Cricket

Anyways lads, am I the only one that's worried about the state of cricket atm? I mean how many quality sides are out there?

England are decent. Sri lanka are about to lose the three players that have held them together in recent years, australia are struggling to produce the quality required to build a great side. Pakistan, Windies, Bangladesh and New Zealand look to be going down the same path as they have in the past decade. In reality only us, england and India look to be on a positive slope which isn't great for cricket.

I'm particularly worried about the bowlers coming through. Which bowlers are really looking like future legends? The batting is slightly better but there's also a problem their in some nations. The level of competition IMO is very important and due to the fact that there are so few major cricket nations you can't not worry about this state of affairs.
 
If you mean test cricket, then, yes. It's a dying sport. The money on offer from twenty over cricket means that young batsmen are spending a lot of time practising high risk shots. Bowlers are working on their variations. Obviously that isn't going to help you when you're trying to bat a long innings or bowl six good stock balls.
 
Sport has to evolve. Think if there were message boards in the 70s-80s there'd be complaints that ODIs were killing cricket.

Obviously doesn't mean we'll get used to the newer form of cricket. We'll whinge, moan, romanticize and eventuall move on completely to casual viewing. I guess thats what is amazing about football
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
If you mean test cricket, then, yes. It's a dying sport. The money on offer from twenty over cricket means that young batsmen are spending a lot of time practising high risk shots. Bowlers are working on their variations. Obviously that isn't going to help you when you're trying to bat a long innings or bowl six good stock balls.
Click to expand...
Many aggressive batsmen have done well in tests, wouldn't say that's much of a factor.

I'm talking cricket as a whole. The talent level is low atm.
 
RooneyLegend said:
Many aggressive batsmen have done well in tests, wouldn't say that's much of a factor.

I'm talking cricket as a whole. The talent level is low atm.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say so. I think the shorter forms are stronger than they've ever been.

As for aggressive batsmen doing well, that's very true. There's a big difference between the sort of aggression that serves you well in a test match and the sort that does in twenty over cricket though. Very little is transferable.
 
The level is very low. The bowlers and pitches these days are awful.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
The level is very low. The bowlers and pitches these days are awful.
Click to expand...


I think this is the biggest problem. Too many kids are being bought up on absolute roads and told to play their shots, no one is growing up learning how to score ugly runs and too many bowlers are spending times on their fecking stupid variations instead of learning to bowl accurately.

I don't think T20 is going to kill test cricket, and I think the Test Championship will help but I think we're going to see very few 5 day tests anymore.
 
Pakistan need 154 to win. Good fight back after SA had made 70 odd without loss from just 7 overs.

De Kock looks a decent player.
 
ha_rooney said:
Pakistan need 154 to win. Good fight back after SA had made 70 odd without loss from just 7 overs.

De Kock looks a decent player.
Click to expand...


You mean to say De Kock rose to the occasion?
 
NinjaFletch said:
I think this is the biggest problem. Too many kids are being bought up on absolute roads and told to play their shots, no one is growing up learning how to score ugly runs and too many bowlers are spending times on their fecking stupid variations instead of learning to bowl accurately.

I don't think T20 is going to kill test cricket, and I think the Test Championship will help but I think we're going to see very few 5 day tests anymore.
Click to expand...
What were basically seeing is batting becoming solely about "hitting" instead of a balance between run scoring and surviving. Because survival isnt as big an issue anymore. Batsman seem to come being able to think "how many" rather than "how". This is due to the the game completely favoring batsman. So much so that the quality of bowlers is really rubbish.

Of course I do generalize and exaggerate somewhat but from the little cricket I watch these days (little as my love for the game has died due to said changes) that's the stront feeling I get.
 
Interval Level said:
Sport has to evolve. Think if there were message boards in the 70s-80s there'd be complaints that ODIs were killing cricket.

Obviously doesn't mean we'll get used to the newer form of cricket. We'll whinge, moan, romanticize and eventuall move on completely to casual viewing. I guess thats what is amazing about football
Click to expand...
Theres change thats good for the sport and changw that is bad for it. Which way you feel is obviously subjective. But for me personally odi cricket improved the sport overall, whilst maintaining its core strengths and standards. Look at the bowlers weve had post the introduction of odis. The 90s and first half of 00s saw some some incredible bowling talent. T20 on the other hand has taken what odi cricket introduced and taken it way too far to the point where its messing with core elemnts of the game and its balance in terms of standard.
 
Am convinced Harsha Bhogle gets some money out of promoting Kohli.
 




Tweets a LOT like this about Kohli.

He speaks nonsense like this when commentating also, whenever it is about Kohli.

It's like he completely chooses to ignore that Kohli's making all these runs on some of the flattest wickets with 1 less fielder outside the circle(for professional sportsmen, that is a huge change in margins) and against some filthy bowling.

