SJS
Hall of Fame Member
cricket player said:Test matches were played back in the 1880s in usa
cricket player said:Test matches were played back in the 1880s in usa
You see, I don't think so.SJS said:Limited over game has already put atacking bowling at a discount. this has affected the test bowling standards and the entire game.
I disagree.ReallyCrazy said:I dont think Cricket player meant actual test matches. Its said that the first international cricket match was between canada and usa...........and so obviously there must have been unofficial 5 day matches between the two countries. No need to get all technical about it.
I do agree the standard of bowling is lower than in the past, but i think it is exagerrated.Richard said:You see, I don't think so.
There are very few decent bowlers around ATM - very few good bowlers capable of keeping the runs down, which is why ODI scores are so appallingly high ATM.
Test-match scores have followed a similar trait.
Yet the problem is not the lack of attacking bowlers - it's the lack of defensive bowlers!
as you mentioned, since you got interested in cricket after one dayers started flourishing, it's natural that you and most modern fans would be more interested in that....but there are some of us for whom proper cricket is still test match cricket...i for one don't see it as an outdated concept and am able to appreciate the quality and intensity of a 5 day match....but your generation or the next one with the modern day penchant for the "quickie" is quite likely to kill test match cricket completely...Hit4Six said:i dunno about everyone but thinking to myself oh gosh that 'McGrath just totally out thought a batsmen' is less entertaining than seeing sehwag hitting a quick 50 or gilchrist going beserk, i wouldnt have started watching cricket had it not been for the one day game, and it is in the one day game that the future of cricket lies, i mean u c the stands during recent test matches are they anywhere capapcity? u see an aus/nz one day game and the stands are full, so in my opinion rather than holding onto relics for the sake of it let the one day game flourish
No one has a problem with letting the ODI game flourish. But the ODI game flourishing also involves the bowlers. You can't just forget about that.Hit4Six said:i dunno about everyone but thinking to myself oh gosh that 'McGrath just totally out thought a batsmen' is less entertaining than seeing sehwag hitting a quick 50 or gilchrist going beserk, i wouldnt have started watching cricket had it not been for the one day game, and it is in the one day game that the future of cricket lies, i mean u c the stands during recent test matches are they anywhere capapcity? u see an aus/nz one day game and the stands are full, so in my opinion rather than holding onto relics for the sake of it let the one day game flourish
Don't agree.Black Thunder said:And the rules in one day cricket make it impossible to bowl defensively. The bowlers are given such tight lines and lengths for which they have to bowl, and the pitches are just made for batsmen to be smashing the living daylights out of it. A batsmen can just plonk his front foot down the wicket and swing through the line of the ball with a lot of confidence.
What's interesting is the "fifties and sixties the game was dying a death" mentality... I'd be fascinated to compare Test-match crowds of the two periods.SJS said:I think the best thing that has happened in the post 70's period to batting has, ironically, been thanks to the limited overs game. Batsmen have started playing more strokes. The defensive mindset of the sixties and the late fifties was what seemed to be killing the game (not the fact that the game lasted five days or three days), and the resultant no-result game it had become..