No ODI's for AUS/IND tour?

[kwigibo]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/C...01JUN2004.html

Why not? I'm getting tired of all this ODI bashing, the logic behind it boggles the mind. All we hear is how great the last test series was because it wasn't as one-sided as usual, and this is justification for dropping ODI games. Why? That series wasn't that exciting, we had two pointless draws, and two games handed to the opposition by the losing side. The bowling was so depleted as to be laughable while the batting was mechanical in taking it apart. The VB series was then blasted by pundits in spite of there being a clear winner, and because of the inclusion of Zimbabwe, which Indian journalists ezpecially decried, somehow forgetting how they very nearly and probably should have lost to them at Adelaide. And no, I don't think the series is too long.

More generally, ODI cricket is ridiculed for being predictable. Again, I don't know what games the media have been watching, but some of the most exciting cricket of the last decade has occurred in the last couple of years in one day cricket. India v Pakistan was brilliantly unpredictable, Aus/Ind/NZ last year, Pakistan in NZ produced some great matches as did the World Cup.

Aus/Ind matches on the subcontinent are always gripping, exciting matches, and extremely competitive. Test cricket is admittedly more exciting than it's ever been, in large part due to ODI's influence. Test cricket would be wallowing if it wasn't for one day cricket, and one day cricket lends itself so much better to international competition. Why does it deserve this ridicule?

I'm an avid cricket enthusiast like everyone else here, I like test cricket, but i think one day cricket has more than earned its dues and shouldn't be treated like the bastard son it has been for so long.

[luckyeddie]

The intensity of these matches is in stark contrast to the limp performances that have been served up in the one-day game. India were brushed aside by Australia in two World Cup fixtures, including the final, before losing heavily in the final of a VB Series that was devalued by the inclusion of Zimbabwe, who were unable to win any of their eight matches.

There's your answer. India see themselves as more or less an equal in the longer version of the game, but seem to be running scared in ODIs.

[Ford_GTHO351]

Originally Posted by kwigibo

Why? That series wasn't that exciting, we had two pointless draws, and two games handed to the opposition by the losing side. The bowling was so depleted as to be laughable while the batting was mechanical in taking it apart.

Whilst Australia didn't have a full strength bowling attack (and this did IMO hurt Australia), it was still an exciting series.

[Ford_GTHO351]

Originally Posted by kwigibo

I'm an avid cricket enthusiast like everyone else here, I like test cricket, but i think one day cricket has more than earned its dues and shouldn't be treated like the bastard son it has been for so long.

Agreed

I've said something like that before here at CW.

Check what I wrote on this issue here a few months ago:

Importance

[anzac]

I think it's brilliant to see Test cricket being given the priority over ODIs.......

don't get me wrong, I'm a critic of ODIs in so much as there are too many of them IMO, and in some recent series the toss played too big an influence as to who was likely to win - i.e. chase......................

[bennyr]

I have to agree with anzac, I think it's great to see Test cricket given priority. Particularly in an Aus vs India series.

The last two Australia vs India test series have been amongst the best I have ever seen/heard, and there is no reason to suggest the next one will be any different.

[EnglishRose]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

There's your answer. India see themselves as more or less an equal in the longer version of the game, but seem to be running scared in ODIs.

If they are scared of playing them at ODI level, then why have they agreed to play them in a ODI tournament against Australia in Holland ?

[EnglishRose]

Originally Posted by Ford_GTHO351

Whilst Australia didn't have a full strength bowling attack

Neither did India.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by EnglishRose

If they are scared of playing them at ODI level, then why have they agreed to play them in a ODI tournament against Australia in Holland ?

Oh, you mean when they should be playing Bangladesh?

[EnglishRose]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

Oh, you mean when they should be playing Bangladesh?

Maybe it is. I don't know when that tournament is exactly. But it still doesn't support the idea that they are running scared of playing Australia in ODIs.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by EnglishRose

Maybe it is. I don't know when that tournament is exactly. But it still doesn't support the idea that they are running scared of playing Australia in ODIs.

I'm just pulling chains here (as usual). I went back and looked at my original statement which seemed to fire you up a little....

There's your answer. India see themselves as more or less an equal in the longer version of the game, but seem to be running scared in ODIs.

and I realise now that there are certain factors which should be explained

1. 'Seem to be running scared' is supposed to indicate a perception, an impression they are giving off by their actions. You dropped the word 'seemed' and changed the effect.

2. It was equally wrong of me to imply that India now see themselves as Australia's equal in test cricket but still markedly inferior in ODIs without knowing it as a fact.

The statement should have read

There's your answer. India see themselves as more or less inferior to Australia in the longer version of the game as well as running scared in ODIs.

Better?

[EnglishRose]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

I'm just pulling chains here (as usual). I went back and looked at my original statement which seemed to fire you up a little....



and I realise now that there are certain factors which should be explained

1. 'Seem to be running scared' is supposed to indicate a perception, an impression they are giving off by their actions. You dropped the word 'seemed' and changed the effect.

2. It was equally wrong of me to imply that India now see themselves as Australia's equal in test cricket but still markedly inferior in ODIs without knowing it as a fact.

The statement should have read

There's your answer. India see themselves as more or less inferior to Australia in the longer version of the game as well as running scared in ODIs.

Better?

Try your hand at plain English.....it often helps.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by EnglishRose

Try your hand at plain English.....it often helps.

Ah, yes. Lectured on the use of my native tongue by someone who reads this...

The lights made the difference - as England fans accepted when Anderson took a hatful against Pakistan.

,

responds with this....

As SOME England fans accepted....

and then wonders why it's interpreted as "on here" as opposed to "somewhere else which I haven't actually mentioned until challenged to substantiate the remark, and even then I didn't".

(checks location of EnglishRose, wonders whether Merriam-Webster would be interested in a new definition of the word 'semantics')

[EnglishRose]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

Ah, yes. Lectured on the use of my native tongue by someone who reads this...

,

responds with this....



and then wonders why it's interpreted as "on here" as opposed to "somewhere else which I haven't actually mentioned until challenged to substantiate the remark, and even then I didn't".

(checks location of EnglishRose, wonders whether Merriam-Webster would be interested in a new definition of the word 'semantics')

Clutching at straws as usual Sanders.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by EnglishRose

Clutching at straws as usual Sanders.

Better than just going down for the third time

although saying that, there's this young piece of.... (voice fades into the distance)

You can call me Mr Sanders, no problem.