Correct:
Most people don’t like one dayers when the bowlers dictate.
But most people are idiots.
My perfect one day game would be one team making 184, and the other making 183 and Inzy getting run out.
That 800 run match in Sorth Efrica? Stick it up your veldt. One of the best things about this season's summer of Benaud is the variable tracks on offer. Melbourne and Perth were both better Tests because the pitches were difficult. Melbourne, low and slow for the Test, is now hard and bouncy for the one dayers; Perth, a speed merchant's paradise for the Quicket, is overnight transformed into a slowish seam dream for the Test.
At the risk of saying "We've been saying it here for years", "We've been sayi... dodgy tracks rock. It's hard to believe that Kevin Bartlett and Crash Craddock only just discovered the wonders of shit pitches, but that's the way they were carrying on today. Same for Tubby last night. Naturally it goes against the commercial imperative to risk a shortened telecast with difficult batting conditions, but there's no doubt matches are better when batting is not better. The best way to guarantee a good match in a one dayer is to juice up the pitch. Remember the 2003 World Cup? The two best matches were Straya v. England and Straya v. New Zealand, both at Port Elizabeth and both on awkward decks. And of course there was Sorth Efrica's farcical Duckyloo calculations for extra entertainment. These matches should be the template for the future of Fifty50 cricket.
Couldn't agree more. Formula One racetracks need rain to be interesting and cricket needs pitches with movement and bounce to be interesting.
Posted by: Evil Bill | 11 February 2008 at 14:39
Question.
When is deadline time?
I don't know anything about printing a newspaper, but 6:30 seems very early for an article to go to print given the amount of night footy and cricket that makes it into the following day's papers.
Posted by: Tony T | 11 February 2008 at 20:48
6.30 sounds about right, given they'd have still have to work Symond's ghosted words of wisdom into a page layout.
On another matter, is it just me, or does Braddin look disturbingly similar to Ian Healy?
Posted by: SaggyGreen | 11 February 2008 at 22:14
That apostrophe shouldn't have gone to print.
Posted by: SaggyGreen | 11 February 2008 at 22:15
I see Taufel is thinking about jumping ship to IPL. I bet IPL won't be shy in using TV replays to improve umpires decision making. Perhaps the players and umpires can all go to IPL, enjoy the rest, money, improved administration and technology, and then return to 'proper' cricket (Tests), playing for passion rather than dollars. Could be World Series 2.
Posted by: nick | 12 February 2008 at 11:49
'Rudi Koertzen gave Adam Gilchrist out lbw despite the left-hander apparently edging the ball.'
He hit the cover off it! What is this 'apparently'? 'Apparently' the ICC are a bunch of useless old c*nts.
Posted by: nick | 12 February 2008 at 11:52
This is the sort of game we should be playing (quote from Wiki):
"The "miracle match" in 1976/1977 (semi final of the Gillette Cup domestic one day competition), in which Western Australia were bowled out by Queensland for 77, only to then restrict Queensland to 62"
Posted by: tONY | 12 February 2008 at 12:08
If I was Tauf, I'd be keen for a cut.
Wonder if Hair will get a gig.
That "miracle match" scarred Qld for years.
Posted by: Tony T | 12 February 2008 at 13:06
I hate seeing batsmen scoring any runs, let alone dictating the game. One of my favourite tests was England vs Australia in 1979-80 (methinks -- could be wrong), where Australia were 6 for 26. It was Rodney Hogg's first test, and he scored about 36 to add respectability to the score. It was a remarkably low-scoring series, where Brearley's men and Yallop's men always struggled to get to 300. Boycott was having emotional troubles and did poorly. But it was one of the most exciting series I've seen. So much so, that, although it's often forgotten now, the India vs Australia series which followed was also a corker, and it outrated the opposition Packer version of the game, which was so badly-attended that it was ready to fold. Yet at the crucial moment when the ACB stared down Kerry Packer, they blinked and handed the game to him.
Although there are books on that period of cricket history, they tend to be told from the Packer viewpoint, and gloss over the reasons the ACB folded.
Now, how did that little opinion arise from a question about low scores? Sorry it must be the codger keyword effect. One wrong keyword sets us off on the usual, and oft-repeated rant.
Posted by: Professor Rosseforp | 12 February 2008 at 22:56
I hate seeing batsmen scoring any runs, let alone dictating the game. One of my favourite tests was England vs Australia in 1979-80 (methinks -- could be wrong), where Australia were 6 for 26. It was Rodney Hogg's first test, and he scored about 36 to add respectability to the score. It was a remarkably low-scoring series, where Brearley's men and Yallop's men always struggled to get to 300. Boycott was having emotional troubles and did poorly. But it was one of the most exciting series I've seen. So much so, that, although it's often forgotten now, the India vs Australia series which followed was also a corker, and it outrated the opposition Packer version of the game, which was so badly-attended that it was ready to fold. Yet at the crucial moment when the ACB stared down Kerry Packer, they blinked and handed the game to him.
Although there are books on that period of cricket history, they tend to be told from the Packer viewpoint, and gloss over the reasons the ACB folded.
Now, how did that little opinion arise from a question about low scores? Sorry it must be the codger keyword effect. One wrong keyword sets us off on the usual, and oft-repeated rant.
Posted by: Professor Rosseforp | 12 February 2008 at 22:57
How ironic, my rant has been repeated!!
Posted by: Professor Rosseforp | 12 February 2008 at 22:59
Like a good dinner it deserved repeating.
Posted by: pat | 12 February 2008 at 23:03