• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Hong Kong Sixes

PY

International Coach
:O

Summary Of Scores

Courtesy of Cricinfo

Sri Lanka - 109 runs of 5 overs with one guy scoring almost 5 runs a ball

Can't seem to find what the format is i.e pitch sizes and such like.....
 
Last edited:

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
G Chapple's bowling figures against South Africa:

1-0-33-0

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OK. It's a tiny pitch, but that bloke should never have bowled at all...poor bloke, seeing every ball being hit for sixes...
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
NZ have done well considering they haven't played in the tournament for awhile.

Beating the favourites Pakistan & also India.
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
Whenever i see the live scores for this on cricinfo every year, i think the same thing. Damn, i wanna see this! It sounds so awesome and would be quick to watch. :) Why isnt it on air!?
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
Kenya (63 all out) just defeated Hong Kong (61/3)

Think that was Kenyas first win, and only just.:P
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Why would anyone be bothered about being slogged for 33 off 1 over in a meaningless tournament? It doesn't reflect on his cricketing ability - it's just a tournament where cricketing ability counts for about 50% of what happens. Swing and miss, swing and hit - it's a lottery, and a highly boring one at that IMO.
If it was televised I wouldn't bother with it.
 

Craig

World Traveller
I saw the final a couple of years ago when it was on cable and man it was entertaining.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard said:
Why would anyone be bothered about being slogged for 33 off 1 over in a meaningless tournament? It doesn't reflect on his cricketing ability - it's just a tournament where cricketing ability counts for about 50% of what happens. Swing and miss, swing and hit - it's a lottery, and a highly boring one at that IMO.
If it was televised I wouldn't bother with it.
It's a bit of 'fun' - and in the end isn't that what cricket is supposed to be?

I find these types of event to be highly entertaining but totally irrelevant - consequently the players perform in an uninhibited manner.

Ability DOES count for a little - Aravinda is quite exceptional in this form of 'cricket'.

Whilst I can see that it's not a game for the purist (did they choke on their Pimm's during Twenty20?), it frequently puts bums on seats - and in these days of GCC/ICC disputes over the odd $50 million, isn't widening the games fan base a good idea?
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Who cares what it is so long as England win? :)

http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/NOV/554189_WCI_02NOV2003.html

Robert Croft gave David Graveney, the chairman of selectors, who was watching on from the sidelines, a timely reminder of his allround talents with a matchwinning performance in the final against Pakistan. With the bat he set off like a train, hammering 31 runs from 14 balls to give England a lightening start, but it was with the ball that he clinched the game. Brought into the attack with Imran Nazir in full song and Pakistan racing home on 35 without loss after two overs, Croft lulled Nazir into a false shot and then sprinted 50 yards to take a diving catch at full stretch. Two balls later Abdul Razzaq was caught on the boundary edge by Dougie Brown on tiptoes. He finished with 2 for 4 and left Pakistan on the ropes. Pakistan were thrown further out of kilter by a bizarre four-run penalty when Razzaq and Moin Khan failed to cross on the field. Despite complaints from the Pakistani's, the umpires stood firm and Pakistan were left needing to score 52 from the last 12 balls. England, cheered on by most of Hong Kong and all of India, duly sealed their triumph, hugged like they had won the World Cup and embarked on a victory lap. Croft was rightly adjudged man of the final - he could also have been adjudged man of the tournament for his 5 wickets and 125 runs but that award went to Saman Jayantha for his 152 runs and 3 wickets - but England's was a team performance: Kabir Ali was revelation with the bat; Darren Maddy nerveless with the ball; Dougie Brown scored 96 priceless runs without being dismissed and clung onto crucial catches; Chris Silverwood and Glen Chapple both threatened with the ball and Matthew Maynard's leadership was always assured. They fully deserved their USD$90,000 winners cheque.

Croft, Maynard, Maddy, Kabir, Brown, Chapple and Silverwood - heroes all ;)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
luckyeddie said:
It's a bit of 'fun' - and in the end isn't that what cricket is supposed to be?

I find these types of event to be highly entertaining but totally irrelevant - consequently the players perform in an uninhibited manner.

Ability DOES count for a little - Aravinda is quite exceptional in this form of 'cricket'.

Whilst I can see that it's not a game for the purist (did they choke on their Pimm's during Twenty20?), it frequently puts bums on seats - and in these days of GCC/ICC disputes over the odd $50 million, isn't widening the games fan base a good idea?
Depending on what you call "purists" (they say the true "purist" doesn't like proper limited-overs cricket) I could be considered one.
I don't find Twenty20, Cricket Max, International Sixes or anything below 40 overs that appealing, because it just starts to resemble a slog-fest more and more.
I like a balance between bat and ball, too (that means economy as much as wickets) - events of less than 40 overs tend to push the balance towards bat too much for me.
However, Twenty20 has made a small dent in the English debt problem when it was most needed so it, and Hong Kong events, which apparently draw pretty large crowds, are imperatives to cricket, even if they don't help the players play it in a manner I regard as "proper" (ie First-Class or 40-60-overs, though 60 overs is a thing of the past).
They are undoubtedly a good idea, they just don't enthuse me. And I am a little sceptical that they'll massively widen the game's fan-base - very few were attracted to the National Leauge by Twenty20 last season. I don't know what the market for one-day-international cricket in Hong Kong is but if ICC thought it was worth looking-into, I'm sure they'd contribute to suitable stadia.
 

Craig

World Traveller
But isnt that why they are treated as exibithational matches? Go out and throw the bat and hit an easy boundary.

I reckon I could do well with the bat in the Hong Kong sixes - and I tend to bat like Courtney Walsh and Glenn McGrath.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, Craig, of course that's why - my point was anyone attempting to take it seriously is mad and that it doesn't in the least enthuse me - without reading those written on here I wouldn't have known a single score.
If people enjoy it, fine, and if it makes money for ICC (presuming they use it well), all well and good, but I couldn't care less about it.
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Yes, Craig, of course that's why - my point was anyone attempting to take it seriously is mad and that it doesn't in the least enthuse me - without reading those written on here I wouldn't have known a single score.
If people enjoy it, fine, and if it makes money for ICC (presuming they use it well), all well and good, but I couldn't care less about it.
Mate its all a bit of fun and the matches are so quick and exciting i am sure you would have some interest in it.
 

Top