View Single Post
  #44  
Old June 25, 2009, 11:54 AM
RazabQ's Avatar
RazabQ RazabQ is offline
Moderator
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: February 25, 2004
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 10,261

কোথায় অাগরতলা অার কোথায় চকির তলা
TE the differences are so vast that I don't know where to begin. I'll skip the obvious stuff re: duration, clothing, etc and focus on the strategy/mindset/utility for the fan

Test: Chess match
T20: Checkers

Both involve strategy and skills but the myriad of options and the canvas (more pieces and longer games) to execute them, re-strategize, adjust, are all that makes chess more of a challenge/fun to me.

Test: accomodates all forms of batsmanship. Your bludgeoners of the Haydos, Smith & Gayle mode. Your fencing masters of the Laxman, Lara, Z Abbas mold. Your classicists such as Tendu, Gower, Dravid, Vaughn, Mahela. The non-conformists such as Chanderpaul, Shewag, Dilshan, Pietersens. You get the picture ... the more aggressive field placing and the emphasis on attack & defense leads to much more variety in batsmanship.

T20: Taking the game towards unabashed, heavy-bat power game. Much like Astroturf killed the artistry in Field Hockey ... I fear T20 will do the same. A mis-hit can go for six - time after time. Where's the joy in that.

Test: Accommodates all forms of pitches. Skiddy Perth, to slow turn Fatullah. Dustbowl Chepauk to lush green Edgbaston, you get to see bowler friendly, batsman friendly or sporting pitches

T20: Demands shirt-fronts where the ball barely seams, comes on to bat nicely and doesn't offer much turn. Again longer term, it threatens to homogenize the game beyond recognition.

More to follow ... gotta get back to work
Reply With Quote