Tournment Ends

[sohum]

Personally think that game was a disgrace as well

Fair enough.

Exactly, being a bowler myself and watching cricket mainly for the bowling this match last night is harming cricket. No one in their right minds will want to pursue a career bowling on wickets like this.

The vast, vast majority of sports fans watch sports for the offense. In cricket, the division between offense and defense isn't as well-defined, but for most purposes, bowling can be thought of as defense and batting as offense. Most basketball fans don't watch the game to see the steals and turnovers--they watch it to see the dunks and three pointers. Most people don't watch football (the real type) to see smothering defense, most people watch it for the goals. Similarly, but less so, most people don't watch cricket for the wickets, they watch it for the runs.

There are obviously counterexamples to this. There have been plenty of spectacular low-scoring or no-scoring football games, tight cricket games and low-scoring basketball games. Personally, I get annoyed watching basketball when both sides are missing shots over and over again.

The 400+ score here isn't a norm and shouldn't be considered as such. This is the first 400+ score in the subcontinent. Before this match, the 6 previous 400+ scores were in South Africa (x3), Scotland, Netherlands and West Indies. The reaction towards Indian pitches is a bit OTT, in my opinion. Even if we stretch this out to the top 40 highest team scores, including this match, the breakdown is as follows:

South Africa: 10
India: 7
West Indies: 6
Pakistan: 4
England: 3
Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe: 2
Netherlands, Scotland, New Zealand, Kenya: 1

If anything, you should be riling on about the South Africans.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the changing trends in ODI cricket, due to T20. Before Jayasuriya+Kaluwitharana revolutionized the fielding restrictions in the 1996 World Cup, ODI cricket was very similar to Test cricket. A score of 250 was considered a really good score and 220 was considered defendable. While pitches may have become easier, batsmen have also realized their potential, due to T20. Batsmen in general are more aggressive today, because of the advent of T20.

 

[SaiSrini]

Fair enough.


The vast, vast majority of sports fans watch sports for the offense. In cricket, the division between offense and defense isn't as well-defined, but for most purposes, bowling can be thought of as defense and batting as offense. Most basketball fans don't watch the game to see the steals and turnovers--they watch it to see the dunks and three pointers. Most people don't watch football (the real type) to see smothering defense, most people watch it for the goals. Similarly, but less so, most people don't watch cricket for the wickets, they watch it for the runs.

There are obviously counterexamples to this. There have been plenty of spectacular low-scoring or no-scoring football games, tight cricket games and low-scoring basketball games. Personally, I get annoyed watching basketball when both sides are missing shots over and over again.

The 400+ score here isn't a norm and shouldn't be considered as such. This is the first 400+ score in the subcontinent. Before this match, the 6 previous 400+ scores were in South Africa (x3), Scotland, Netherlands and West Indies. The reaction towards Indian pitches is a bit OTT, in my opinion. Even if we stretch this out to the top 40 highest team scores, including this match, the breakdown is as follows:

South Africa: 10
India: 7
West Indies: 6
Pakistan: 4
England: 3
Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe: 2
Netherlands, Scotland, New Zealand, Kenya: 1

If anything, you should be riling on about the South Africans.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the changing trends in ODI cricket, due to T20. Before Jayasuriya+Kaluwitharana revolutionized the fielding restrictions in the 1996 World Cup, ODI cricket was very similar to Test cricket. A score of 250 was considered a really good score and 220 was considered defendable. While pitches may have become easier, batsmen have also realized their potential, due to T20. Batsmen in general are more aggressive today, because of the advent of T20.

Completely agree with this, esp. that underlined part. Thats what I have also been saying, that T20 has been having a major influence on batting styles of all players in the world. It has also had its influence in test matches with scoring rates hovering at 4 and above (Australia did it even before T20's came with the presence of Hayden,, Gilchrist and the likes, now every team does it easily). This was one of the best entertaining matches in recent times but both teams strived hard to make it as entertaining as it was due to some sloppy work on the field.

 

[Dare]

Don't have your idiotic post here. See who has started Yuvi talk here and they blame the india user for talking about Yuvaraj.

Just pointing out the obvious...

Despite the batsmen-friendly pitches, we have produced great bowlers who have performed very well in every part of the world and Indian bowlers have a reputation of being cunning and miserly and our bowlers swing the ball more than any team apart from Pak, ofcourse. Everyone hits a rough patch and that doesn't make them lesser bowlers.

Not those fast bowlers that every Indian is begging for.

West Indies: 6

How many of these were in the world cup?

 

[SaiSrini]

'Begging'? Thats a very strong word to use. We want bowlers who can consistently maintain 140+ but its not like we beg for it. A Zaheer Khan or a Sreesanth hitting the line and length and attaining that seam movement and reverse swing still works well for us and we dont mind it. These guys can touch 140+ with a little more effort and stay there. Thats what we want.

 

[Dare]

'Begging'? Thats a very strong word to use. We want bowlers who can consistently maintain 140+ but its not like we beg for it. A Zaheer Khan or a Sreesanth hitting the line and length and attaining that seam movement and reverse swing still works well for us and we dont mind it. These guys can touch 140+ with a little more effort and stay there. Thats what we want.

Every time a kid in India comes around bowling at 140+ people go crazy. Wishing its the 2nd coming of Kapil Dev.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Fair enough.


