Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: State of the game generally?????

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1

    State of the game generally?????

    Hey all,
    What do people think about the selection criteria (or apparent criteria) used by various countries.
    Obviously, SA are in a bit of a schemozzle, and I really think that the Waugh brothers should have been retained until the World Cup.
    Then I read that the Engalnd coach is concerned that players have fronted for a series in an unfit condition! Bloody hell, how "professional" is that?
    I think the same thing happened with India, their Captain being rated as one of the most unfit.
    Let's face it, it's the same as a local association. It's not good when one side dominates, and the general standard drops. If all teams are having a red hot go in all depts. the standard is high, and people will flock to contests. It must be good for cricket.

    My 3 cents :-))

  2. #2
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,150
    As much as I enjoy attacking play, I prefer to see some personality injected into the sport. I loved watching Michael Slater bat (as is obvious by my article on the front page of the site. :-D) but I also used to ove watching guys like Greenidge and Merv go at it. Even if no runs were being scored or no wickets being taken, it was thrilling stuff. Watching guys like Mike Slater and Shoab Akhtar go at it was awesome too. It was al good natured stuff but the battle was the last of its kind I've seen. That good natured rivalry is missing these days and the game is worse off for it.

    Having said that, the increase in attacking play (especially in the batting) has GOT to be a good thing, as long as it's because the batsmen are bating well and not that the pitch is favourable to them. There's nothing worse than seeing a batsman pound an attack all day because the pitch is flat. Boring.

    I tell you what, though. The standard of bowling, other than the greats like Glenn Mcrath etc. has declined markedly in the last few years. Line and length seems to have gone out the window and bowlers can't seem to actually bowl a decent length especially. I wonder why?
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  3. #3
    Guest
    Just pick 3 defensive, 3 attacking batters, a 'keeper, spinner and 3 pacers

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,150
    Yeah! And with cricket down to such a science, maybe we won't need to play the game at all!

    Seriously, it obviously depends on the conditions (I personally don't fancy the chances of a gun-barrel straight Mattew Hoggard on a dead Indian track, myself) but I don't feel that there is a need for three defensive batsmen. I reckon you need two maximum and it depends on when you bat them. Ideally you'd want them batting at 3 and 5 with the attackers around them, unless your keeper isn't Adam Gilchrist who a super-attacker but can defend if need be.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •