Ind vss England ODI's

amolbhatia100 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No surprise really, given the contrasts between the ODI's and the Tests against Australia.
 
Lotsa people prefer to watch test cricket on TV in India.
For starters, IMO it is not worth it to watch cricket match in stadium. It is not like football where if there is some good movement on the ball you will be alerted .Everytime I go to watch cricket match, I end up missing half the good shots and wickets because I am looking away for half a second. It is only worthy if you are sitiing in expensive seats at pavillion end or something where you get a good view of the action.

Then cretinous cricket officials in India sell tickets for 5 days not for single. Most people have to work and can't go all 5 days or even 2-3 days. It is much easier to get a day off for a one dayer.
 
Sultan said:
Agreed, on the flip side Gavasker was a liability in the shorter version of the game - yet regarded as a great...
Click to expand...


That's because it's the only form of the game, in which greatness can be measured. No one really gives a stuff how well players do in OD cricket. As for Bevan, he was a very very average cricketer. Test cricket, separate's the men from the boys. He couldn't hack it against, hostile fast bowling. Never looked comfortable against the short pitched stuff. He was found out. Simple really. I'm sorry, but Test cricket and it's stats are all that matters. One day? fecking hell. What next, 20/20?

Honestly.
 
Spoony said:
That's because it's the only form of the game, in which greatness can be measured. No one really gives a stuff how well players do in OD cricket. As for Bevan, he was a very very average cricketer. Test cricket, separate's the men from the boys. He couldn't hack it against, hostile fast bowling. Never looked comfortable against the short pitched stuff. He was found out. Simple really. I'm sorry, but Test cricket and it's stats are all that matters. One day? fecking hell. What next, 20/20?

Honestly.
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that.
 
Spoony said:
That's because it's the only form of the game, in which greatness can be measured. No one really gives a stuff how well players do in OD cricket. As for Bevan, he was a very very average cricketer. Test cricket, separate's the men from the boys. He couldn't hack it against, hostile fast bowling. Never looked comfortable against the short pitched stuff. He was found out. Simple really. I'm sorry, but Test cricket and it's stats are all that matters. One day? fecking hell. What next, 20/20?

Honestly.
Click to expand...
Sorry i dont agree with that. Its ridiculous to say that form of the game and its stats simply dont matter. World cups dont matter? Performing on the biggest stage doesnt matter? I dont see why you're surprised, the biggest event in the sport is in the ODI format, and its played by all the top players all year round, so they definately give a shit. And why shouldnt it matter? If a player is good in the so called dangerous world of test cricket which seperates the men from the boys, he should be able to perform in other form as well. Same goes for teams. This Australian team is not only great because its test wins, but the fact that in ODIs no one could get close to them. And obviously top of the list, two world cup wins.

Beven was an excellent cricketer. He finished games magnificently. It requires different skills to chase down scores. I dont understand how you cant see that. A run chase like yesterdays requires skill, and if someone like Gavaskar couldnt cut it in those types of situations, then that should be held against him as a cricketer.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Sorry i dont agree with that. Its ridiculous to say that form of the game and its stats simply dont matter. World cups dont matter? Performing on the biggest stage doesnt matter? I dont see why you're surprised, the biggest event in the sport is in the ODI format, and its played by all the top players all year round, so they definately give a shit. And why shouldnt it matter? If a player is good in the so called dangerous world of test cricket which seperates the men from the boys, he should be able to perform in other form as well. Same goes for teams. This Australian team is not only great because its test wins, but the fact that in ODIs no one could get close to them. And obviously top of the list, two world cup wins.

Beven was an excellent cricketer. He finished games magnificently. It requires different skills to chase down scores. I dont understand how you cant see that. A run chase like yesterdays requires skill, and if someone like Gavaskar couldnt cut it in those types of situations, then that should be held against him as a cricketer.
Click to expand...


You could learn a lot of Crappy.

Bevan excellent cricketer, indeed. Clueless bellend.
 
Spoony said:
You could learn a lot of Crappy.

Bevan excellent cricketer, indeed. Clueless bellend.
Click to expand...
You've really got a problem with people disagreeing with you. Just because he agrees doesnt mean i do. You're the clueless one, 'one day peformances dont matter'. Most idiotic thing iv heard. And sadly you couldnt stick to the topic either, had to resort to pathetic insults.
 
Bevan was shit in test cricket. Just a couple of bouncers and he was off his game. But still a very good player at ODIs. I am sure many aussie fans would have him as their favourite.

Viv Richards in one of my fav players. Many might disagree but from what I have seen of him,he seemed to be a better ODI player than Test.

You can completely disregard ODIs but it is fair to say that only test cricket is true indicator of a cricketer.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
You've really got a problem with people disagreeing with you. Just because he agrees doesnt mean i do. You're the clueless one, 'one day peformances dont matter'. Most idiotic thing iv heard. And sadly you couldnt stick to the topic either, had to resort to pathetic insults.
Click to expand...


You're just so clueless. It's nothing worth debating with you, the majority of the time.

One day cricket, when he(Bevan) played it, was even more batsmen orientated than it is today. No bouncers for starters. When you weren't around, back in the 70 and early 80's, everything went. Bowlers could bowl as many bouncers as they wanted in one day cricket. So when I say, Bevan is a very average cricketer, it's true. Test cricket is the only marker for greatness. Not some half baked game, where everything favours economical, run of the mill bowlers and batsmen, who've got everything going their way.

Go away, now.
 
crappycraperson said:
Bevan was shit in test cricket. Just a couple of bouncers and he was off his game. But still a very good player at ODIs. I am sure many aussie fans would have him as their favourite.

