"The greatest game of cricket ever played"

Donaldo

Caf Vigilante
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
18,445
Location
Goes it so.
Supports
Arsenal
What absolute tripe.

The only thing that game did was to expose One Day cricket for the one sided useless pyjama cricket it is.

What use are the fecking bowlers then?Put a fecking bowling machine on ened and play your "greatest games ever".

The only good thing about it was the fact that Australia are reduced to a laughing stock.
 
Bit much that. It was edge of the seat stuff - especially towards the end.

But on the whole, I agree. People who only watch one-day cricket will never see the true magic of a class bowler at his best. A Warne bowling with 6 around the bat or a Shoaib bouncer leaving the batsman flat on his ass. What need was there to extend the fielding restriction overs further? Its just getting to be a joke now.
 
Not denying that it was an exciting game.Or that SA didn't deserve it.

Just that it defintiely doesn't show the game in a good light.
 
It was by far the best batting performances ever seen. Its may not have been a great game of cricket but it was an amazing batting performace.
 
Red-Indian said:
Bit much that. It was edge of the seat stuff - especially towards the end.

But on the whole, I agree. People who only watch one-day cricket will never see the true magic of a class bowler at his best. A Warne bowling with 6 around the bat or a Shoaib bouncer leaving the batsman flat on his ass. What need was there to extend the fielding restriction overs further? Its just getting to be a joke now.
Click to expand...

And this stupid fecking substitute rule. They are trying to turn 1 day cricket in to an extended 20/20 match
 
Exactly. If that the kind of stuff you're interested in, you might as well switch over to 20-20. What irritates me in all these new forms of cricket is the number of artificial restrictions that are imposed on the game.

Bowlers can only bowl in a narrow channel and are also restricted from bowling certain types of balls. (I mean bouncers. Next they'll be saying only once googly or slower ball per over or something of the sort)
Fielders can only be placed in certain position based on some arbitrary rules.
etc.

Imagine if FIFA decided tomorrow that in order to cater to the idiots who want more goals, for the first 15 minutes of the game, teams would be allowed only 2 players in their own box or that defenders would be allowed only one sliding tackle every 6 minutes.

One-day cricket's really gone too far in that absurd direction and its becoming extremely silly to watch.
 
They're calling it the greatest ODI ever. Big difference. I guess, statistically. . .it probably was. But my gripe is the lack of quality bowlers on both sides, barring Brett Lee. Besides him, none of them would make good test bowlers. And here lies the problem.
 
Looking Busy said:
It was no great game for real cricket fans.

All it was was a slog fest
Click to expand...
It was a great game for any sports fan. Unlike most Indians i prefer test cricket. But this game was something else.. Theyr hyping it up correctly. It was awesome stuff. Personally i like to see contest between bat and ball and i hope they dont go to such an extent that this becomes a norm and people everywhere start demanding high scoring games. But as a one off, it was great. This reminds me of a few years back when close finishes in one day cricket were quite frequent. Fabulous stuff.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
It was a great game for any sports fan. Unlike most Indians i prefer test cricket. .
Click to expand...

You lot prefer the one day stuff.
 
Spoony said:
You lot prefer the one day stuff.
Click to expand...
True. I dont. But most Indians do. Still have to acknowledge what an amazing game it was. As i sad i hope it doenst tilt the advantage in the batsmans favour even more in the future as far pitches are concern, but just as a single game it was brilliant.
 
I agree it was not a good game for real cricket fans. But I and no one can deny that it was extremely exciting and enthralling stuff. We should just acceot that ODIs have been reduced to slog fest and by that basis, it was the greatest game ever.
 
crappycraperson said:
I agree it was not a good game for real cricket fans. But I and no one can deny that it was extremely exciting and enthralling stuff. We should just acceot that ODIs have been reduced to slog fest and by that basis, it was the greatest game ever.
Click to expand...
I still prefer a game like the one between these two teams at the 99 world cup. It was as close and it was a contest between bat and ball in every sense. THAT should be the bar set for one day cricket.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
True. I dont. But most Indians do. Still have to acknowledge what an amazing game it was. As i sad i hope it doenst tilt the advantage in the batsmans favour even more in the future as far pitches are concern, but just as a single game it was brilliant.
Click to expand...


It was an amazing feat. That can't be denied. But it was just like watching baseball. The problem with the game, in general, aside from it's mundane nature, is that it rewards bowlers that can contain the opposition, which is why you'll these none threatening bowlers in most teams. The reason why Test cricket is great, is because there's usually something for everyone. One on the best sights in cricket is watching a fast bowler like Shoaib knock a batsman's head off with a thunderbolt. . . or an attacking spinner, who likes to toss the ball up, allowing it to spin. It's a completely different game. One's truely awful, the other, is proper the best sport in the world. . . well, up there with football.
 
