What is a meaningless game ?

[Deja moo]

That surely would have been for the Indian captain to suggest. If there's more than half an hour to go and he insisted on that approach and I'd have been running the show, Inzy would have had a bowl from one end and Salman Butt from the other end with 9 men on the fence.

Edit:

underarm.

Chappell was the batting side's coach Eddie.

 

[luckyeddie]

Chappell was the batting side's coach Eddie.

I'm perfectly aware of that - it would have been wonderful to watch his reaction.

 

[Deja moo]

I'm perfectly aware of that - it would have been wonderful to watch his reaction.

Make up your mind.. are you for or against the kiwis ?

 

[luckyeddie]

Make up your mind.. are you for or against the kiwis ?

I'm neither for nor against them as a nation (my best mate is a Kiwi) - but of course if someone thinks I'm picking on them.....

Remember what your mum said if you had a scab on your knee? "It gets worse if you pick it".

 

[Pratters]

This is a test match they're playing, and the game they'll be playing next is also a test match. How does an exhibition match, which essentially involves limited overs, help the batsmen who would have batted ordinarily if the test had gone on ? Why increase the workload on your bowlers (who have already been overworked) when you can simply carry on with the test, allow your batsmen to work themselves in, and let the opposition bowlers bowl themselves to death ?

Of course bowling a few overs would kill the bowlers wouldn't it. Also there are reserves in the team. Would JP and Zaheer not try to score a few points in such a situation for example.

Batting practise for 2 players versus a bit of a hit for a lot of players. They can retire after a 50 or so. It would mean players like Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Yuvraj have had some bat on ball in a match situation even though an exhibition match in this case.

The players - both bowlers and batsmen - would indeed be playing a test match later on but it doesn't do the team harm to have a lot of players play in the middle.

Ratings are a moot point. Teams would rather look after their bowlers than patronise a television channel. Spectators in search of such entertainment would be well advised to wait for the One day jamboree.

Ratings are important.

We disagree on the idea of this and its practicality then. It has been done before. Also, wasn't the first one day international played when most of the match was rained off.

 

[Deja moo]

Of course bowling a few overs would kill the bowlers wouldn't it. Also there are reserves in the team. Would JP and Zaheer not try to score a few points in such a situation for example.

Yes it would. If you claim that batsmen get a decent hit out in the middle, it would essentially mean they do have to bowl a lot. If they arent bowling that many, the batsmen arent getting enough batting done. Either way it doesnt work out.

Batting practise for 2 players versus a bit of a hit for a lot of players. They can retire after a 50 or so. It would mean players like Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Yuvraj have had some bat on ball in a match situation even though an exhibition match in this case.

It requires quite a different mindset to bat in the manner they would in a test, which you cannot replicate in an exhibition game.

Ratings are important.

We disagree on the idea of this and its practicality then. It has been done before. Also, wasn't the first one day international played when most of the match was rained off.

Yes, and not a single ODI has been played over the remains of a test ever since, and rightfully so.

 

[Pratters]

Yes it would. If you claim that batsmen get a decent hit out in the middle, it would essentially mean they do have to bowl a lot. If they arent bowling that many, the batsmen arent getting enough batting done. Either way it doesnt work out.

Bah an unnecessary arguement. I am not here for unnecessary arguements. A 40 over game (maximum) would mean bowlers bowling 8 an over maximum. Not a lot when half the team didnt play in the test match! And batsmen get batting.

It requires quite a different mindset to bat in the manner they would in a test, which you cannot replicate in an exhibition game.

You cannot. I am not saying you can. But you can have more players have a bit of a hit in the middle and your bowlers a bit of bowling as well in a match situation.

Yes, and not a single ODI has been played over the remains of a test ever since, and rightfully so.

so far from your idea of 'I dont think a captain would ever agree'. Sri Lanka/West Indies also played a match vs India similarly.

Any way I hope we can agree to disagree here. You think the idea is not practical, doesn't make any sense. I feel it does and is far better than some matches we experience and practical.

Cheers.

 

[Deja moo]

Bah an unnecessary arguement. I am not here for unnecessary arguements. A 40 over game (maximum) would mean bowlers bowling 8 an over maximum. Not a lot when half the team didnt play in the test match! And batsmen get batting.

