty20 = Olivia
Test = Bobita


:saint::saint::saint:

Sohel
May 14, 2009, 11:40 PM
Strauss succeeded in pi$$ing Gayle off, and of course "medical" Mary Jane played her part in the tirade. Really sucks to have folks rain on your little parade.

Surfer
May 15, 2009, 01:27 AM
Lol....Gayle dismissed Strauss. Call it irony.

Baundule
May 15, 2009, 04:01 AM
Twenty20 = Olivia
Test = Bobita

:saint::saint::saint:
Kapurush bhai, have you seen Bobita recently? ;)
She was so sweet at that time and now it is exactly the opposite.

About the test vs. ODI vs. T20 vs. 6-a side issue, I would rather go for each of them. Each of these formats has its own attraction; personally I never found a test match boring only because it is a test or a T20 exiciting only because it's a dhum dharakka batting. The main thing is the competition, which can make things interesting for a true cricket fan. Each format needs intelligent planning and execution.

Now, shorter version of the game can probably attract more people, which can eventually make it a global sport. I support the status things also so that a cricket nation can have the hunger to improve their game in order to achieve a Test or ODI status. However, it should not looked at from an elitist attitude; rather it should be maintained to improve the quality of the game. Spreading cricket over more nations can only do good to it; it brings money, it creates more options to the players and more importantly, it reduces the risk of monopoly, which should create a fair atmosphere for all.

One World
May 15, 2009, 02:06 PM
Not even a question.
T20 will survive but Test will still be played with its humble and auspicious solemnity.

BANFAN
May 15, 2009, 11:12 PM
Gayle has earned enough & have prospect of earning more, to even give up intl cricket and concentrate on IPL & 20/20s else where. Just like Hayden, Gilli and a few others have done.

kalpurush
May 16, 2009, 06:55 AM
Kapurush bhai, have you seen Bobita recently? ;)
She was so sweet at that time and now it is exactly the opposite.

About the test vs. ODI vs. T20 vs. 6-a side issue, I would rather go for each of them. Each of these formats has its own attraction; personally I never found a test match boring only because it is a test or a T20 exiciting only because it's a dhum dharakka batting. The main thing is the competition, which can make things interesting for a true cricket fan. Each format needs intelligent planning and execution.

Now, shorter version of the game can probably attract more people, which can eventually make it a global sport. I support the status things also so that a cricket nation can have the hunger to improve their game in order to achieve a Test or ODI status. However, it should not looked at from an elitist attitude; rather it should be maintained to improve the quality of the game. Spreading cricket over more nations can only do good to it; it brings money, it creates more options to the players and more importantly, it reduces the risk of monopoly, which should create a fair atmosphere for all.
Nicely said. :)