It's like the intermediate test series that happen between these ODIs don't happen at all, where Kohli has been just about okay.
 
Also, I think the wheels are starting to come off Dhawan a little.
 
I don't think Harsha has ever been a very unbiased or an objective commentator. Often speaks more from emotions than logic, specially when it comes to Sachin or some other of his favourites. I actually don't mind that as much. Amol pointed out the other day how he gets all giggly and excited when interviewing someone he admires a lot and it takes away a bit from the whole scenario, which is true but on the other hand it comes across that he doesn't try to overestimate himself. He's just a common man surrounded by legends of the game working on the same level and he doesn't try to hide his excitement which is understandable. I know as a commentator or a pundit your job is to provide a balanced opinion and I agree with teh criticism he gets for that but I personally don't really mind that, and I find it easy to relate with his views as he speaks more as a fan than a know it all.
 
I really would expect bhogle to be able to put all of this in perspective.
 
I find Harsha's commentary to be very annoying. He's like a fan-girl.
 
What do you expect him to do? Drone about the fielding restrictions or the shitty WI bowling team or his record away from home or T20 has killed the game off. He's watching the game and enjoying Kohli's batting like many do

I Anal Doer 18 said:
I don't think Harsha has ever been a very unbiased or an objective commentator. Often speaks more from emotions than logic, specially when it comes to Sachin or some other of his favourites. I actually don't mind that as much. Amol pointed out the other day how he gets all giggly and excited when interviewing someone he admires a lot and it takes away a bit from the whole scenario, which is true but on the other hand it comes across that he doesn't try to overestimate himself. He's just a common man surrounded by legends of the game working on the same level and he doesn't try to hide his excitement which is understandable. I know as a commentator or a pundit your job is to provide a balanced opinion and I agree with teh criticism he gets for that but I personally don't really mind that, and I find it easy to relate with his views as he speaks more as a fan than a know it all.
Click to expand...

I agree. He's not a pretentious cnut like most other commentators.
 
crappycraperson said:
They always were. I don't think either he or Vijay will be our long term test openers
Click to expand...

I said that when he was in the middle of his purple patch.

I found his performance in the test series very unimpressive. He plays too many shots and he's not Virender Sehwag to get away with it. Does not leave the ball.

Vijay, yea. I don't think the first incarnation was good enough for overseas tests, let's see about the 2nd version.
 
I Anal Doer 18 said:
True, I wanted Rahane to open but seems like he wants to play in the middle order.
Click to expand...

I bought into the Rahane hype but then he turned up in the ODI series against England kept getting bowled through the gate driving. Not a good sign for a test opener..
 
I Anal Doer 18 said:
What about Gambhir coming back into the team? I think I'd rather give him a chance than take Vijay.
Click to expand...

Would rather not. Would prefer a guy who values his wicket. Not someone like Gambhir who plays thinking his position is secure and keep prodding outside off stump all series long.

For the middle order, I think the TN player Aparajith's time will come sooner than we think.

I like Mukund more than Vijay as an opener, incidentally. Not sure if he's made many runs recently, though.

Anyone seen much of Jiwanjot Singh? Read good things about him.
 
Yeah, Gambhir took his position for granted over the last couple of years but I guess if that attitude is gone, he can again become an asset for us. I had really high hopes from him and thought he would be a mainstay in the team but he really went off track. His innings in NZ was brilliant and he can value his wicket when he wants to.
 
Would prefer Gambhir to Vijay but don't think he's done much of late to be recalled. Seem to remember him doing quite well on our last tour to SA. Very gritty
 
Yes.. his better innings came in pressure situations than in situations demanding technique. He always failed in the latter.

Napier and the two 50s in SA were similar. Failed in Australia, failed in England.

I think he should be our ODI #4, though. Have no idea why he was dropped. Bad in 2013, but for 5 years before that averaged 40+ consistently. Think he's a very good ODI player. Certainly better than the present Yuvraj or Raina at 4.

Or it ought to be Pujara given a go.
 
Pujara might be a bit too slow for ODIs but certainly better than likes of Yuvi.

I'm not too concerned over our ODI team, the batting at least. On most days the likes of Virat and Dhoni, and now Rohit would bail us out.

Tests is where we need serious strengthening.
 
Amla is a joy to watch, so fecking classy and makes everything look so simple. Love watching him play.
 
Rishi Dhawan should be in this Indian team soon. Could be a good option for SA. Should've selected him for WI tour instead they selected Unadkat and Vinay Kumar :rolleyes:
 
Good win for Pakistan, manage to draw the series.

Umar Akmal batted well, he really should be in the Test team. Spinners did well, Tanvir bowled a superb final over & Bhatti looks a good bowler. If only we could produce some more batters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.