Rank the Teams in Terms of Excitement

[Natman20]

Damien Martyn always tickled my fancy. And no, I'm not just saying that to get another naughty icon in this thread. Langer was also a favourite of mine.

couldn't help myelf

 

[SJS]

He wasn't inconsistent at all - he consistently scored runs when the going was easy, and consistently failed when it got tough.

Now he just consistently gets catches dropped off him.

...and I find him consistently boring which is a rarity in Pakistani cricket.

 

[Richard]

I do know what you mean, though.

 

[SJS]

I never liked Langer, he was too... thwacky. Always gave the impression of great effort in those 2 or 3 strokes he played.

And I had some weird hatred of Martyn, too, which I could never explain... Sudeep did a better job of it than me when we were talking on MSN sometime...

I too never liked Langer and couldnt say why. I think its because he was totally bereft of 'flair'

 

[Richard]

SJS, any chance of a sig-update a la myself, 16toS and sp713?

Would be a tremendous honour...

 

[SJS]

SJS, any chance of a sig-update a la myself, 16toS and sp713?

Would be a tremendous honour...

Its an honour to BE a member

 

[Richard]

Now pleeeeaaaase keep it there!

 

[silentstriker]

Just to reiterate:

Cricket = Test cricket. Twenty20 > ODI. Unfair to compare these two to cricket, but in terms of excitement I'd take Twenty20 over ODI any day. If I'm going to watch an abomination, I'll watch an Indian bowler. But if I had to choose I'd take twenty20 as its finishes faster and I don't have to put up with the annoying ODI middle overs.

Though I absolutely positively despise with all my heart the 'contain at all cost' mentality. It is absolutely the antithesis of everything I love about bowling. I love smart, Kallis type batting and aggressive bowling where a leg spinner doesn't care if he gets hit a couple times because he's setting the guy up, or a fast bowler with six men in the slips.

Twenty20 makes no bones about what it is (and what it isn't). ODI tries to do both and fails at both.

 

[Nishant]

Time to list the top 8 teams in terms of the entertainment value the deliver. So who is the most exciting and who is the least exciting?

ODIs

1. West Indies (Both West Indies and India have produced close games and exciting finishes recently)
2. India (Same reason as the one outlined for WI)
3. South Africa
4. Sri Lanka (Have been quite exciting to watch recently)
5. Pakistan
6. NewZealand
7. Australia (We always know who's gonna win)
8. England (We always know who's gonna lose)

Tests

1. Australia
2. Pakistan
3. South Africa
4. England
5. India
6. Sri Lanka
7. NewZealand
8. West Indies

i'd agree with all of that TBH! Spot on for me there Turbinator!

But in tests, is england really the 4th most exciting team?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I never liked Langer, he was too... thwacky. Always gave the impression of great effort in those 2 or 3 strokes he played.

The man knew how to play a cover drive. Some of the shots he played in the 2005 Ashes are as good as any in the series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just to reiterate:

Cricket = Test cricket. Twenty20 > ODI. Unfair to compare these two to cricket, but in terms of excitement I'd take Twenty20 over ODI any day. If I'm going to watch an abomination, I'll watch an Indian bowler. But if I had to choose I'd take twenty20 as its finishes faster and I don't have to put up with the annoying ODI middle overs.

Though I absolutely positively despise with all my heart the 'contain at all cost' mentality. It is absolutely the antithesis of everything I love about bowling. I love smart, Kallis type batting and aggressive bowling where a leg spinner doesn't care if he gets hit a couple times because he's setting the guy up, or a fast bowler with six men in the slips.

Twenty20 makes no bones about what it is (and what it isn't). ODI tries to do both and fails at both.

Worst post tbh.

Twenty20 is not cricket. It's commercialism at best.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Twenty20 is not cricket. It's commercialism at best.

Totally agree!!!.There are still purists out there.

 

[roseboy64]

When did this become a Tewnty20 bashing thread?

 

[grecian]

When did this become a Tewnty20 bashing thread?

Since the ODI mafia took over, all threads seem to be now

Silentstriker speaks unadulterated truth. I never thought I'd say that TBH.

 

[Richard]

The man knew how to play a cover drive. Some of the shots he played in the 2005 Ashes are as good as any in the series.

It was about all he knew how to play - but I never liked the look of it.

Not his fault, obviously, but he was no Mark Waugh or Nasser Hussain.

 

[Richard]

Totally agree!!!.There are still purists out there.

Please join the Society!!!!!!!!

 

[Pup Clarke]

Please join the Society!!!!!!!!

I might just do that.....

 

[Jono]

Just to reiterate:

Cricket = Test cricket. Twenty20 > ODI. Unfair to compare these two to cricket, but in terms of excitement I'd take Twenty20 over ODI any day. If I'm going to watch an abomination, I'll watch an Indian bowler. But if I had to choose I'd take twenty20 as its finishes faster and I don't have to put up with the annoying ODI middle overs.

Though I absolutely positively despise with all my heart the 'contain at all cost' mentality. It is absolutely the antithesis of everything I love about bowling. I love smart, Kallis type batting and aggressive bowling where a leg spinner doesn't care if he gets hit a couple times because he's setting the guy up, or a fast bowler with six men in the slips.

Twenty20 makes no bones about what it is (and what it isn't). ODI tries to do both and fails at both.

I hate that attitude almost as much as people that only like the Afridi, Dhoni or Gilly batting, and hate the Kallis and Dravid.

See all you're doing is pidgeon-holing cricket, yes in less of a "no attention span" fashion then those that only like big hitting, but you're still not understanding that there are different types of cricketers, different types of situations and such which require certain forms of batting and bowling.

For example, I guess you can't appreciate Vettori's bowling in ODIs? If so, that's sad because what he does is an art, yes he doesn't have a bat pad in, and isn't willing to give up 4s every 3rd ball to get the wicket, because his role in the team is different than say Murali for SL. Similar, you have to understand that someone like Jayasuirya or Gilly's role is to, in general, go after the bowling whenever the opportunity rises and go for the kill, yet still build an innings. Of course they may go out early, and look stupid, but their role is different to Kallis for SA.

I mean, when you make comments like "I hate sixes, you live by the sword you die by the sword", you're making an equally lame and ignorant (not to mention try hard cricket purist) comment as much as those who only go to watch Afridi.

 

[Swervy]

Totally agree!!!.There are still purists out there.

there are plenty of 'purists' out there (hate the term myself, you either like / love the game of cricket, which 20/20 is, despite what some people may think) who can appreciate the skills involved in the 20/20 version of the game.

The fundamentals are still the same, and as time goes on, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the same fundamental skills that apply to ODIs and indeed test cricket (in certain situations) apply to 20/20.

I love test cricket, and I love the shorter versions, and infact I love the fact that 20/20 version of the game appeals to the baser instincts of bat /ball games, ie try and hit the ball as far as you can with as minimal risk as the situation suits.(albeit the situation allows for higher risk taking).

The more effective players at 20/20 still keep the eye on the ball, and still tend to play straight, if not play to the conditions. Bowling skills need to adapt to the situation, which can only be a good think for the game as a whole.

 

[Richard]

I hate that attitude almost as much as people that only like the Afridi, Dhoni or Gilly batting, and hate the Kallis and Dravid.

See all you're doing is pidgeon-holing cricket, yes in less of a "no attention span" fashion then those that only like big hitting, but you're still not understanding that there are different types of cricketers, different types of situations and such which require certain forms of batting and bowling.

For example, I guess you can't appreciate Vettori's bowling in ODIs? If so, that's sad because what he does is an art, yes he doesn't have a bat pad in, and isn't willing to give up 4s every 3rd ball to get the wicket, because his role in the team is different than say Murali for SL. Similar, you have to understand that someone like Jayasuirya or Gilly's role is to, in general, go after the bowling whenever the opportunity rises and go for the kill, yet still build an innings. Of course they may go out early, and look stupid, but their role is different to Kallis for SA.

I mean, when you make comments like "I hate sixes, you live by the sword you die by the sword", you're making an equally lame and ignorant (not to mention try hard cricket purist) comment as much as those who only go to watch Afridi.