AravindaTheMan
Cricket Spectator
In onedayer, the best way to restrict a team is by getting wkts at regular intervals
-
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.
England vs India
- Thread starter James
- Start date
In onedayer, the best way to restrict a team is by getting wkts at regular intervals
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Well, considering it was a big 5th wicket partnership that won that particular game and it went to the last over, it suggests to me that both teams were on top at some point in the game, and the result reamined in doubt till near the end. To me that isn't dominating.
Sunday, however, was a domination as India never really looked like losing.
Similarly the England 64 run win is in my mind a comprehensive win as they wer 2 runs per over quicker than India.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
The type of domination that you are talking about, rarely happens between top teams like the one on Sunday between India and Eng or today's match between SL and Aus.
Marc, doesn't look like we will ever agree on this topic.
As I saw that match, England did well scoring 271 in their 50 overs. India started the chase in impressive fashion with an opening partnership of 109. Then there was a brief flurry of wickets(4 to be exact) for the addition of 32 runs. Even at that point, the run rate was 5.15(22.4 overs were left) and India still had 3 frontline batsmen left in Dravid, Yuvraj and Kaif. As it turned out, Kaif didn't even have to bat as Yuvraj and Dravid turned in a very professional display to win the match in the penultimate over(it was not the final over as you maintain, there were seven balls left). Barring that hiccup in the middle overs, the Indian batting was always in command and finished off in style.
As I said before, it was not a match where one team scored 300 and the other 150. Bowlers didn't do well on both sides, batsmen dominated. The Indian batsmen were clearly better in that they overhauled the English total with 7 balls to spare and lost three fewer wickets. No team was in command 100% of the time, but the better team on the day was definitely India.
. No team was in command 100% of the time, but the better team on the day was definitely India.
[/quote]
Thats is nearly never the case in onedayer, i mean even today when SL thrashed Aus, Aus were initially going stronger, were 49/0 in 7 overs yet SL won the match easily in the end!
[/quote]
Thats is nearly never the case in onedayer, i mean even today when SL thrashed Aus, Aus were initially going stronger, were 49/0 in 7 overs yet SL won the match easily in the end!
Really! how? Please don't twist my statements which mean the opposite around in order to suit your argument. I just said that India won with balls and wickets to spare and were clearly the better team on the day. You said, the match oscillated to and fro through out the game and India won in a last minute rush. I disputed the oscillation theory and disproved it. Barring that brief period of 10 overs where India lost 4 wickets for 32 runs, England were always on the backfoot. Once Dravid and Yuvraj consolidated, England lost any chance whatsoever of getting back into the match. If a team dominates for 38.4 overs out of the total 48.5 and wins the match by 6 wickets in the bargain that too chasing a fairly big total, commonsense prompts a reasonable person to say that they dominated.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Why is it inferior ? ....you can say that they are different, but to call it inferior is to trash a form of cricket that has literally kept the game alive and infused new life into it.That view is utterly ridiculous.
[Edited on 27/9/2002 by aussie_beater]
Gotchya
State Vice-Captain
A proper classicst eh?
The way i see it, test matches in the past decade have yielded more results then ever before(i was going to say history of the game). Anyway, the habits haven't turned bad at all, just that the niceties that the game inherited from Britian (disputedly) have been replaced with nerve breaking competitiveness. Which is in tune with modern sport.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's certainly the case that in the last 10 years (even more so in the last 5) that the run rate per over has (ok, seems to have - I can't be bothered to look up the stats) improved dramatically in test cricket, inasmuch as the norm seems to be 3.2 - 3.5 runs per over.
This can only be due in part to a more 'positive' attitude which has crept into the test match arena from one day cricket.
All I would like now is for the basic over rate to improve. 15 an hour is pathetic - and how often do we actually SEE 15 an hour? More like 13.5. Come on bowlers, walk back to your mark rather than wait like a dummy half-way down the track eyeballing the batsman.
Forgive me, I'm old.
This can only be due in part to a more 'positive' attitude which has crept into the test match arena from one day cricket.
All I would like now is for the basic over rate to improve. 15 an hour is pathetic - and how often do we actually SEE 15 an hour? More like 13.5. Come on bowlers, walk back to your mark rather than wait like a dummy half-way down the track eyeballing the batsman.
Forgive me, I'm old.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No... but no matter how many wickets are left, taking 97.7% of the available balls isn't domination.
Look, you and Marc will never agree with my point of view and I will never agree with yours. That's why I stopped posting on this particular subject. I think this current Indian team has done more than enough in the past 11 matches to be considered better than England in the shortened version of the game(I know that form is notoriously fickle in one dayers, but still...). Marc thought it was still too close to call. That's where the whole issue of the "domination" thing started and we started going into the nitty gritty of each match.
We have exhausted(atleast I have) all the arguments and what is left is "I am right and you are wrong". Reply: "No, I am right and you are wrong". Basically, your idea of domination or being better differs from mine. So be it. I can live with that and I guess you can too.
[Edited on 9/29/2002 by anilramavarma]
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Traditions have to change or else the sport itself is in danger of getting marginalised.That's what ODI has done.It has not made "bad" habits creep into test cricket, but has made it more exciting as players carry their ODI habits into test cricket to an extent.
And this has only helped test cricket to survive.We are seeing more results in test cricket then boring draws, and also the crowds are back into it, which was becoming quite a problem in the eighties with viewership for test matches going down quite a bit.
Ok, one more post on this. What exactly do you mean by the above??? What else(other than stats) can you use to prove it? I would have thought stats are more convincing than mere mental impressions of superiority. If you think these stats aren't convincing and if the 6-4 score line doesn't present the true picture to you, why do you think India has been better than England? Honestly, the above sounds very confused and contradictory.