Opinions on The Super Series

[Steulen]

Well, not quite so much - see the Tsunami game, was even more of a run-glut than most ODIs.
In any case, that's not my reasoning for the games not being ODIs, that's just the reason I won't bother watching them.

So you're basically saying you don't enjoy cricket unless there's some good bowling on show.

I tend to agree, but a slogfest once every while is nice to watch too.

Anyway, thew Australian ODI attack is more than capable of keeping it reasonably tight. Even guys like Symonds and Hogg are not easily dispatched for a run a ball or more, and in Lee and McGrath they have two superb ODI bowlers.

So I would definitely watch these games if they were actually played during my awake hours.

 

[Richard]

If Australia bat first I can see 320 at least - if The World XI have to chase that we might see them bowled-out cheaply but we sure as won't see anyone keeping it tight.
I don't ever like seeing slogfests - I do like seeing the odd game where 300 plays 300, but only the odd one.

 

[howardj]

What will your response be in the very-possible event that the one-dayers degenerate into 330-plays-290?

ODI's are usually boring and predictable, in any case (especially between overs 20-40). The idea that these games, with the very best players on board, will be any more so, is quite baseless.

 

[Slow Love™]

I can't believe more people didn't laugh at this - it's just so out of character and I keep imagining Richard completely off his face and shouting at Adrian Edmondson at some off-license somewhere.

Oh yeah - was this in reference to when you originally made the "False as a slut!!!" comment?

It's just that you usually sound so calm, but that exclamation conjured up Rik Mayall yelling at Adrian Edmondson a la "The Young Ones", "Bottom", or "Mr Jolly Lives Next Door". They're a comedy duo.

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, not quite so much - see the Tsunami game, was even more of a run-glut than most ODIs.

Yeah, and that's exactly what bothers me about the non-official games. There's an expectation that the public wants to see lots and lots of runs, and the games can't possibly finish early. And too often the bowlers are the victims of this contrived ideal.

I also wouldn't mind some low-to-midrange scoring (and preferably tight) encounters, and I'm not that much in favor of all the matches being repetitive 300+ slugfests either. But as far as I'm concerned, you're more likely to get the latter if the matches aren't given official status.

 

[aussie]

to me its a great idea, just seeing all the best players in the world battling the aussies is off the map. I reckon these type of matches shouldn't be played annually it should be like every time a team comes up & becomes a dominant force in world cricket then a World XI should be selected to play them.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah, and that's exactly what bothers me about the non-official games. There's an expectation that the public wants to see lots and lots of runs, and the games can't possibly finish early. And too often the bowlers are the victims of this contrived ideal.

I also wouldn't mind some low-to-midrange scoring (and preferably tight) encounters, and I'm not that much in favor of all the matches being repetitive 300+ slugfests either. But as far as I'm concerned, you're more likely to get the latter if the matches aren't given official status.

Was that deliberate? Because if it is, it is a fantastic description

 

[Richard]

Oh yeah - was this in reference to when you originally made the "False as a slut!!!" comment?

'Twas indeed.

It's just that you usually sound so calm, but that exclamation conjured up Rik Mayall yelling at Adrian Edmondson a la "The Young Ones", "Bottom", or "Mr Jolly Lives Next Door". They're a comedy duo.

Aha, I see.
You may not be surprised to hear I am not acquained with the duo.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, and that's exactly what bothers me about the non-official games. There's an expectation that the public wants to see lots and lots of runs, and the games can't possibly finish early. And too often the bowlers are the victims of this contrived ideal.

I also wouldn't mind some low-to-midrange scoring (and preferably tight) encounters, and I'm not that much in favor of all the matches being repetitive 300+ slugfests either. But as far as I'm concerned, you're more likely to get the latter if the matches aren't given official status.

You see, IMO you're likely to get that regardless, and it's a blow if the matches are full ODIs, but it doesn't matter if they're status-less games.

 

[Richard]

ODI's are usually boring and predictable, in any case (especially between overs 20-40). The idea that these games, with the very best players on board, will be any more so, is quite baseless.

IMO there's nothing boring about said period (you refer to it being 20-40), it's the only thing that retains credibility for limited-overs matches as cricket at all.
It'd be far more boring if we just got 15-over cricket throughout. As it is it's more interesting, because we get different types of cricket at different stages of the innings. And the whole point of the idea of getting the captain to choose the restriction-overs is that more games will follow different patterns.

 

[marc71178]

For the same reason that World Series Cricket matches shouldn't and weren't.

And you really know that do you?

 

[marc71178]

As for being negative - I make no apologies for it. I don't like to see the best in everything, like most people.

If you ever saw anything good in something it'd be a first.

 

[Richard]

You really do know how to exaggerate, don't you?

 

[Richard]

And you really know that do you?

I know they weren't given any status other than that of games laid-on by one mhogle, and as far as I'm concerned it was right to give them such.

 

[Langeveldt]

I see the whole thrill of international cricket as pitting one nation against another, and all the patriotism and honour that goes with representing your nation.. Who would get hyped up for playing in this super series? Its such a selfish form of cricket, playing for a faceless, pointless team just for money or to further your own personal cause.. I guess cricket has had such a brilliant brilliant summer, the ICC needed to force its mediocrity and sheer stupidity back on the game we all love..

All we need now is a "Microsoft lefties v righties Twenty20 challenge.com"

 

[Richard]

As far as I'm concerned they can do what they like with Twenty20 - it's designed for precisely that purpose, and the more money-making stuff that's dumped on it rather than Tests and ODIs the better.
ICC have forced plenty enough mediocrity and stupidity on us by following this summer with SL v Ban and Zim v Ind.

 

[honestbharani]

Because in the past they have not given these type of matches Test status, I refer to a series in England (late 60s I think) where at the time it was thought the match would receive official sanction, but this was later withdrawn, and one of the English players, played what would have been his only Test. (Jones?)

Also a series between the ROW and Australia, (early 70s) where Sobers played an innings described by Bradman as the best ever innings played in Australia is not recorded in Test match records. I think Lillee claimed 8-20 in one of these matches.

I think those matches should be given international status as well. International players taking on each other in a competitive match = an international match. I don't see what the fuss is all about.

 

[honestbharani]

For the same reason that World Series Cricket matches shouldn't and weren't.

IDK why those matches weren't given official status, but IMO, if the match is a competitive one between international class players, it should be given official status. Trust me, these super series match will be better off for it.

 

[honestbharani]

LOL @ some of these responses. Its basically "I don't like the idea of it, therefore I hope it sucks so everyone else that is looking forward to it, and has been for many months doesn't like it either."

No surprise it comes from the usual suspects. That's what makes it all that much more humorous.

Anyway I am greatly looking forward to the Super Series. I'm going to all the ODIs here in Melbourne and until 2 weeks ago was going to head up to Sydney for the test until my father who I was going to take with me has had to leave for business. Otherwise I would have gone too, such is my interest and excitement for the series.

Why don't you go by yourself?

 

[honestbharani]

Well, not quite so much - see the Tsunami game, was even more of a run-glut than most ODIs.
In any case, that's not my reasoning for the games not being ODIs, that's just the reason I won't bother watching them.

During the Tsunami match, there was money to be given for runs, sixes, fours etc. Even Steve Waugh suggested that the bowlers should throw it up a little bit so as to make as much money as they can for the great cause. It won't be the same here. You certainly won't see Murali throw them up because his record is at stake and there is no good money for every six or four that is hit and there certainly isn't a great cause as there was during that Tsunami appeal match.