All the bowlers toiled. Why do you think Inzy stopped bowling Shoaib after he had done 15 overs ? Do you think he would have wanted him to bowl 8 overs more in an exhibition game ? Why would the batting team agree to let their bowlers have another go on that pitch in an exhibition game when they can simply cool their heels in the dressing room instead while their batsmen bat away in the test?

so far from your idea of 'I dont think a captain would ever agree'. Sri Lanka/West Indies also played a match vs India similarly.

Any way I hope we can agree to disagree here. You think the idea is not practical, doesn't make any sense. I feel it does and is far better than some matches we experience and practical.

Cheers.

When was the Sl one played ?

 

[Pratters]

All the bowlers toiled. Why do you think Inzy stopped bowling Shoaib after he had done 15 overs ? Do you think he would have wanted him to bowl 8 overs more in an exhibition game ? Why would the batting team agree to let their bowlers have another go on that pitch in an exhibition game when they can simply cool their heels in the dressing room instead while their batsmen bat away in the test?

That is the line of thought against the practicality of the idea. Akhtar wouldn't bowl much any way - whether its the test match which continued to the exhibition match which took place.

I repeat - there are reserve players in the teams. Two to two and half hours in the isn't much when in the field. Provides some chance for the team management to give a bit of a warm up to players. The batting team may not always be in the situation where they are assured of batting the whole dayor a large portion any way. Instead of playing much more of a match whose result is a foregone conclusion, a light exhibition match would be a much better option for both teams IMO.

Its an idea I came up with - have an exhibition match if draw is a forgone conclusion. I would prefer that to a test match where draw is inevitable any way.

When was the Sl one played ?

Just checked up - http://content.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/230620.html
In place of an abandoned one dayer and not a test. Got confused. But its still practical I would say.

 

[Jono]

If an exhibition match played Inzy should have bowled!

If I ever get my hands on footage of him bowling I'm going to saviour that for the rest of my life

 

[Pratters]

If an exhibition match played Inzy should have bowled!

If I ever get my hands on footage of him bowling I'm going to saviour that for the rest of my life

He has bowled 67 balls in international cricket.

3 wickets in one dayers at an average of 21!

 

[Jono]

I know. I don't think I've seen any of those matches lol. I wish I did

 

[Pratters]

Spot the champion bowler in this match -

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991-92/WI_IN_PAK/WI_PAK_ODI3_24NOV1991.html

 

[Jono]

LOL!

Lara is Inzy's bunny

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Sorry but I totally disagree with you there.

Wins are important and not records. There is an obsession with records. I do not see the big deal. I can understand a young test team like Bangladesh savouring the first test century of a player but it doesn't matter generally as far as I am concerned.

I will remember players for more for trying to win matches and matches they helped their team win than for statistical records they might have achieved.

Yes, but winning isn't always a possibility. Some of the best innings I saw last year came in draws or losses. Granted, Lahore wasn't a pressure situation, but it would've been a draw regardless of the pitch -- simply because of the weather.

I have no problem with Dravid and Sehwag batting out the available overs, it's not their fault that this is a hastily accommodated tour. If you can make a century, make a century... If you can break a record, break a record... It may be non-competitive, but the fact that they're playing Tests in January further highlights the over-proliferation of international cricket. Under this mandate, long standing records will tumble & achievements -- once thought to stand the test of time -- will perish... But you can't blame the players.

Look at Sehwag, a player with 10 Test centuries to his name & something of a lean trot -- should he really forgo the opportunity to make his eleventh century, in this, his first Test of the year? History will be the judge of how good his innings was, and indeed, perhaps the rest of the series, but I see no reason why the Indian players should concede that it's a draw and not worth playing -- not after being hammered in the field for two days. It was their turn, they ran with it & hopefully it sets some kind of tone for the next match.

 

[Deja moo]

That is the line of thought against the practicality of the idea. Akhtar wouldn't bowl much any way - whether its the test match which continued to the exhibition match which took place.

