Tournment Ends

[MJ Rocks]

A win by 3 run Victory it was just amazing :happy :happy

 

[pcfan123]

@ zMario

Its not just Saeed Anwars record, Coventry did it without a runner.

 

[yashwanth kumar]

Stunning victory by India good cricket by both the teams

 

[sohum]

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.

A few straightforward points:

1) This is ODI cricket. That is Test cricket. If you complain about this pitch because of the Test pitches it is clear that you have a vendetta against Indian pitches. South African pitches may be good for Test cricket because they are result-oriented. But the fact is that the bounciness results in higher-scoring games. The high-scoring ODI games has nothing to do with what the pitches are in Test cricket. You can't complain about this ODI pitch being benign and then commend the South Africans for having great Test pitches despite having some of the highest-scoring ODI games.

2) I completely disagree with the notion that all pitches should have something for everyone. I don't like pitches that have nothing for the bowlers, however. In my ideal world, the pitches in Australia, South Africa and West Indies would be bouncy and fast, the pitches in England and New Zealand skiddy and aiding lateral movement and the pitches in the subcontinent turning square. The beauty of international cricket, one that is not really present in any other sport in the world, is that the location you are playing the game challenges each team differently. I don't care if touring teams don't have a quality spinner--we don't have three quality pacers to put into our lineup. It's all part of the challenge of touring a country, and the reason why a victory abroad was worth so much more a few decades ago.

3) The best players will prevail regardless of the conditions. The absolute legends will be classy all over the world in all conditions--a testament to their greatness. The thing that separates the Pontings and Tendulkars from the rest of the pack is the fact that they have tasted success all over the world.

sohum added 1 Minutes and 36 Seconds later...

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

Nice re-arrangement. :sarcasm

I said offense is what most people care about. And great counter-argument there... "You're wrong cuz it's bullshit! (Oh, and I can't really think of anything concrete to disprove you at this point)" :sarcasm

 

[aditya123]

I was never supporting the Jo'berg pitch, wtf are you guyz talking about?

Why the flip did Amiya quote me anyway?

Noone supported the Jo`burg pitch but that game was instantly hailed as the `Greatest ODI Ever` and this is being ridiculed by one and all. That is what people were pointing out.

 

[sohum]

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.

Which match would you rather watch (two hypothetical scorelines):

Match 1:
Team A: 192/5 from 50.0 overs
Team B: 193/3 from 48.0 overs

Match 2:
Team A: 420 from 50.0 overs
Team B: 415 from 48.0 overs

Both matches got as close to the end as each other. I would wager that the strong majority of international cricket supporters would take the second game. You may be one of the few who like teams chugging along at below 4 an over in an ODI game.

Cricket is inherently a batsman's game, especially ODI cricket:

1. Bowlers can only bowl 10 overs, batsmen can play as many overs as they wish.
2. 40% of the overs are now bowled with fielding restrictions in place.
3. All benefit of doubt goes to batsmen.
4. If you think of the greatest players to have played the game, I guarantee you the top few are going to be batsmen.

The majority of the population come in to a match to watch offense. Don't believe me? You don't get "points", "goals" or "runs" for being good on defense, do you? The only counter-example I can think of is American Football, where you can score points from the defense or special teams. Otherwise, all groundwork towards winning a game is done by offense. To summarize, in almost all sports out there, you cannot win a game without offense. If you don't like it, sorry, unfortunately it's a fact.

 

[Gurjot95]

Now this is Cricket at it's best. But because India is involved in this match and wins it will not be considered as Best of Cricket Matches.

 

[sohum]

Traditional Cricket

- Bowling attack
- Batting line-up, resembling a defensive structure.
- Batsmen play defensive strokes the most
- Defense always > Offense, hence 6 batsmen, 4 bowlers.
- Batsmen try to score as many runs for extra leway whilst the bowlers try to run through them.

This is all Cricket 101.

Umm... what?

If we're talking about shorter versions of cricket, bowlers are definitely on the defensive. Test cricket is obviously different, but just because a bowling line-up is called a "bowling attack" doesn't make them offense. Your point about batting line-up being defensive does not have any basis, whatsoever. Playing defensive strokes most often doesn't mean that the game is defensive in nature.

In basketball, the defense plays defense for every possession of the game. However, without offense, you still can't win a game.

6 batsmen-4 bowlers has no place in this discussion because teams can choose to strategize as they wish. And you haven't really proved that bowlers are the offensive portion of the equation.

Cricket 101? Let me ask you one simple question. At the end of a cricket match, how do you decide who has won the game? The team that has scored the most runs wins a cricket match. All forms of the game. You can take more wickets than the other team in a cricket match and still lose the game. Again, this encompasses all forms.

