I doubt i said anything like that without being provoked. I praised sachin when the 'lara is better..' started. I probably said good things about India, when some one claimed we were shit. Im a saint actually. Sultan's my hero.Slabber said:
Ind vss England ODI's
- Thread starter vijay
- Start date
amolbhatia100 said:
If you carry on with this nonsense I'm going to have to trawl through the cricket threads to prove my point.
You take this so seriously. I'm not claiming anything, it'l probably come back to bite me. But i doubt i was 'bragging' about Indian cricket. We arent like Australia that we have that kind of success to brag about.Slabber said:
amolbhatia100 said:
So ODI's, because of the World Cup outstrip the Test game in terms of importance?
The Indians love the ODI World Cup, becuase it's the only thing they've ever won. Except Kabbadi.
amolbhatia100 said:
More gold.
Thats your opinion i guess. I never said anything like that. Test cricket will always be more important than one dayers. But the World Cup is the exception. Although Slabber was right when he said that its in the ODI format only because it wouldnt be possible otherwise.Dowders_Jnr said:
Actually its the other way round. You hate it because you havent and probably never will. And England dont really matter, any team thats of any importance in the cricketing world has won the world cup. Its a ticket into the big time. I bet Bangla will get there before England do.Slabber said:
amolbhatia100 said:
We don't hate it. We'd love to win it. But it just isn't as important as the Test side. It's just a bonus.
Are you any good at Kabbadi?
amolbhatia100 said:
But that is inferring exactly what I said before. So you're contradicting yourself. Just because of the name it bears doesn't make it the pinnacle of cricket. Had Australia not won the last 2 World Cups they would still have been considered the world's major force of the last decade or so because of their Test form. In this respect the world titles are merely circumstantial.
Aussie domination started after then won the 99 WC.Dowders_Jnr said:
WC is the biggest accomplishment for a cricket team and will remain so untill there is a some form of Test Cricket WC or something.
crappycraperson said:
That will never happen, and it can't. Test cricket is the ultimate indicator to greatness, not the World Cup. This Australia side we've seen, particuarly Waugh's team, have been the greates because of their Test accomplishments. The World Cup's are nice compliment to them.
You are wrong.Dowders_Jnr said:
Test cricket is the true indicator of a team but WC remains the biggest prize one can win.
crappycraperson said:
I guess its a perspective thing. I still think it is wrong to say the World Cup is the greatest accolade a team can win. Don't get me wrong, I would love England to win in the Windies in 12 months time, but compared to retaining the Ashes in Aus....it simply wouldn't register on the same scale.
And about as likely
Where am i contradicting myself? In general i would like India to win test matches more than one dayers. But as i said the world cup is an exception. You people might not enjoy it, but it is the biggest prize in cricket. Slabber may blabber on about it being an Asian thing, but cricket is mainly an Asian sport, thats where all the money comes from, where all the interest comes from. And even if you look at countries like South Africa, the crowds seem more interested in one dayers even there. Australia have always considered the world cup as the top prize, atleast they did before they won it for fun.Dowders_Jnr said:
I hear a lot people claim here go on and on about how rubbish International football is, and how it has little importance. But the world cup is easily the biggest thing in football. I know it isnt the best example, because of the format thingie, but the world cup is the biggest thing in cricket. Just sad the format had to be the inferior one.
amolbhatia100 said:
Yes, it isn't.
amolbhatia100 said:
No one watches Test Cricket in India.
And the Indians are so poor that the UK TV rights are worth more than the Indian rights, even though there's a billion of you.
And you still haven't said whether you're any good at kabbadi.
Slabber said:
source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/other_international/india/4723630.stm
"India makes massive rights sale
India cricket chiefs have sold global broadcast rights for the next four years for a record sum of £352 million.
Eight contenders made bids to show all cricket in India on television, radio and broadband until 2010.
The winner was Nimbus Communications, described as "the clear winner with the highest bid" by Lalit Modi of the Board of Control for Cricket in India's.
In all, the BCCI sold contracts worth £434 million, a 10-fold jump in revenue from the previous four years.
Nimbus does not have its own sports channel, but its chief Harish Thawani might seek tie-ups with other networks.
"We could be close to buying a network, we could do multiple networks or partner one, but we want to stop this thing about exclusivity," he said. "
Clearly Indian TV rights are worth a lot more than UK Tv rights. An interesting article appeared in the Guardian if you care enough to read: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,1727817,00.html
And everyone in India watches Test cricket.
Most if not all players will tell you that they value Test cricket more, the true beauty of cricket lies in its chess like nature and the constant battle of wits and skills, which can only be seen in Test cricket. It's easily seen that Test cricket demands a higher level of mental awareness and technical skill.
I don't think the administrators should be concentrating on one-day events to the extent they are doing at present, it's a slippery path to go down because real cricket really is about the skills that are required for Test match cricket - physical, mental skills and the temperamental aspect. One-day cricket doesn't draw on those strengths to the same extent.
