Cricket

[Stan]

18 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

What does that even mean, it's your standard retort to anything it seems. I'll post my distaste as and when I please.

Hopefully the public school boys are sent packing now too but looks like they'll do it.

Means you go on about stuff a lot when it's not always necessary. You've mentioned your distaste about India's cricket and joy about India failing about 2-3 times in quick succession. Makes you look obsessed. Hence my comment.

Sorry if that displeases you.

[The Artful Dodger]

6 minutes ago, Stan said:

Means you go on about stuff a lot when it's not always necessary. You've mentioned your distaste about India's cricket and joy about India failing about 2-3 times in quick succession. Makes you look obsessed. Hence my comment.

Sorry if that displeases you.

It's the cricket thread, the failure of the favourites is surely worthy of comment. Revelling in the failure of those who've done so much to destroy the game is something all who love cricket should do. It's too late to save the game of course but got to take it where you can, as they say.

[Mel81x+]

4 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

It's the cricket thread, the failure of the favourites is surely worthy of comment. Revelling in the failure of those who've done so much to destroy the game is something all who love cricket should do. It's too late to save the game of course but got to take it where you can, as they say.

Could I ask what exactly has been destroyed by the favourites? Genuine question not a windup of any kind. 

[The Artful Dodger]

6 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

Could I ask what exactly has been destroyed by the favourites? Genuine question not a windup of any kind. 

India as the largest nation has chosen a path of commercial greed and the nefarious influence of the IPL has damaged the highest form of cricket immeasurably. It's just people smashing sixes all day long now, the purest form of the game has been forgotten and is essentially dead. It's not just India's fault, England and Australia share a common responsibility too.

 

[Stan]

40 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

It's the cricket thread, the failure of the favourites is surely worthy of comment. Revelling in the failure of those who've done so much to destroy the game is something all who love cricket should do. It's too late to save the game of course but got to take it where you can, as they say.

I disagree with the destroying comment but each to their own. 

[Stan]

England winning this at a canter now. 

Roy will tear NZ a new one at this rate. Unfortunate dismissal as well. 

[Mel81x+]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

India as the largest nation has chosen a path of commercial greed and the nefarious influence of the IPL has damaged the highest form of cricket immeasurably. It's just people smashing sixes all day long now, the purest form of the game has been forgotten and is essentially dead. It's not just India's fault, England and Australia share a common responsibility too.

 

Having experienced first-hand the way the  IPL started out I have to say that it was in response to what the ISL was doing and it was also done to generate some serious money as well which I suppose goes along with the destruction of any sport not just cricket. It did die down a bit somewhere towards its third iteration but then it picked up again and got really good. I wouldn't say it destroyed the game more-so moved it in a different direction that people were used to seeing.

T-20 is a far easier event to watch just because of its explosiveness and the way teams approach games. Does that have an effect on the other styles of cricket? Yes. Does that necessarily mean its destroyed the game itself? That's really up for interpretation. Having more facets to a sport could dilute the others based on its popularity but that doesn't meant an ODI or a test-cricket match is suddenly going to get worse does it? 

[Azeem]

Won against both finalists 

@MUFC Zindabad 

 

[IgnisExcubitor]

I didn't wanted to get involved, but the stupidity of those posts is too much and the disgust towards India unnecessary. India bring in 70% of the revenue to this sport and is pretty much sustaining it on the global stage. (Hell today I learned that just last year BCCI paid 1500+ crore RS to our government, which helped finance other Olympic sports in our country). Without this money this sport will die a slow death. Most of the Indian players are not rank arseholes. 

India was the last national side to get on the T20 bandwagon. However, IPL has helped so many players come to fore. The likes of Warner, Butler, quite a few of  the Windies, and a truckload of Indian players. It has aided them financially, as well. Even English players have now publicly stated how it has improved their game. 

Importantly, I find this snobbery towards limited overs childish. It reminds me of my school days, where kids who discovered rock music would laugh at people listening to pop. Absolute immature behaviour. 

All formats of cricket can co-exist. 

Lastly,  we were not the number one favourites (England were for the right reasons) and no one apart from the English media and pundits have stated that the WC is theirs to lose. 

One can still continue to hate us, but dude let the reasons be valid. We are not spoiling the game. 

@topic

Tremendous performance this from England. Deserving of the final. Someone new will win the World Cup. England favourites by a mile, but I still hope it's the Kiwis. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by IgnisExcubitor

[6666]

Easy.

[JoshBRFC+]

Brilliant. This side have shown why they were pre tournament favourites. Be very surprised if we don't win this now. Come good when it matters most, brilliant stuff. Love hammering the Aussies.

[Asura]

Im fine with reducing the match time and making it a 20 over game but there should be an equal platform for the bowlers too... 50 overs cricket was good with 10 wickets, why dont they change the format to 20 overs and let each team play only 4 batsmen? Once a team is down 4 wkts means they are all out, otherwise its all smashing the sixers at an RPO of 10 and im with TAD on this. I stopped watching cricket after about 2009 or so, I dont follow much and the reason for that is T20 in general and IPL especially.

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Asura said:

Im fine with reducing the match time and making it a 20 over game but there should be an equal platform for the bowlers too... 50 overs cricket was good with 10 wickets, why dont they change the format to 20 overs and let each team play only 4 batsmen? Once a team is down 4 wkts means they are all out, otherwise its all smashing the sixers at an RPO of 10 and im with TAD on this. I stopped watching cricket after about 2009 or so, I dont follow much and the reason for that is T20 in general and IPL especially.

Games could be done within about an hour and it wouldn't be viable as a sport to watch. 