I repeat - there are reserve players in the teams. Two to two and half hours in the isn't much when in the field. Provides some chance for the team management to give a bit of a warm up to players. The batting team may not always be in the situation where they are assured of batting the whole dayor a large portion any way. Instead of playing much more of a match whose result is a foregone conclusion, a light exhibition match would be a much better option for both teams IMO.

Its an idea I came up with - have an exhibition match if draw is a forgone conclusion. I would prefer that to a test match where draw is inevitable any way.

Reserve players: Do you think the reserve bowlers would want to have a bowl on such pitches ? Why make them bowl when they do not have to suffer ? And as mentioned, the batting team would much rather bat the whole day than provide the fielding side an opportunity to bat again. I cannot see a single reason for the batting team to pass off an opportunity to grind the opposition into the dust. You're looking at it from purely a spectators pov, when in fact your suggestion demands that you look at it from the captains' pov. And from the batting captains pov, he'd prefer to continue batting.

Just checked up - http://content.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/230620.html
In place of an abandoned one dayer and not a test. Got confused. But its still practical I would say.

yes, it was a ODI, not a test where the bowlers from the batting team would already be demoralised/deadbeat.

 

[Pratters]

Reserve players: Do you think the reserve bowlers would want to have a bowl on such pitches ? Why make them bowl when they do not have to suffer ? And as mentioned, the batting team would much rather bat the whole day than provide the fielding side an opportunity to bat again. I cannot see a single reason for the batting team to pass off an opportunity to grind the opposition into the dust. You're looking at it from purely a spectators pov, when in fact your suggestion demands that you look at it from the captains' pov. And from the batting captains pov, he'd prefer to continue batting.

I dont see why a team couldn't agree to a draw in the beginning of the day. Reserve bowlers who have little chance to show any thing have an opportunity to make an impression with two quick wickets even though it might not be that big an impression. From team point of view, they can see how Inzamam, Youhana are fairing against some one like Harbhajan, Kumble who can try different things. What if a team has 4 wickets left and its unknown which team will bat what length. By your logic, a team would never agree to a draw in the last hour as well as they are 'batting'.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, but winning isn't always a possibility. Some of the best innings I saw last year came in draws or losses. Granted, Lahore wasn't a pressure situation, but it would've been a draw regardless of the pitch -- simply because of the weather.

I have no problem with Dravid and Sehwag batting out the available overs, it's not their fault that this is a hastily accommodated tour. If you can make a century, make a century... If you can break a record, break a record... It may be non-competitive, but the fact that they're playing Tests in January further highlights the over-proliferation of international cricket. Under this mandate, long standing records will tumble & achievements -- once thought to stand the test of time -- will perish... But you can't blame the players.

I am not blaming the players! Just how winning matches or trying to win matches has much more significance than records. When there isn't a possibility of a win my interest in the match is over. Records aren't that important.

 

[Deja moo]

I dont see why a team couldn't agree to a draw in the beginning of the day. Reserve bowlers who have little chance to show any thing have an opportunity to make an impression with two quick wickets even though it might not be that big an impression. From team point of view, they can see how Inzamam, Youhana are fairing against some one like Harbhajan, Kumble who can try different things. What if a team has 4 wickets left and its unknown which team will bat what length. By your logic, a team would never agree to a draw in the last hour as well as they are 'batting'.

Look at it this way...Inzy, Butt did zilch this game. Now if you play that exhibition game, and they really get going, that does your team no good. You'll have provided some on-field practice to opposition players who would have gone into the next test without any. Plus you'd be further demoralising your bowlers (both first choice as well as reserve, whoever plays) when theres no need to. Theres already a last hour rule, lets leave it that way .

 

[Pratters]

Look at it this way...Inzy, Butt did zilch this game. Now if you play that exhibition game, and they really get going, that does your team no good. You'll have provided some on-field practice to opposition players who would have gone into the next test without any. Plus you'd be further demoralising your bowlers (both first choice as well as reserve, whoever plays) when theres no need to. Theres already a last hour rule, lets leave it that way .

On your aversion to fielding thingy - opposed to playing 6 hours which would mean a possibility fielding between 2-4 hours, a team could choose fielding for 2.5 hours, having their top players bat again which they wouldn't have had they lost 6 wickets.

Any way the law isn't going to change.

Cheers.