Just a thought - answer without emotions !

[Richard]

Err, what was farcical about the Tsunami ODI result exactly?

You don't find 50-over games where 350 runs are scored farcical?

 

[Richard]

again..its only your opinion on that...there are other things to consider as well...the LBW rule springs to mind

Exactly, it's only my opinion - where did I say otherwise? I asked Anil to give me some reasons to think otherwise.
As for the lbw rule... do you really think a slightly smaller chance of being given lbw is offset by the massively larger chance of being bowled or caught?

 

[Swervy]

Err... because Weekes and Walcott averaged in the late 50s against bowling perhaps more challenging than any Test-cricket has ever seen? Pitches in the 1950s and 60s were the worst since the 20s, and averaging what they did then was a feat almost beyond comprehension.
Whereas Dravid has merely averaged in the 70s on extremely flat pitches against popgun bowling, having averaged in the low 50s against better attacks in more challenging conditions in the 2nd half of the 90s.
Tendulkar probably comes closest, but fact is he's only ever been a matchwinner at home; and Lara had a 40-Test period where he didn't even average 40.
Weekes and Walcott come out on top every time as far as I'm concerned.

well...look at Everton weekes...undeniable that he had a great test record...but have a closer look...

Weekes didnt do brilliantly in England in the late 40's, and that against a second rate bowling attack...he then went on to India and scored all those hundreds. Have a gander at the scorecards...doesnt look like batting was too tricky to be honest..high scores everywhere and that vs a pretty weak attack..he did pretty good vs a stronger bowling line up in 50 vs England

he did so-so vs australia in australia...did good vs India again on pitches that allowed some pretty good scoring

He was outastanding vs England in WI in 53/54...but again, there was some pretty high scoring going on that series by others as well...the bowling was decent but it makes you wonder that maybe the pitches were better than you are making out

he got a century vs Australaia in WI then...but again in a very high scoring game....Australia top 3 all got hundreds as well

He scored 3 straight hundreds vs a poor NZ team..after that he didnt do too much apart from a big hundred ...in the same game Hanif got 337

So infact..he hardly got to play against the really good bowling..and quite often his success was at home....and quite often, WI didnt win..all things you have basically written off against Tendulkar for example..and again you need to take into account the LBW law back then as well

 

[Swervy]

Exactly, it's only my opinion - where did I say otherwise? I asked Anil to give me some reasons to think otherwise.
As for the lbw rule... do you really think a slightly smaller chance of being given lbw is offset by the massively larger chance of being bowled or caught?

a slightly smaler chance?????....the LBW rule swung things heavily in favour of the batsmen back then

 

[Richard]

No, it didn't, it was a small advantage which almost disappeared without trace when the much higher chances of getting a lifter\shooter\round-the-corner-ball are taken account of.

 

[marc71178]

And I repeat... why do they find it enjoyable?

If you're asking why people find watching cricket enjoyable, you obviously don't find it enjoyable yourself.

Makes one ask what the heck you're doing on here.

 

[Richard]

well...look at Everton weekes...undeniable that he had a great test record...but have a closer look...

Weekes didnt do brilliantly in England in the late 40's, and that against a second rate bowling attack...he then went on to India and scored all those hundreds. Have a gander at the scorecards...doesnt look like batting was too tricky to be honest..high scores everywhere and that vs a pretty weak attack..he did pretty good vs a stronger bowling line up in 50 vs England

he did so-so vs australia in australia...did good vs India again on pitches that allowed some pretty good scoring

He was outastanding vs England in WI in 53/54...but again, there was some pretty high scoring going on that series by others as well...the bowling was decent but it makes you wonder that maybe the pitches were better than you are making out

he got a century vs Australaia in WI then...but again in a very high scoring game....Australia top 3 all got hundreds as well

He scored 3 straight hundreds vs a poor NZ team..after that he didnt do too much apart from a big hundred ...in the same game Hanif got 337

So infact..he hardly got to play against the really good bowling..and quite often his success was at home....and quite often, WI didnt win..all things you have basically written off against Tendulkar for example..

Interesting indeed... something I've never looked at in quite that sort of detail.
I do think you slightly underestimate the difficulty of batting against India - while it wasn't, of course, as difficult as some things, his achievements are still quite remarkable.
I also don't know where you get "didnt do brilliantly in England in the late 40's" from - he averaged all but 49!! Not unbelievable, no, but certainly good, even against a weakish attack (that still included a youngish Laker and a very old Gubby Allen). And even when you knock-out the substandard New Zealand team it doesn't actually change his average (takes it down by 0.13).
So maybe you're right that things aren't, quite, what I might have assumed, but I still maintain that he's better than Tendulkar, if not quite by the astronomical margin I'd assumed.

 

[Richard]

If you're asking why people find watching cricket enjoyable, you obviously don't find it enjoyable yourself.