[Asura]

30 minutes ago, Stan said:

Games could be done within about an hour and it wouldn't be viable as a sport to watch. 

not really.... teams will value the wicket more, they wont try to hit every second ball for a boundary or sixer, granted the scoring would be lower but I believe that will be more balanced than what we see now with a scoring range of 160-200 in 20 overs... I thought the goal of the T20 is to shorten the playtime which Im fine with, but the current format gives batsmen too much advantage. Where is the value for the wicket? Every batsmen can more or less throw their bat at everything not worrying about getting out in most cases since there are so many more behind him that can come in and bat... 

 

EDIT: Also, the 4 wkt thing is an arbitrary number but you get the point im trying to say. Maybe 4 or 5 or 6 wkts for 20 overs is good but having 10 batsmen bat in 20 overs is giving the batting side way too much power in the match. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Asura

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Asura said:

not really.... teams will value the wicket more, they wont try to hit every second ball for a boundary or sixer, granted the scoring would be lower but I believe that will be more balanced than what we see now with a scoring range of 160-200 in 20 overs... I thought the goal of the T20 is to shorten the playtime which Im fine with, but the current format gives batsmen too much advantage. Where is the value for the wicket? Every batsmen can more or less throw their bat at everything not worrying about getting out in most cases since there are so many more behind him that can come in and bat... 

I agree with the advantage for the batsmen but there's been several games in the IPL recently where it's not just throwing the bat at every ball or second ball. It's an explosive format but it's not always like that - that's where teams and batsmen value their wickets. Maybe that's the misconception that just because there's a lot of big-hitting they think it's constantly like that. It's not. You even said you've not even watched it that much in 10 years!?

 

[Asura]

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

I agree with the advantage for the batsmen but there's been several games in the IPL recently where it's not just throwing the bat at every ball or second ball. It's an explosive format but it's not always like that - that's where teams and batsmen value their wickets. Maybe that's the misconception that just because there's a lot of big-hitting they think it's constantly like that. It's not. You even said you've not even watched it that much in 10 years!?

 

Maybe, but the general trend of the cricket has definitely moved to big hitting and bowlers dont get much help starting from the pitches to free hits to the number of overs in T20. But yeah agree, I havent watched much cricket in the last decade, just been following some test matches and the world cup thats about it so maybe Im missing something that you mentioned above. 

[Stan]

For what it's worth, I'm still a big advocate of test cricket and it's still my favourite form of the game. That's not to say I won't pay attention to shorter formats of the game because it is more instant and the excitement factor is there. 

With test cricket though it's so much more strategic and you have to be good in the mind for that format as well as physically. It's more of a thinking man's game and tactics have to be more focused. 

I can't wait for the Ashes. I'd love India to have something equivalent to that but for various reasons it never will (and not just because shorter format is where money is and what the focus is on these days). 

[Toinho]

Cricket is a shit sport..

[Lucas]

3 hours ago, Toinho said:

Cricket is a shit sport..

Sorry for the ass whoppin' petal x

[Lucas]

Well, I like Cricket and personally, I think T20 has revolutionised the sport.

I don't care if there is more glitz and glamour, music, fireworks, or big hitters smashing four's and sixes all over the place. I love seeing the batsmen going ape shit all round the ground with ridiculous strike rates.

The sport has changed with the times to remain current and appeal to a modern audience.

Test cricket is absorbing but I can understand why some people wouldn't want to watch 6 or 7 hours of blocking. Some people love a good tactical 0-0, and some love a 4-3 thriller. It is what it is.

You cannot be afraid of change. It is good to evolve the sport and encourage the next generation to play it. There is no doubt cricket is seen in a more positive light these days to a watching audience.

But for T20, we wouldn't be in this position now. Chance to be World Champions. And if we win the World Cup, there will be loads of kids wanting to be the future Jason Roy, Joe Root, Jos Buttler etc. All big hitting stars.

All this means nothing if we do not win the final on Sunday. We have to win it, simply have to. We have played three must win cup finals since losing to Australia and we have passed the test.

Now for the biggest game of our history. Hope we've saved the best performance for last.

[The Artful Dodger]

Good to see they've put the final on Channel 4, now get the Ashes back.

[Azeem]

I'm an honorary Kiwi till the final 

[Azeem]

God of Nations at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet

Hear our voices, we entreat
God defend our free land

Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war

Make her praises heard afar
God defend New Zealand 

[IgnisExcubitor]

9 hours ago, Asura said:

Maybe, but the general trend of the cricket has definitely moved to big hitting and bowlers dont get much help starting from the pitches to free hits to the number of overs in T20. But yeah agree, I havent watched much cricket in the last decade, just been following some test matches and the world cup thats about it so maybe Im missing something that you mentioned above. 

There have been huge issues with one sided contests between bat and bowl in the previous decade, because of which we saw pointless draws with teams regularly scoring 500/600 etc runs in an innings. 

However, that has changed now with ICC's cricket committee, which conducts pitch inspections and places retrospective fines/bans on poor pitches. The result is there for all to see. The last few years we have seen exciting Test series. Pitches, at least in Tests and ICC events, have something for the bowlers now. There are other reasons like teams not travelling well or no standout great Test sides, but Test cricket has vastly improved because of this reform. 

T20 hasn't only had negative effect on Test cricket though. It has also given us players like Warner, Butler, Pant, etc who have made Test cricket more enterprising. And anyone who has seen these players bat will tell you that they are not just sloggers. 

Test cricket still continues to be the best, and even these players aspire to play it. But for a sport that has a small global appeal, your limited overs games (especially T20) are your best bet to sustain it and increase its popularity.

Edited July 12, 2019 by IgnisExcubitor

[Toinho]

3 hours ago, Lucas said:

Sorry for the ass whoppin' petal x

Depressing to watch. Turned off at 3/14 came back on about 3/100... and watched until maybe 45th over and was like im going to drink wine and lay in bed.