All great players are judged on their Test match careers, not one-day careers.
One-dayers are Ok for a day out, or an excuse for a holiday during the World cup.
I was awesome at Kabbadi Slabbs - until mum refused to do the laundry, shame really.
I don't think the administrators should be concentrating on one-day events to the extent they are doing at present, it's a slippery path to go down because real cricket really is about the skills that are required for Test match cricket - physical, mental skills and the temperamental aspect. One-day cricket doesn't draw on those strengths to the same extent.
All great players are judged on their Test match careers, not one-day careers.
One-dayers are Ok for a day out, or an excuse for a holiday during the World cup.
I was awesome at Kabbadi Slabbs - until mum refused to do the laundry, shame really.
mehro said:
I know.
mehro said:
Yes, I know. I made that statistic up to piss off Amol.
You're right about everything except this. Personally i feel a player should be judged on both. One day cricket brings different skills of a player to the fore. Some one like Beven, who i think we can all agree was fabulous at what he did, was truely appreciated in the shorter version of the game.Sultan said:
Yes, all of us who enjoy the game know that test cricket is the 'true' form of the game, lets not repeat the same thing again and again.
amolbhatia100 said:
The whole thing is somewhat contradictory. To say one version of the game is greater than another, but then to say the lesser form of the game has a tournament that is above anything the greater form of the game has to offer is a contradiction. I appreciate the standpoint you have here, I do think a lot of it comes down to how you perceive it.
Perhaps more emphasis could be made with regards to world Test rankings in order to determine who is really the top team in the world, or a Test world title if you like. But it could be very messy putting it together.
For me, the World Cup simply doesn't hold enough weight to say that this is the pinnacle of the game. I just don't see it that way.
amolbhatia100 said:
I agree, his one-day record was superb. But for a guy like Bevan, there is a guy like Nic Knight who played over 100 ODI's for England, had a very good batting ave. over 40, yet was woeful on the Test scene. Nobody seems to recall him that fondly to be honest.
Because he was in an English team who won feck all.Dowders_Jnr said:
Bevan has propelled Aussies to some great victories.
crappycraperson said:
I mean by England fans. We remember other players fondly in periods where we did feck all. In the same way United fans remember certain players fondly from periods where we were shite. I wouldn't expect an Indian or anyone else to give a toss about Knight, in spite of his excellent record.
Well I do remember he got out first on that fateful day in the Natwest Trophy final...
And he looks like one of my mates.
And he looks like one of my mates.
Dowders_Jnr said:
Agreed, on the flip side Gavasker was a liability in the shorter version of the game - yet regarded as a great...
Any volunteers to shoot England players that fall thanks to the sweep-shot tommorow?
You're entitled to your own opinon. But for my time watching cricket, the world cups have easily been the most prestigious prize in cricket. When you hear anyone who has won it, talk about his most memorable moment in cricket, its ALWAYS the world cup.Dowders_Jnr said:
You're right. Something IMO needs to be done with test cricket. People in Asia, which is main source of crickets income, are just drifting away from the longer version of the game. The crowds all around the world in test cricket have been poor. Giving the ranking more importance is one way. Maybe bar the top 6 or 7 from playing the rest(Bangla etc). Then each team having a similar schedule over the 5 year period(which is already in place i think), and points awarded on the basis of results, which is also there but not given importance. Make it clear to the public, and make it easy to understand, how points are awarded. And then maybe every 3 or 5 years, each of these top teams having played each other the same number of times, a champion is decided, like in a football league. And then you start from scratch, or as they have it, it continues on.
amolbhatia100 said:
While I agree with what you're saying, to an extent, I don't think it's feasible.
Think of the number of times a tournament's been cancelled in the recent past due to security reasons. With respect to the World Cup, no matter where it's held, the added security will be there, as it's a one time expenditure (once in four years, even). Having a stream of games to determine the Test champions - it's a little out there.
Also, with respect to the contradiction: Fact: Test cricket usually means more to the players than the fans, as it is considered to be the "real thing". Mostly, the layman prefers watching ODIs as it's fast-paced, and because, the odds of watching something for five days with no result is minimal. I personally think, a true cricket fan would appreciate the 5-day game more.
The other thing is, the World Cup is prestigious as it gets all the countries to play against one another - something that doesn't happen in cricket otherwise. It's the only form of cricket out there that allows for one champion, as opposed to the numerous tours, where one or the other team is always winning trophies - not making any of those trophies very special.
Anyhow....................
What's your opinion on today's game? 226 all out... 72/2...
amolbhatia100 said:
They're all sell-outs in England.
Jimmy Anderson's haircut is embarrassing.
Brilliant play by the Indians though - Raina and Dhoni, to be fair
Well played.
I know. Was talking about the rest. Asian countries in particular. South Africa too seem to be attracting crowds mainly for ODI's. It is a general trend, a bad one.Slabber said:
Great performance though.
Some 11 successful chases in a row i think.
Some 11 successful chases in a row i think.
That Powar is a fat cnut.