• 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.

Thank God for Australia !

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
This morning they were showing the second test of India's last series down under and I sat spell bound watching. They were showing the highlights but even though I had seen the test match I wished they were showing the complete game, ball by ball. So absorbing is a contest between Australian bowlers and the top batsmen of the world.

Sachin, though he was going through a bad patch played well for a 31 before totally misreading a flipper and padding up to MacGill to be leg before. And I thought, that was a gem of an innings while it lasted. But thats because it was against such a keen attack and a side that just wouldnt give up.

The tragedy of the game is not because Australia are too good for the rest of them but because there is only one Australian team !!

It sounds like the same thing but there is a difference in emphasis.

Even if sides will get trounced by the Aussies, they will still provide great contests between individual great players like , say Lara, and the Aussie bowlers even as Windies get trampled in a no contest. Thank God for that till we can have better.

Hope the Aussies will keep up the high standards amidst relative mediocrity in the cricketing world till others catch up. Who wants a contest between two mediocre sides, even if it means an even contest.

I for one dont.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
that's the problem with one day games. people say it was a fantastic game of cricket just because someone won or lost by a small margin. usually, it was only a really enjoyable game for the last two overs.

and as you said, high standard cricket is always better to watch than the opposite.
 

Dydl

International Debutant
Obviously to me, a match between, Australia and India, lets say would be more entertaining than a match between Australia and Bangladesh. Wickets would fall and the match would be just domination for Australia. It would still entertain, the Bangladeshi batmsen would hit 4's and score runs, but the basic feel would be boredom. The game will go on and minnows will exist.


Each and every game, at least one thing will entertain the crowd. The higher the competition, the more entertainment the crowd gets. Thus, the crowds are higher, as they are anticipating the excitement and entertainment that will be brought to them through a good contest. The crowd would anticipate in a match against Bangladesh, not many, if any sixes to be hit, or many fours scored. The crowds anticipate lack of excitement and don't bother to turn out as it doesn't have much value in it for them. They would be more suited to watching it on televison.

A team's profile matters in the turnout for the crowd.

It was almost a good thing that in 2003 or 2004 the test series between Austalia and Zimbabwe never happened. There wouldn't be much contest and not many runs scored by the weaker side.

It is a bad thing for the reputation of cricket.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Zimbabwe (current team) and BD are in a league of their own and what should be done with them has been discussed many times. That problem will remain sadly :huh:
 

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
Like the "invincibles" , the current players will be remembered as being part of a "Cricketing Colossus" ! :D :D
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I, for one, prefer good cricket. If any team plays another and beats them by a big margin, if it was good standard cricket played by them, I'm happy. That's why I like it when other teams challenge Australia because it usually mean they've played well too so it's a high standard of cricket.

Seeing the WSC cricket teams in action live would have been something. Shame it all ended years before I was born!
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Top_Cat said:
Seeing the WSC cricket teams in action live would have been something. Shame it all ended years before I was born!
Thought you'd just turned 26? If so it ended about the same time as you were born!
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Actually, you're right. For some reason I had it in my head that it ended in 76 or thereabouts but yeah, you're right.
 

chekmeout

U19 Debutant
I agree with SJS.
Due to the agression shown by the Aussie players I find any match involving Australia highly entertaining.

Thats what this game need.. more agression..and a better fight..
 

TendulkarFan

School Boy/Girl Captain
Aussies have changed the way the game is played - they play all-out for a result. And you can see this wonderful "disease" spreading to other nations. India & Pakistan have been batting consistently at 3-3.5/over, which 10 years ago would have been unheard of.

Due to this approach, the popularity of test matches is on the rise.
 

Josh

International Regular
SJS said:
Zimbabwe (current team) and BD are in a league of their own and what should be done with them has been discussed many times. That problem will remain sadly :huh:
Every cricketing nation has to start somewhere. Sri Lanka started out a little like Bangladesh has, but look at them now.

Zimbabwe is another story. Their government should be shot.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Josh said:
Every cricketing nation has to start somewhere. Sri Lanka started out a little like Bangladesh has, but look at them now.

Zimbabwe is another story. Their government should be shot.
Yes, at least Bangladesh is improving to a noticable degree over time. It's worth remembering that they have only been a test nation for four or five years now, and although they are without doubt the least successful test nation ever, this appears worse than it is because of the high volume of matches played. No other fledgling test nation has ever played anything like the amount of cricket Bangladesh has in their early years, which, while it might increase the speed of their advancement, also makes the disparity in skill levels more obvious.
 

cameeel

International Captain
bd just need to get some depth before they take off, but given their size they're not going to badly
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TendulkarFan said:
Aussies have changed the way the game is played - they play all-out for a result. And you can see this wonderful "disease" spreading to other nations. India & Pakistan have been batting consistently at 3-3.5/over, which 10 years ago would have been unheard of.

Due to this approach, the popularity of test matches is on the rise.
It is?
No, it's just becoming of a lower and lower standard.
The faster the typical scoring-rate, the lower the overall standard of Test-cricket will get.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Yes, at least Bangladesh is improving to a noticable degree over time. It's worth remembering that they have only been a test nation for four or five years now, and although they are without doubt the least successful test nation ever, this appears worse than it is because of the high volume of matches played. No other fledgling test nation has ever played anything like the amount of cricket Bangladesh has in their early years, which, while it might increase the speed of their advancement, also makes the disparity in skill levels more obvious.
And it is all the more reason for them not to be playing, and to be introduced in a way that reflects modern Test-cricket.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
SJS said:
This morning they were showing the second test of India's last series down under and I sat spell bound watching. They were showing the highlights but even though I had seen the test match I wished they were showing the complete game, ball by ball. So absorbing is a contest between Australian bowlers and the top batsmen of the world.

Sachin, though he was going through a bad patch played well for a 31 before totally misreading a flipper and padding up to MacGill to be leg before. And I thought, that was a gem of an innings while it lasted. But thats because it was against such a keen attack and a side that just wouldnt give up.

The tragedy of the game is not because Australia are too good for the rest of them but because there is only one Australian team !!

It sounds like the same thing but there is a difference in emphasis.

Even if sides will get trounced by the Aussies, they will still provide great contests between individual great players like , say Lara, and the Aussie bowlers even as Windies get trampled in a no contest. Thank God for that till we can have better.

Hope the Aussies will keep up the high standards amidst relative mediocrity in the cricketing world till others catch up. Who wants a contest between two mediocre sides, even if it means an even contest.

I for one dont.
No, Australia will no way continue to play the standard they are.
Even now they're not at the level they were in maybe 1999-2001, they've lost the Waughs and, now, it seems, Lehmann; McGrath and Kasprowicz won't be playing for that much longer I shouldn't think, maybe 2 or 3 years; Warne might last another 4 or 5; WAns Gilchrist, Martyn and Langer haven't got too much longer I wouldn't think; Hayden will hopefully get exposed before his career ends; and Gillespie and Ponting, good as they are, won't be able to maintain their current standard into their 30s I don't think.
By, maybe, 2008, The World will be a level playing-field and no-one will be any the wiser about the supposed standard.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Richard said:
It is?
No, it's just becoming of a lower and lower standard.
The faster the typical scoring-rate, the lower the overall standard of Test-cricket will get.
That is not necessarily true. Simply because batsmen's attitude has changed from the 80s to now, doesn't mean the standards have gone any lower. Surely, the current Aussie attack can more than hold its own against the best attacks from the past. And, IMHO, if Gavaskar had played today, he would have atleast scored at a strike rate of 50, because he had all the strokes and if he had the attitude of the current players, he would not have been afraid to play them more often.
 

Top