Spoony said:
It was an amazing feat. That can't be denied. But it was just like watching baseball. The problem with the game, in general, aside from it's mundane nature, is that it rewards bowlers that can contain the opposition, which is why you'll these none threatening bowlers in most teams. The reason why Test cricket is great, is because there's usually something for everyone. One on the best sights in cricket is watching a fast bowler like Shoaib knock a batsman's head off with a thunderbolt. . . or an attacking spinner, who likes to toss the ball up, allowing it to spin. It's a completely different game. One's truely awful, the other, is proper the best sport in the world. . . well, up there with football.
Click to expand...

Well said actually. The cricket purists opinion i guess. See im the same, thats why i said i prefer the semi final between these two teams as the bar set for one day cricket. Not the ball being bashed to every corner. It was some time back but i think there was a real contest in that game between bat and ball.

But for a few hours forget the norms of test cricket, and as one off, this is just fabulous entertainement. I think what made it great was the fact that it was so unexpected. When i knew the Aussies had scored 400+ i thought it was over. But the fact that it was South Africa who had so often been at the wrong end of close finishes and that too against Australia, time and time again. It felt like redemption. I really liked that South African team with Donaldo, Klusner, a young Pollock, Kallis etc in it. IMO it was as good as the Australian side At the time. And that one run out just seemed to destroy that team. It was a pretty sad moment for cricket because they could have really given the Aussies a run for their money. And coming back to this game, the great part was i guess every single cricket fan(non aussies) became a SA fan for a few moments.
 
It was a terrific advert for the game.

What planet are you guys on?
 
:lol: I thought you didn't like ODI cricket??

Or is that only when Spoony's around.

The contest was good, yes.But unfortunately cricket also has these things called 'bowlers'.You're English..you wouldn't have heard of them.
 
I don't dislike ODIs but it's just not on a par with Test cricket. Most people understand that, except the Indians and children.

Australia took 9 wickets.

ODI pitches should be good batting wickets - wickets will fall because the batsman are attacking.
 
Slabber said:
I don't dislike ODIs but it's just not on a par with Test cricket. Most people understand that, except the Indians and children.

Australia took 9 wickets.

ODI pitches should be good batting wickets - wickets will fall because the batsman are attacking.
Click to expand...
Thats weird logic. You dont particularly like ODI's, but you think they should be played on flat tracks and basically should be slog fests. Correct? I thought the reason you didnt like them was because they were so far off from test cricket in the sense that there was a lack of skill involved and too much random slogging.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Thats weird logic. You dont particularly like ODI's, but you think they should be played on flat tracks and basically should be slog fests. Correct? I thought the reason you didnt like them was because they were so far off from test cricket in the sense that there was a lack of skill involved and too much random slogging.
Click to expand...

It's not weird logic if you have a brain capable of processing data.

ODI's are limited overs games. Got that? So the point is to score quickly. You following? If you throw in a wicket where the ball is moving around, you force batsman onto the defensive. Can you follow that? With the result that the game becomes:

a) arbitrary in the sense that since both sides are just trying to survive, who happens to get more runs along the way is of secondary importance; and

b) crowds come to watch a days cricket and seeing sides disintegrate before their alloted overs, or struggling to eek out runs, fails to achieve the primary purpose of ODIs which is to entertain the crowds, especially Indians who have limited attention spans.

A good ODI should be a measure of a side's tactical and technical ability at balancing the risk of attacking shots against the risks of getting out, and they should be as evenly matched as possible. The anticipation and tension of a close finish is what makes the game as a spectacle. Good batting wickets help to achieve this end.

Test cricket, in contrast, is the ultimate measure of quality. A variety of wickets are therefore desirable to test sides in all aspects of the game. Ideally this variety should be sought in each series so as to truly measure the difference between the two sides, and ideally all wickets should offer something to batsmen and bowlers of all kinds so as to achieve a sporting contest.

However, ultimately, in Test cricket what is paramount is that the cricket is an authentic measure of the players' ability and performance, rather than a spectacle. It is the pure form of the game.

Capiche?
 
Good game but I thought the game in 1999 was better. In that game batsman who got their head down and worked hard got their reward with some well earnt runs and the bowlers who gave it their all got their rewards with wickets. I also can never forget Lance Klusner walking out and just blazing their bowling attack. They had men on the boundaries who couldn't get near the ball even when it was in their general direction as he was hitting it so hard. Also Donald fecking up right at the end, I don't think I was the only one shouting "Run Donald RUN" at the end!

This match was good but it was just a match to see who could out slog the other side. In 1999 it had everything, good batting, bowling and fielding.
 
Slabber said:
ODI's are limited overs games. Got that? So the point is to score quickly. You following? If you throw in a wicket where the ball is moving around, you force batsman onto the defensive. Can you follow that? With the result that the game becomes:

a) arbitrary in the sense that since both sides are just trying to survive, who happens to get more runs along the way is of secondary importance; and

b) crowds come to watch a days cricket and seeing sides disintegrate before their alloted overs, or struggling to eek out runs, fails to achieve the primary purpose of ODIs which is to entertain the crowds, especially Indians who have limited attention spans.
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be either a pitch where the ball moves from leg to off, or a one where 300 is a par score? fecking hell theres something called balance. Good cricketing wickets. The types which provide the best cricket, in both forms of the game. I never said prepare a wicket where the batsman are struggling to survive. Pitches can have some assist for both batsman and bowler, im sure you know that.