The vast, vast majority of sports fans watch sports for the offense. In cricket, the division between offense and defense isn't as well-defined, but for most purposes, bowling can be thought of as defense and batting as offense. Most basketball fans don't watch the game to see the steals and turnovers--they watch it to see the dunks and three pointers. Most people don't watch football (the real type) to see smothering defense, most people watch it for the goals. Similarly, but less so, most people don't watch cricket for the wickets, they watch it for the runs.

There are obviously counterexamples to this. There have been plenty of spectacular low-scoring or no-scoring football games, tight cricket games and low-scoring basketball games. Personally, I get annoyed watching basketball when both sides are missing shots over and over again.

The 400+ score here isn't a norm and shouldn't be considered as such. This is the first 400+ score in the subcontinent. Before this match, the 6 previous 400+ scores were in South Africa (x3), Scotland, Netherlands and West Indies. The reaction towards Indian pitches is a bit OTT, in my opinion. Even if we stretch this out to the top 40 highest team scores, including this match, the breakdown is as follows:

South Africa: 10
India: 7
West Indies: 6
Pakistan: 4
England: 3
Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe: 2
Netherlands, Scotland, New Zealand, Kenya: 1

If anything, you should be riling on about the South Africans.

Another important thing to keep in mind is the changing trends in ODI cricket, due to T20. Before Jayasuriya+Kaluwitharana revolutionized the fielding restrictions in the 1996 World Cup, ODI cricket was very similar to Test cricket. A score of 250 was considered a really good score and 220 was considered defendable. While pitches may have become easier, batsmen have also realized their potential, due to T20. Batsmen in general are more aggressive today, because of the advent of T20.

The reason the BCCI get so much critisism is that the pitches in test matches are just way too flat and favour the home side way too much. It makes for a less than even test match, despite how the teams line up. There should be home advantage obviously, but it shouldn't be to the point that the home side has no chance of losing. I especially hate when the pitches are complete mine tracks. How are mine pitches fair on teams like us, who don't produce the greatest spinners in the world. Same with Australia, who have struggles as of late.

The fact that so many tests in India are draws is the biggest annoyance. I want to see more matches like the ones in New Zealand.

The reason we don't get criticized is because most tests which take place in our country come up with a result, with a draw being the least likely. Our pitches favour each side as every team has good pace bowlers. Not every team has a world class spinner though. Our pitches continuously give results without giving a huge advantage to the home side, thus we are not 'riled' on, and rightly so. We produce the least amount of draws, and the match almost always goes into day five, with results for both sides possible. No criticism needed... we actually deserve praise.

 

[irottev]

Sehwag deserved the MOM award as his strike was better than Dilshan and the difference of runs was just 16.

Many people are simply jealous as the great Virender Sehwag, sorry, Sir Virender Sehwag is being compared with the likes of Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Vivian Richards.

He also won the game which is important.

I think the standard of bowlers in both teams is extremely low whilst both sides have a pretty experienced and set batting line up. That explains why the score was so high for me. (as well as another dead Indian pitch of course)

 

[Cricketman]

Who cares what the pitch was like, provided for one hell of a contest now didn't it?

If it was super easy for the team batting first and then crumbled/dew factor came into play for the chasing team, I would've def. said that it was unfair. But, Sri Lanka came within 3 runs of pulling off one of the greatest chases of all time. It's good ODI cricket for me.

 

[TumTum]

It was a disgusting contest.

And for the guy that said offense is what people only care about, that is utter bullshit.

 

[aussie1st]

I don't mind the high scoring games as long as both teams are given the same conditions. And even though the pitches are dead, it still takes some effort to go outside of the box and actually aim for 400. A lot of teams on that pitch would have played their normal ODI game and ended up with 300-350.

 

[SaiSrini]

It was a disgusting contest.

And for the guy that said offense is what people only care about, that is utter bullshit.

What he said was 'most of the people come to watch offense'. If you are not a part of that group, doesnt mean its bull ████. Its just that you dont want to agree with it. Those who come to watch cricket for the bowlers, the wickets are very few. Cricket is about 'scoring runs'. How the batsman scores it.

 

[Dare]

Cricket is about 'scoring runs'.

What?

So then why not just have a machine shooting out balls and letting the batsman score as many runs as possible. This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard.

 

[shravi]

Ok, India has the worst pitches in the world. They are ruining cricket. This is a ploy by Lalit Modi and the BCCI to make sure that IPL spans the entire 12 months of the year. They loathe test cricket and are scheduling less of it, and are purposely defacing ODI cricket so T20 is the only format left.

Everyone happy now?

 

[Dare]

Ok, India has the worst pitches in the world. They are ruining cricket. This is a ploy by Lalit Modi and the BCCI to make sure that IPL spans the entire 12 months of the year. They loathe test cricket and are scheduling less of it, and are purposely defacing ODI cricket so T20 is the only format left.

Everyone happy now?

If you say so...

 

[SaiSrini]

What?

So then why not just have a machine shooting out balls and letting the batsman score as many runs as possible. This has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard.

You sure you're alright?

Its about scoring runs when you are faced with so many challenges (bowlers aiming at your stumps, fielders standing around you to catch the ball, fielders waiting to effect run outs, cant let the ball hit your pads without touching with bat, etc). Eventually, its about the batsman scoring runs by surpassing all these challenges.