+0
Hello everyone!

I request you to kindly edit the passage below. I think I haven't use the definite article correctly in some places.

T20 Cricket has announced its advent on the cricketing firmament with a bang, what with the T20 World Cup proving to be an enormous success, way beyond expectations. It has found many takers in those who like it fast and furious and hence, has appealed to a much broader spectrum of spectators.

Critics contend that it is nothing but degradation of cricket and view it as a threat to Test and ODI Cricket. It may well be true, at least for ODI Cricket. What do you think? Will one-dayers survive in the face of T20's rising popularity? Is it really 'bad' cricket, or not even cricket?

Whatever may be the consequences for the other forms of the game, the fact remains that the spectators around the world have lapped up the shorter and spicier 'new cricket' dished out to them. It may as well help globalise cricket. What say?

Whatever you or the critics may have to say, T20 is here to stay!

Cheers!

Most probably, you don't know what the passage is about. If you want to, just say so!

PS - Kindly point out any mistake that you find in anything that I have written other than the passage as well.
+0
Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

T20 Cricket has announced its advent on the cricketing firmament with a bang, what with the T20 World Cup proving to be an enormous success, way beyond expectations. It has found many takers in those who like it fast and furious and hence has appealed to a much broader spectrum of spectators.

Critics contend that it is nothing but a degradation of cricket and view it as a threat to Test and ODI. That may well be true, at least for ODI Cricket. What do you think? Will one-dayers survive in the face of T20's rising popularity? Is it really 'bad' cricket, or not even cricket?

Whatever may be the consequences for the other forms of the game, the fact remains that the spectators around the world have lapped up the shorter and spicier 'new cricket' dished out to them. It may as well help globalise cricket. What do you say?

Whatever you or the critics may have to say, T20 is here to stay!

Cheers!


Best wishes, Clive
Comments  
I don't know cricket at all! I speak USA English, so I will only point out one article change and leave idiom alone. Write: "the fact remains that spectators...", not 'that the spectators..."
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.
Thank you very much, Clive! I feel so lucky that I came across this website. Whatever little I have seen of it so far has made a great impression on me.

I always mess up with the comma. I was also doubtful about the grammatical correctness of 'what say?', but I hear it so frequently that I thought it must be correct!

It seems that you know about cricket! I thought ODI Cricket was how the game is known. The correction you have suggested makes it a bit awkward. Consider this variation ...

Critics contend that it is nothing but a degradation of cricket and view it as a threat to Test Cricket and ODI.

The sentence is a bit awkward once again. I think the original one was better. What do you say?

I did not quite understand why I shouldn't have put 'the' before 'spectators'. You must have noticed that I dropped 'the' before ‘spectators’ in a previous sentence. Here...

It has found many takers in those who like it fast and furious and hence has appealed to a much broad spectrum of spectators.

I went with my instinct.

Also, I was thinking of putting 'the' before critics. I checked with the example sentences in my dictionary but it wasn't there. So I dropped it, but did not understand the reason why. If I am not wrong, we are talking about 'Cricket Critics' and not critics in general, then why drop the 'the'? Could you kindly explain?

With regards

Ashish

PS - Kindly point out any error that you find in whatever I have written! I am sure I have errored in my use of the comma!
Hi,

It seems that you know about cricket! I thought ODI Cricket was how the game is known. The correction you have suggested makes it a bit awkward. Consider this variation ...

Critics contend that it is nothing but a degradation of cricket and view it as a threat to Test Cricket and ODI.

The sentence is a bit awkward once again. I think the original one was better. What do you say?


It's the repetition of 'cricket' that is a bit awkward. How about this? Critics contend that it is nothing but a degradation of the game and view it as a threat to Test Cricket and ODI.

I did not quite understand why I shouldn't have put 'the' before 'spectators'. No 'the' just makes the reference seem more general, embracing all spectators of cricket.

You must have noticed that I dropped 'the' before ‘spectators’ in a previous sentence. Here...

It has found many takers in those who like it fast and furious and hence has appealed to a much broad spectrum of spectators.


I went with my instinct.

Also, I was thinking of putting 'the' before critics. I checked with the example sentences in my dictionary but it wasn't there. So I dropped it, but did not understand the reason why. If I am not wrong, we are talking about 'Cricket Critics' and not critics in general, then why drop the 'the'? Could you kindly explain? It's understood from the context that we are talking about "T20 cricket critics", not theatre critics or art critics or tennis critics. Again, I feel that dropping the 'the' makes the reference more general, ie 'all T20 critics'.

Happy New Year, Clive
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies