Slow death of international cricket

[Pratters]

Its not more international cricket which is killing it. It is lack of competitive and more meaningless games played than ever before.

A 5 test series between England and South Africa is memorable. What is so delighting about every second one day series which crops up?

If cricket was more systemised into having longer test series it would be fa more pleasurable to watch. One day cricket brings in money in the short run but uncompetitive one day games are a bad advertisement for the game and one day cricket in general and thus harmful in the long run.

Australia vs Pakistan is not the same as Pakistan vs Zimbabwe as Pakistan does

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

That was posted in response to a comment that Australia have been dominant, but haven't played England yet.........the same also works in reverse.

I think this is the best English team for a long, long time and they certainly have a chance if things go their way. If you're going to settle for beating mid-table teams though you probably aren't up to the challenge as there seems to be a large gap between them and Oz. Somehow I've got my doubts though that the English team will be in that frame of mind currently.

No, of course we shouldn't "settle" for beating mid-table teams - but nonetheless after drawing at home to India and Pakistan and in New Zealand (all series in which we were one-up) it's simply a relief to be doing so.
We can only do our best to beat Australia - but at present I don't think that we're good enough - anywhere near, for that matter.
I don't, incidentally, think that this is the best England team for a long while - I think the combination of 2000-2000\01 was better. I think they achieved more than the current lot have achieved - the emphatic nature of the mere 3 series wins seems to have convinced most people that this is a better side - as I say, IMO that's just the way the game is at present - lots of results, less draws.
But I think the Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka sides that England beat in 2000-2000\01 presented more of a challenge than the West Indies and New Zealand sides of 2004.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

Its not more international cricket which is killing it. It is lack of competitive and more meaningless games played than ever before.

A 5 test series between England and South Africa is memorable. What is so delighting about every second one day series which crops up?

If cricket was more systemised into having longer test series it would be fa more pleasurable to watch. One day cricket brings in money in the short run but uncompetitive one day games are a bad advertisement for the game and one day cricket in general and thus harmful in the long run.

Australia vs Pakistan is not the same as Pakistan vs Zimbabwe as Pakistan does

IMO the best thing would be for a 4-year schedule including all the current sides minus Zimbabawe and Bangladesh.
Too much time is taken-up with poor cricket - there is not enough time for the really good stuff, you are right there.
There are too many ODIs, yes - but not that much too many IMO. I'd prefer a few more triangulars and less bilateral series myself, but obviously that's an option only a small amount of the time.
I certainly would like to see more three- and four-Test series, instead of wasting time playing Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Five-Test series are something I'd prefer were confined to England-Australia and England-South Africa. Australia-South Africa, obviously, has always been a two-way six-Test series and that's the best bet IMO. But outside England, there really isn't much appetite for five-Test-series - how many five-Testers have New Zealand ever played, for instance? Or Pakistan? Or Sri Lanka? Only in England is there really any appetite for the five-Test-series - and even then, as I say, for most of the sides I'd prefer a combination of three- and four-. Likewise away.
But the two-Test-series is something I've never been a great fan of.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by Richard

But outside England, there really isn't much appetite for five-Test-series - how many five-Testers have New Zealand ever played, for instance? Or Pakistan? Or Sri Lanka? Only in England is there really any appetite for the five-Test-series - and even then, as I say, for most of the sides I'd prefer a combination of three- and four-. Likewise away.
But the two-Test-series is something I've never been a great fan of.

India v Pakistan 5 tests would be cool

India v Australia no one would have complained a 5th test. Okay the Aussies would consider they won at the end of 4

Mot other nations test nations in the top 8, there is a realistic chance of the 4 test series being far more interesting than a 3 test series.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't, incidentally, think that this is the best England team for a long while - I think the combination of 2000-2000\01 was better. I think they achieved more than the current lot have achieved - the emphatic nature of the mere 3 series wins seems to have convinced most people that this is a better side - as I say, IMO that's just the way the game is at present - lots of results, less draws.

The current side has far better bowling and at least the equal batting.

Originally Posted by Richard

But I think the Zimbabwe, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka sides that England beat in 2000-2000\01 presented more of a challenge than the West Indies and New Zealand sides of 2004.

Well, the present WI side is better than that that toured the previous time.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

The current side has far better bowling and at least the equal batting.

No, it's not - there are just more runs being scored. Which is due to flatter pitches and weaker opposition attacks.
As for the bowling, well - if it goes on in South Africa like it has been so far I think we might have exposed that one as false.

Well, the present WI side is better than that that toured the previous time.

No, it's not - they actually had a pretty reasonable side last time (Lara, Adams, Ambrose, Walsh, Chanderpaul, King, Sarwan - and God-knows how many batsmen who'd have made hay on the pitches 4 years down the line). Ask Liam if West Indies' Test side of 2004 was better than theirs of 2000 - I highly doubt, once he's put aside his patriotic hope-for-the-future, that he'd tell you it was.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

India v Pakistan 5 tests would be cool

India v Australia no one would have complained a 5th test. Okay the Aussies would consider they won at the end of 4

Mot other nations test nations in the top 8, there is a realistic chance of the 4 test series being far more interesting than a 3 test series.

India-Pakistan, yes - but finding the time would be tough.
I'd much prefer India-Australia to remain a standard 4-Tester.

[bestfriendh]

GUYS M I HEARIN RITE.......DEATH OF ONE DAY CRIKCET......HEHEHEHEHE....well for starters.....anyun who thinks tht way....plz plz plz....visit or rather watch a oneday match in india any place....and wat u find??? full stadium........dont forget...i mite sound a bit bashfull here........as long as the billions of ppl in india watch odi.......its gonna live on.....no matter wat aus or any other team do

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by bestfriendh

GUYS M I HEARIN RITE.......DEATH OF ONE DAY CRIKCET......HEHEHEHEHE....well for starters.....anyun who thinks tht way....plz plz plz....visit or rather watch a oneday match in india any place....and wat u find??? full stadium........dont forget...i mite sound a bit bashfull here........as long as the billions of ppl in india watch odi.......its gonna live on.....no matter wat aus or any other team do

Who are they going to play against? Mars?

[bestfriendh]

hey dont get me wrong plz.........i get ur point.its valid enuff.....juss sayin tht given the craziness for cricket in india........urm........i dont see it dyin a slow death yet.....