Makes one ask what the heck you're doing on here.

I'm asking why people find this particular thing more entertaining than something else.
Understand that basic concept?

 

[Top_Cat]

No, it didn't, it was a small advantage which almost disappeared without trace when the much higher chances of getting a lifter\shooter\round-the-corner-ball are taken account of.

Most accounts I've read of pre-covered pitches suggest this sort of thing on really occurred when it rained. In fact, most articles/books I've read, authored by guys like Bradman for example, suggest pitches were actually significantly flatter than they are now but only turned lethal when they got wet.

 

[Richard]

In the 1930s, certainly, that's the idea I've always been given.
The few people I've ever read who compared the 20s to the 30s to the 50s to the 70s\80s (EW Swanton to the fore, obviously) always said that the pitches of the 30s were every bit as flat as the flattest pitch in the covering era - but when they got wet, they were still deadly. In the 20s and 50s, meanwhile, there were pitches which started poor aplenty, and the possibility of rain-affected pitches simply made bad batting into even worse batting.

 

[marc71178]

I'm asking why people find this particular thing more entertaining than something else.
Understand that basic concept?

Oh, so you're asking the same question that's already been answered (presumably because you didn't like the original answer)

 

[Richard]

The answer given has been "it's more entertaining because they're both together".
I've asked why this makes it more entertaining and haven't got an answer.

 

[Swervy]

The answer given has been "it's more entertaining because they're both together".
I've asked why this makes it more entertaining and haven't got an answer.

its like your two favourite bands playing the same gig together...you may well have seen them play on separate occasions before, but to see them play together would surely be an entertaining sight

 

[Richard]

Not if they made a terrible combination.
I mean, I love B*Witched and Elton John in isolation, but if you think they'd make a good duet, think again!

 

[Swervy]

Not if they made a terrible combination.
I mean, I love B*Witched and Elton John in isolation, but if you think they'd make a good duet, think again!

look..B*Witched are of Anwar Hossain Monir status..Elton John more like Justin langer... Lara and Tendulkar are more like the Beatles and the Stones....now they would have been great to have seen on the same bill

 

[Swervy]

Not if they made a terrible combination.
I mean, I love B*Witched and Elton John in isolation, but if you think they'd make a good duet, think again!

are you serious about B*Witched????!!!!!!

 

[marc71178]

The answer given has been "it's more entertaining because they're both together".
I've asked why this makes it more entertaining and haven't got an answer.

So you've gone from enjoyment to entertainment, is this another case of you changing the rules that we have to observe if we wish to discuss things with you?

You were asked, and people answered, then you decided that wasn't a good enough answer, so keep on asking.

 

[badgerhair]

Do you enjoy seeing anyone play????
Just think about it. Two of the world's greatest batsmen. You never see them bat together. When they do, it's something special. You're watching two who are at the top of the game do what they do best. Can you not see how that is enjoyable???

Assuming, of course, that they do. If they're out cheaply, the spectacle is rather diminished.

The only thing I actually object to about these super series matches is including the numbers in official Test statistics. In these days of computer databases with stats on, setting filters to remove extraneous exhibition games isn't too difficult, but it's inconvenient. And it's certainly going to lead to two camps - those who recognise the games as Tests and those who don't.

But the analogy with seeing your two favourite bands on the same bill is a false one. A much closer analogy would be whether you want to see a band consisting of various of your favourite musicians (and let's make it easy and say that they all have to be from roughly similar traditions to avoid trying to construct bands consisting of musicians who don't speak the same musical language).

I've seen a few of these superstar events in which a bunch of top musos get together and play a gig for charidee. The prospect of several of your faves playing together, which they usually don't do, is usually exciting and has your mouth watering in anticipation. The trouble is that on the way home, I've usually felt that it had been fun but the music wasn't all that special: they were under-rehearsed and got things wrong. But the point of the event wasn't really the quality of the music - it was An Event, and you were either There or you weren't. And listening back to recordings of such shows only reinforces the impression that the music was of pretty low quality even if everyone was obviously having a great time.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

So you've gone from enjoyment to entertainment, is this another case of you changing the rules that we have to observe if we wish to discuss things with you?

You were asked, and people answered, then you decided that wasn't a good enough answer, so keep on asking.

Do you really see a difference between the two?
Generally people enjoy being entertained.

 

[Richard]

look..B*Witched are of Anwar Hossain Monir status..Elton John more like Justin langer... Lara and Tendulkar are more like the Beatles and the Stones....now they would have been great to have seen on the same bill

Utter rubbish, there's no such thing as ranks for music, it's exclusively and totally matters of opinion.
And in my opinion Elton John is quite possibly the greatest commercial musician of the age, far better than Sir Paul or John.
B*Witched... yes, I'm serious. I like them, and frankly I don't give a flying fu<k whether or not a single other person does.