Back in the day, cricket was more defensive in nature since batsmen weren't aware of their capabilities. I don't think you can possibly argue that the general level of aggression in cricket has stayed the same or regressed over the passing of time. The Aussies were the first team to play an aggressive brand of Test cricket, transforming bowlers into players who tried to prevent runs. Cricket today has continued along that path. This is not to say that you don't have the occasional fiery spell of bowling.

Finally, I stand by my original point that most cricket followers prefer the offensive aspect of the game to the defensive aspect of the game. The fielding team is trying to prevent runs and take wickets. The batting team is trying to make runs and save wickets. The offensive team is always in charge of the metric that decides who wins the game:

Basketball: Offense scores points -> team with higher points wins the game
Soccer: Offense scores goals -> team with more goals wins the game
American Football: Offense scores points -> team with higher points wins the game

To put it very simply, even if your bowling is a lot better than the other team's bowling, you can still lose the game.

sohum added 6 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Um, no. In the true sense, bowlers are brought into the "attack" whilst the batsman "defend" their wicket. And, maybe I'm alone in this, but I find a session where 5 wickets fall much more interesting than if none fall.

Again, my original argument is not related to Test cricket. However, I have provided many analogies to other sports that describes the point of an offense in a sport. In basketball, the defense attacks the ball to create turnovers. In soccer, the defense attacks the ball to stop offensive possessions, etc.

Both the offensive and defensive parts of a team attack and defend. This goes for any sport. There are some teams in the NBA that are known for their stifling defense. That is a basketball team that attacks more with their defense than with their offense. That is not to say that the defense is suddenly call their offense.

The word offense in sports is used to describe the part of a team that puts up the numbers that determines who wins the game. If your batting puts up 500 runs and your bowling takes only 2 wickets and the opponent's bowling takes 10 wickets but puts up only 400 runs, they still lose the game (assuming it's some sort of ODI game played in a no gravity atmosphere).

That said, OD/T20 cricket arguably subverts all this. I don't really find the IND-SL scorecard loathsome in itself but making all the pitches flat for limited over matches means Test pitches too become flat which isn't a sacrifice I see as worthy

I don't think there's a clear connection there at all. The driving force behind flat pitches in Test cricket is not because ODI pitches are flat--it's because sponsors want 5 days worth of cricket. In ODI games, sponsors don't care as much if the game goes down to 100th over or not. Because there are more boundaries scored (more chances for sponsorship messages), wickets fall more frequently (cue advertisements) and they have a higher viewership to begin with. Trying to connect the two is not logically deductive at all. Case in point, my first post in this discussion: South African pitches have featured some of the highest scoring ODI innings' yet their Test pitches remain competitive.

 

[Gurjot95]

Sohum will be mine nomination for Best post of the year in PC awards 2010

 

[TumTum]

I am not going to quote all that :laugh but just to reply sohum:

I was referring that post to people who thought scoring runs was "offense".

 

[SaiSrini]

Just watched the highlights of the game. Must say the younger guys need to learn fielding from Sachin Tendulkar. Guys like Harbhajan, Kohli, etc dropped sitters that should have been gobbled up (esp. Harbhajan's one drop was so silly; the ball is coming at chest height or even higher and this guy is jumping in the air to catch it at abdomen height). Sachin effected a very quick runout and also took a really super catch high to his right. Thats what you call 'commitment'. Must also say that the Kohli run out of Jayawardena looked brilliant and thats what these guys are capable of. They just are not getting the basics right and are showing off too much with styles.

Dhoni's plea to improve the death bowling was answered with really good performances from both Zaheer and Nehra. Zak got his yorkers right after a long long time and Nehra also tied up the batsmen in the end very well and bowled a great final over (he has been lucky with final overs in tense matches, as in Karachi 2004).

 

[drainpipe32]

Yeah, in cricket bowling is the offensive phase.

Unlike baseball, where it is defensive.

 

[iridescentt]

EDIT: What the hell, this isn't the West Indies/Australia thread.

 

[Gurjot95]

Just watched the highlights of the game. Must say the younger guys need to learn fielding from Sachin Tendulkar. Guys like Harbhajan, Kohli, etc dropped sitters that should have been gobbled up (esp. Harbhajan's one drop was so silly; the ball is coming at chest height or even higher and this guy is jumping in the air to catch it at abdomen height). Sachin effected a very quick runout and also took a really super catch high to his right. Thats what you call 'commitment'.

Agreed. If Sachin doesn't take that catch then it would have gone for 4 and situation would be different. These young guys should learn to take catches in pressure by learning from seniors. They can't handle pressure and that's all. India fielding has suddenly gone below average this series and that is the imp. part where India should improve.

Must also say that the Kohli run out of Jayawardena looked brilliant and thats what these guys are capable of. They just are not getting the basics right and are showing off too much with styles.

It was Jadeja iirc.

 

[yashwanth kumar]

Yestarday both the team Bowler's bowled well from 38-50 overs important stage of the match