Viv Richards in one of my fav players. Many might disagree but from what I have seen of him,he seemed to be a better ODI player than Test.

You can completely disregard ODIs but it is fair to say that only test cricket is true indicator of a cricketer.
Click to expand...


Viv could play both forms of the game, brilliantly. I've never seen a better Test batsman, put it that way.
 
Sultan said:
Agreed, on the flip side Gavasker was a liability in the shorter version of the game - yet regarded as a great...
Click to expand...

When ODI's were introduced, Gavaskar was a disaster. He batted for 60 overs and scored 30 runs in the first ever ODI played by India. Later he adjusted his stance and backlift and adapted himself nicely to the shorter version of the game.

Since the ODI's and tours during the 80's and 70's were few and far between players like Gavaskar, Martin Crowe, Gower did not have a great record compared to some modern day cronies. Had they played now, they would've been miles ahead than the so called one day specialists.
 
crappycraperson said:
Bevan was shit in test cricket. Just a couple of bouncers and he was off his game. But still a very good player at ODIs. I am sure many aussie fans would have him as their favourite.

Viv Richards in one of my fav players. Many might disagree but from what I have seen of him,he seemed to be a better ODI player than Test.

You can completely disregard ODIs but it is fair to say that only test cricket is true indicator of a cricketer.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen too much of him then.
 
DONADO said:
You haven't seen too much of him then.
Click to expand...
No, he is obviously one of the best test batsman as well.
But he averaged 47 and had strike rate of 90 in an era when a combination of 30 average and 60-70 str was considered good in ODIs.
 
Spoony said:
You're just so clueless. It's nothing worth debating with you, the majority of the time.

One day cricket, when he(Bevan) played it, was even more batsmen orientated than it is today. No bouncers for starters. When you weren't around, back in the 70 and early 80's, everything went. Bowlers could bowl as many bouncers as they wanted in one day cricket. So when I say, Bevan is a very average cricketer, it's true. Test cricket is the only marker for greatness. Not some half baked game, where everything favours economical, run of the mill bowlers and batsmen, who've got everything going their way.

Go away, now.
Click to expand...
So performances in World Cups dont matter anymore? What if one is a very good batsman but never showed up in the world cups?

I agree that test cricket is the true test of any cricket, but personally i feel one day cricket also counts when you're judging a player. Obviously generally if you're good at tests you can do it one dayers as well. But if a player cant do it in one form of the game, then that should be held against him. Its played all year long, its played more than test cricket, it brings most of the money into the game, players have to be judged on it as well.
 
crappycraperson said:
No, he is obviously one of the best test batsman as well.
But he averaged 47 and had strike rate of 90 in an era when a combination of 30 average and 60-70 str was considered good in ODIs.
Click to expand...
Thats simply because he was head and shoulders above everyone else who played in that time or even today.

What a batsman.
 
Spoony said:
That's because it's the only form of the game, in which greatness can be measured. No one really gives a stuff how well players do in OD cricket. As for Bevan, he was a very very average cricketer. Test cricket, separate's the men from the boys. He couldn't hack it against, hostile fast bowling. Never looked comfortable against the short pitched stuff. He was found out. Simple really. I'm sorry, but Test cricket and it's stats are all that matters. One day? fecking hell. What next, 20/20?

Honestly.
Click to expand...

Agree - no arguments from me...
 
crappycraperson said:
No, he is obviously one of the best test batsman as well.
But he averaged 47 and had strike rate of 90 in an era when a combination of 30 average and 60-70 str was considered good in ODIs.
Click to expand...

With Viv you get the impression he used to get bored in Test matches, his average of around 50 does the man no justice at all
 
surprising move to say the least. i'd expect dhoni or pathan to open ahead of dravid. he really likes to mess around with the batting order. can't really complain though, we're winning most of our one-dayers.
 
Slabber said:
3 down with 4 to play. England need to step it up a little.
Click to expand...
Really?:eek:

Your batsmen are so crap its almost not funny watching them try.

Well played Yuvraj, he's really starting to stamp his class in the international scene.Raina looks a good player too.

I don't think Patel should be in the ODI team, not just because of his bowling today.
 
Slabber said:
Singh: 103 off 76 balls.

What a poor advert for the game.
Click to expand...
He ripped your fecking bowlers apart today.

Oh I forgot to mention, they're fecking shite as well.Anderson's the only one who manages to impress.

Bit ironic, considering he was probably 2nd or 3rd choice for England.
 
DONADO said:
He ripped your fecking bowlers apart today.

Oh I forgot to mention, they're fecking shite as well.Anderson's the only one who manages to impress.

Bit ironic, considering he was probably 2nd or 3rd choice for England.
Click to expand...
Where were you when you were shit?
 
redender said:
Where were you when you were shit?
Click to expand...
Right here.

Well actually we've always been semi-shit so I don't know when you're talking of...
 
Spoony said:
Indians love this stuff, don't they.
Click to expand...
I don't like One-dayers...I used to think they were good entertainment but its just too much shite nowadays what with all the rule changes.

I like seeing my country teach you how to play though.
 
DONADO said:
I don't like One-dayers...I used to think they were good entertainment but its just too much shite nowadays what with all the rule changes.

I like seeing my country teach you how to play though.
Click to expand...


Mickey mouse cricket.

We were the better side, in the proper version game. On your patch, without 5 first team players.

Ouch.
 
Not denying in the least.

Your 'side' wasn't better than ours though.Your batsmen were abysmal.

Just shows how bad our game was.
 
It's baseball with pjs on these days.

And our one day team is crap, and again missing 5 players. Lap it up cock knockers.

Indians are gay, and crap, and cheer everything. If Dravid took a shit on the wicket the Indian fans would wank into a frenzy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.