Tell me something, keeping the close finish the same, wouldnt you have preferred there to be a proper contest between bat and ball.. with a great opening spell from Pollock, beating the bat on several occasions, having confrontations with the batsman. Thats the magic of cricket, the stories within the game itself. The reason why ODI's have been successful is that that element of the game is not something that is exclusive to test cricket. Sure its better, more frequent and more authentic in test cricket, but to take its existance away from the shorter version of the game, would just ruin it.
 
A good batting wicket should offer something to the bowlers. Only an Indian would fail to appreciate that.
 
One day cricket it all about runs, though. Fans of one day cricket, want to see the ball crossing the boundary every over. . . big shots left right and centre etc etc. If you make it more of an even contest, it will become a low scoring game. Which is not the point of this genre of cricket. Seriously, I can see 500+ being score in the future. It'll keep the idiots happy, no doubt.
 
Slabber said:
A good batting wicket should offer something to the bowlers. Only an Indian would fail to appreciate that.
Click to expand...
Cant you keep the Indian bit out of things?
But basically were agreeing. I thought you meant a batting wicket like the one in this game, or others which offer very very little for bowlers.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Cant you keep the Indian bit out of things?
But basically were agreeing. I thought you meant a batting wicket like the one in this game, or others which offer very very little for bowlers.
Click to expand...

I promise never to mention India again if you'll do the same.
 
Spoony said:
One day cricket it all about runs, though. Fans of one day cricket, want to see the ball crossing the boundary every over. . . big shots left right and centre etc etc. If you make it more of an even contest, it will become a low scoring game. Which is not the point of this genre of cricket. Seriously, I can see 500+ being score in the future. It'll keep the idiots happy, no doubt.
Click to expand...
Sadly you're right. People actually do want to see that. And as its evident from this game, its not just an Asian thing. I think its retarded, as i said in my earlier wouldnt a match with a similar close finish, but with a proper contest between batsman and bowlers, be much better?
 
Slabber said:
I promise never to mention India again if you'll do the same.
Click to expand...
I meant in a derrogatory way. 'Only Indians would...' that sort of thing. You sound obsessed.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Sadly you're right. People actually do want to see that. And as its evident from this game, its not just an Asian thing. I think its retarded, as i said in my earlier wouldnt a match with a similar close finish, but with a proper contest between batsman and bowlers, be much better?
Click to expand...


You get that in Test Matches thesedays. I've seen some really good finishes, lately. Even the ones we lost in Pakistan, we're all exciting on the 5th day. But the Ashes were brilliant, great contest throughout the five days. Probably the best series I've seen. I think it could be equalled, aslong as games are played on good wickets. Ironically, it's probably the one day game, that's made Test matches more explosive. Batsmen go out to make big runs, and it's reflected in the average runs per over in Tests. When I was young games used to average 2.5 an over. Nowadays it's around 4. This is the reason why there are a lot more results in test matches, as well. Going back to your point, I'd like to see attacking bowlers rewarded in one day cricket. But I just can't see it happening. As for England, Test Matches here are always sold out. . .just like the one dayers, so I think the core still prefers the proper five day stuff. But from what I've seen in Asia, only Faisalabad was sold out. The other Pakistani venues didn't attract big crowds. And Nagpur and Mohali have been just as bad. I really think something has to be done in that part of world.
 
Spoony said:
You get that in Test Matches thesedays. I've seen some really good finishes, lately. Even the ones we lost in Pakistan, we're all exciting on the 5th day. But the Ashes were brilliant, great contest throughout the five days. Probably the best series I've seen. I think it could be equalled, aslong as games are played on good wickets. Ironically, it's probably the one day game, that's made Test matches more explosive. Batsmen go out to make big runs, and it's reflected in the average runs per over in Tests. When I was young games used to average 2.5 an over. Nowadays it's around 4. This is the reason why there are a lot more results in test matches, as well. Going back to your point, I'd like to see attacking bowlers rewarded in one day cricket. But I just can't see it happening. As for England, Test Matches here are always sold out. . .just like the one dayers, so I think the core still prefers the proper five day stuff. But from what I've seen in Asia, only Faisalabad was sold out. The other Pakistani venues didn't attract big crowds. And Nagpur and Mohali have been just as bad. I really think something has to be done in that part of world.
Click to expand...
I know. It is a big problem. Never used to be a few years back. I remember Eden Gardens, when Australia came here, more than a lakh stuffed into the ground and around it. In cricket thats just something rare.. and everyone screaming and shouting like Indian fans generally do.

But in the last few years the popularity of one day cricket has just soared like crazy. The world cup i guess played a big part and slowly but surely crowds are getting disinterested in test cricket. As you know, cricket here is part of our culture, its like what football is in England. They have to somehow channel that towards getting crowds in tests. Cricket has no doubt even in the last couple of years gotten even bigger in this country, but sadly all of that is for one day cricket.

Maybe its to do with incomes. People dont want to spend a part of their hard earned income on viewing one fifth of a match of cricket, and there too where they might end up watching the other team bat all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.