Just a thought - answer without emotions !

[Richard]

By what possible standard would, say, the Super Series be utterly irrelevant? Irrelevant to whom? The crowd? The players? The umpires? Obviously not... if anything it would be a HUGE spectacle, and a huge spectacle in which to perform. It might irrelevant (or at least different) from a statistical perspective based in test cricket, but the perfromances therein would certainly be nothing of the sort.

Why not? The Super Series is simply an artiface designed by The ICC in an attempt to make-up for all the one-sided cricket they've forced upon us by elevating Bangladesh and refusing to demote Zimbabwe, and I'm near enough certain in 30 years' time it'll be thought of exactly as WSC was thought of - however much of a spectacle it was considered to be at the time.

 

[Richard]

Guilty as charged.

At least you're not as bad as EXD.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Who cares about the specific result/outcome, I'm fairly sure the others are referring to the chance for exquisite entertainment.

 

[Richard]

What's so entertaining, is what I'm asking, about seeing two batsmen bat who we've seen bat countless times before?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

You're asking why people want to see the 2 best batsmen of their era batting together?

Comparing the way the 2 of them deal with the same bowling in the same conditions - how is that not better than watching Lara with any of the WI side of the moment or Tendulkar with almost any Indian?

Quoted for relevance.

Your original reply to that was:
"Probably because any match would be utterly irrelevant and neither would be especially concerned about how they did in it."

I think it'd be safe to assume that both batsmen would be equally excited by the prospect and frankly, are both fans of providing entertainment via the beauty of their batting.

 

[marc71178]

No, because that was wrongly counted as a ODI.
If you seriously think the outcome of the game mattered too much, though, you're mistaken - all that mattered was raising as much money as possible for the cause.

So how do you know that everybody playing in that game didn't mind how they did?

Do you not remember what the cause was and the financial bonuses being given for runs?

Of course I'm sure none of them cared that the bigger they scored the more the charity got...

 

[marc71178]

What's so entertaining, is what I'm asking, about seeing two batsmen bat who we've seen bat countless times before?

Well, people have answered it, but unsurprisingly (since it makes you look silly) you've ignored those answers.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, people have answered it, but unsurprisingly (since it makes you look silly) you've ignored those answers.

Exactly and if I may be so bold as to quote myself;

I agree. I saw Lara and Ponting share a partnership in the Tsunami match and it was refreshing to see them really work together, run the singles hard, genuine communication without trying to one-up each other.

The point; watching Lara and Ponting bat together, it was fascinating to see how they batted 'together' as team-mates rather than as two batsmen from different teams batting in the middle at the same time.

 

[Mister Wright]

What's so entertaining, is what I'm asking, about seeing two batsmen bat who we've seen bat countless times before?

You may have seen them bat before, but batting together is a whole different story. It is like saying 'I enjoy watching Andrew Strauss bat and I also enjoy watching Michael Vaughan bat, but watching them bat together gives me no added/extra pleasure because I have seen them bat before.' How many people who like watching those two guys bat not enjoy it more when they are batting together? Apart from yourself.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly and if I may be so bold as to quote myself;

Not only so bold as to quote yourself, but also so bold as bolden your quote of yourself!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What's so entertaining, is what I'm asking, about seeing two batsmen bat who we've seen bat countless times before?

High standard of cricket at both ends? I don't know about you, but seeing the best batsmen in the world face the best bowlers in the world sounds pretty entertaining to me, and to suggest that the players won't care about it when it is quite clearly going to be a massive event and a match of supreme quality and significance is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Using the WSC example, how exactly is it thought of in your mind, and how was it thought about at the time? Because as far as I can see, from every angle aside from a statistical perspective (where it is irrelevant as the matches were not granted test status), WSC was hugely significant to both the fans and the players. It was, in fact, the "legitimate" test cricket at that time which was of farcically low standard, and as such nobody cared about it. WSC was massively important and the players gave their all playing against the best in the world in one of the strongest eras of cricket ever seen. Those players who succeeded in WSC were considered to have achieved something hugely significant, and the fans, despite the controversy, were far more interested in it than they had been in cricket beforehand.

I see no reason the Super Series can not attain similar standards of excellence, without the controversy. The test later this year, assuming the elementary selections are made, will be one of the highest standard matches ever seen. Australia is already of course an awesome side with both bat and ball, and, for example, a middle order of Dravid/Tendulkar/Lara/Kallis is almost without question the strongest ever fielded. I would suggest, so far as entertainment is concerned, it will be massively entertaining for every cricket fan (and also the players, without question), except, apparently, you.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not only so bold as to quote yourself, but also so bold as bolden your quote of yourself!

I almost pointed that out but then I wanted to see who would be smart enough to pick it up! And replace 'smart' with 'anal'...........

 

[badgerhair]

The test later this year, assuming the elementary selections are made, will be one of the highest standard matches ever seen. Australia is already of course an awesome side with both bat and ball, and, for example, a middle order of Dravid/Tendulkar/Lara/Kallis is almost without question the strongest ever fielded. I would suggest, so far as entertainment is concerned, it will be massively entertaining for every cricket fan (and also the players, without question), except, apparently, you.

