PhoenixFire
International Coach
I only mentioned NZ because you said about McCullum. I don't think any matches against the Netherlands, Ireland ect, should be counted as proper ODIs.
-
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.
200 in an ODI
- Thread starter ret
- Start date
Raghav
International Vice-Captain
well thats your personal opinion. If thats the case, then if you want a level playing field for all the teams, then all teams should play equal number of ODI's every year....
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Not sure how that has anything to do with Ireland and ODIs TBH. My original point still stands.
Raghav
International Vice-Captain
Had if the same NZ played against Ireland in WC and scored the same... would you still say that the century cant be counted.. remove ODI status for that match
PhoenixFire
International Coach
I'm sure Bowman will agree with me when I say that it makes not a shred of difference whether the game is in an individual series or the WC, it shouldn't be counted.
Raghav
International Vice-Captain
I feel this point of giving ODI status to a match and not will cause problems until every team play the same number of matches every year. ICC should manage in such a way that every team is playing equal number of matches and no one is playing many matches against minor nations. If Ireland is playing today against NZ with ODI status on... then, if tomorrow ENg is playing against IRL, the ODi status should prevail then there should be no problem.
On of my friend in this forum says that, McCullum's century cant be counted... well such problems will not rise if we have definite plan from ICC
Raghav
International Vice-Captain
Could you please justify your reasons why it should not be counted? please
open365
International Vice-Captain
What? When did this have anything to do with India? PF isn't even vaguely Indian, and i'm sure he thinks that ODIs against Hong Kong etc shouldn't be counted as well.
And yes we know what the ICC say, we just think it's horribly horribly wrong and that they're a poorly ran institution.
Well that's a different issue, and I think the Irish side then was just about decent enough to be counted as a one day side. When analysing a player's average of whatever they would still probably be classed as minnows and discounted, but I don't really have a problem with the Irish side of the 2007 WC being of ODI status.
The team that recently played NZ however, we barely better than an ameatur club side.
Because the team aren't of ODI quality, quite simply. Them being an ODI team serves no purpose.Could you please justify your reasons why it should not be counted? please
Dissector
International Debutant
It's pretty remarkable that the 200 barrier still stands. Aggressive openers have become increasingly common in the last decade, the rules have moved further in their favour and there are more and more games with minnows. I fully expected that the 200 barrier would be broken in the last WC but it didn't happen.
Like everyone else I hope it happens in a proper game with regular sides and it would be great if happened in a big final. The game where Australia first broke the 400 barrier and then were beaten by SA was so special; it's such a shame that the record score now is from an utterly meaningless game against the Netherlands.
Like everyone else I hope it happens in a proper game with regular sides and it would be great if happened in a big final. The game where Australia first broke the 400 barrier and then were beaten by SA was so special; it's such a shame that the record score now is from an utterly meaningless game against the Netherlands.
Somerset
Cricketer Of The Year
Given that James Marshall made 160 against Ireland a week or so ago, picking a batsman to go 40 runs better is impossible IMO and could be anyone who has an exceptional day against an average opposition.
Absolutely agree, even more surprising with the introduction of Twenty20. If McCullum can score 158 in 20 overs (in the IPL), why can't he, or others with a similar attitude to batting, pass 200 in 50?
33/3from3.3
International Vice-Captain
If ICC say McCullum's century was scored in an ODI, then it was. It is not a matter of opinion.
Put it this way, if an Irishman scored a century would it be an ODI century? Yes it would.
If Ireland get in to the World Cup and play ODIs there what makes the game against NZ any different.
I personally think it will be broken in my lifetime. As to who will do it, I don't have a clue. My money would say McCullum.
Put it this way, if an Irishman scored a century would it be an ODI century? Yes it would.
If Ireland get in to the World Cup and play ODIs there what makes the game against NZ any different.
I personally think it will be broken in my lifetime. As to who will do it, I don't have a clue. My money would say McCullum.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Purely for the time and effort factors. It's still really, really difficult to maintain the sort of hitting-rate required to hit a double ton for longer than in a 20-over match. We see many more scores of 300+ these days but, without checking, I don't think many more are scored on the back of big tons. Batsmen are going harder earlier in the innings just to maintain the team run-rate of 5-6 for the first 30-40 overs, increasing their chances of getting out for less than 100 but also increasing the score before the 40th over where the lower-order hitters can put the team past 300. Many scores of 300+ seem to be built on quick 50's than big hundreds these days.
It wasn't unusual to see, for example, Marsh or Boon graft a 70+ S/R ton years ago but the team score to still only be about 250. Those guys would soak up happy hour hitting deliveries later in their innings as they got tired whereas now, you need to get your ton quick or get out and let the fresh batters do the hitting.
To then go on and score 200 would require someone having a freakish day of fast scoring but also still be fresh enough to maintain it past the 40th over. Has always been a tough ask and, to this point, impossible in the men's game.
Natman20
International Debutant
Its difficult to tell whether it would happen. Strike rates are rising especially with more T20 cricket but by saying that more risks are taken and I believe batsmen are often not able to hang around long enough anymore. I think the person that would be able to do it would have to be a Fleming type where you settle yourself and accelerate. I think Ponting could do it. It would have to be someone of class and they would have to have a bit of luck at some stage if they are going to have a very high strike-rate throughout the innings. I don't see it happening for a while unless many minnow matches happen.
Kweek
Cricketer Of The Year
***ist!LOL
Yeh because people come to CW to discuss the latest happenings in the wonderful world of women's cricket don't they?
It's quite clear that A. The innings shouldn't be taken into account because it was against a terrible side and B. Call me ***ist, but no one cares about Women's cricket.