But that's all it will be - entertainment. It won't be competition. I won't care who wins. It doesn't matter a damn who wins. I didn't care who won the MCC v RoW Bicentenary match either, though it was all good fun and the highest standard of two teams ever fielded (or pretty nearly so if not).

Cheers,

Mike

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But that's all it will be - entertainment. It won't be competition. I won't care who wins. It doesn't matter a damn who wins. I didn't care who won the MCC v RoW Bicentenary match either, though it was all good fun and the highest standard of two teams ever fielded (or pretty nearly so if not).

Cheers,

Mike

Actually, I disagree. Nobody cares who wins between MCC and RoW because nobody is a "fan" of the MCC, as such. Australian fans are obviously going to be hoping that Australia beat the World XI, while presumably fans of other countries will be hoping to see their favourite players be successful, and probably also hoping the World XI win because it has their favourite players in it. Why would an Australian fan be less interested in Australia beating the World XI and cementing themselves as a truly awesome side in the process than Australia beating, say, Sri Lanka? Just because the other team isn't representing a country doesn't make the result less important.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with Faaip. I think the SS results will matter and I am sure you will see it from the way the players play it. It won't be just some fun, amateurish game. It will be played with the keenest sense of competition, I am sure. Guys like Lara, Sachin, Kallis etc hate losing anyway and now that they are in a team more than capable of challenging Australia, they won't wanna let go of the opportunity.

 

[Richard]

So how do you know that everybody playing in that game didn't mind how they did?

Do you not remember what the cause was and the financial bonuses being given for runs?

Of course I'm sure none of them cared that the bigger they scored the more the charity got...

And because of those financial bonuses the bowlers wouldn't have been, remotely, tempted to "give away" the runs, now, would they...?

 

[Richard]

Exactly and if I may be so bold as to quote myself;

I agree. I saw Lara and Ponting share a partnership in the Tsunami match and it was refreshing to see them really work together, run the singles hard, genuine communication without trying to one-up each other.

The point; watching Lara and Ponting bat together, it was fascinating to see how they batted 'together' as team-mates rather than as two batsmen from different teams batting in the middle at the same time.

But... why was it fascinating? What was so remarkable about seeing two people who will rarely if ever be teammates again be teammates on a single occasion?

 

[Richard]

You may have seen them bat before, but batting together is a whole different story. It is like saying 'I enjoy watching Andrew Strauss bat and I also enjoy watching Michael Vaughan bat, but watching them bat together gives me no added/extra pleasure because I have seen them bat before.' How many people who like watching those two guys bat not enjoy it more when they are batting together? Apart from yourself.

What I want to know, I repeat, is why is it more enjoyable to see them batting at the same time?

 

[Beleg]

I like to watch Lara play. I cheered for him while he was flaying Pakistan at Barbados. I will cheer for him again when he (hopefully) blasts McGrath out of the attack at SCG.

I like to watch cricket first and foremost. The quality of players is almost certain to produce great cricket, which is what matters. The issue of nationality is a distant second.

 

[Richard]

High standard of cricket at both ends? I don't know about you, but seeing the best batsmen in the world face the best bowlers in the world sounds pretty entertaining to me, and to suggest that the players won't care about it when it is quite clearly going to be a massive event and a match of supreme quality and significance is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

As has already been said - for me, there has to be some significance on the result. While it would be annoying if Australia were to win the SS matches, relative to The Ashes or any other series (including the County Championship - I'd far rather Yorks win the thing than the result of the SS) I don't give a flying fu<k about it. And I'd suspect most cricketing pundits would feel pretty similarly.
Long-term teams are more important than blink-of-an-eyelid teams.

Using the WSC example, how exactly is it thought of in your mind, and how was it thought about at the time? Because as far as I can see, from every angle aside from a statistical perspective (where it is irrelevant as the matches were not granted test status), WSC was hugely significant to both the fans and the players. It was, in fact, the "legitimate" test cricket at that time which was of farcically low standard, and as such nobody cared about it. WSC was massively important and the players gave their all playing against the best in the world in one of the strongest eras of cricket ever seen. Those players who succeeded in WSC were considered to have achieved something hugely significant, and the fans, despite the controversy, were far more interested in it than they had been in cricket beforehand.

I see no reason the Super Series can not attain similar standards of excellence, without the controversy. The test later this year, assuming the elementary selections are made, will be one of the highest standard matches ever seen. Australia is already of course an awesome side with both bat and ball, and, for example, a middle order of Dravid/Tendulkar/Lara/Kallis is almost without question the strongest ever fielded. I would suggest, so far as entertainment is concerned, it will be massively entertaining for every cricket fan (and also the players, without question), except, apparently, you.

WSC is, of course, slightly different, being longer-term, but the fact is it'll be remembered, 70 years from now, as simply an abhorration - the means to blame for the real Test-cricket being so woeful in standard.
Incidentally, if Dravid\Tendulkar\Lara\Kallis is stronger than Worrell\Weekes\Walcott\Sobers, I'm wondering what you've been watching. Not to mention, it was actually part of a real team who play together for a time in pursuit of a prize worth winning.