GROUP B - Australia, England, Zimbabwe

[Laurrz]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

Give Hilfenhaus a match please selectors. Clark's been alright, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think Ben's got more to offer.

im a huge fan of Hilfy but after that performance by the quartet of fast bowlers i wouldnt change a thing... thats two games in a row our bowling has been good

although before a game if the conditions look like it will swing i would definately want Hilfy to come in for perhaps a Stuart Clark who isn't really known as a swing bowler
it's good luxury to have a bowler like that in the wings anyway

[Perm]

Originally Posted by pasag

And btw, first off the woman commentator wasn't as bad as everyone is making out and secondly I've got to laugh at all the staunch Twenty20 supporters going off at her when they fail to realise that she's there for the same reason as all the other marketing ploys, to make cricket more accessible to the masses, something crusty, old expert ex-players just can't do.

It's pretty obvious the only reason she is there is because she is a woman, to think she's made the cut based purely on commentary is idiotic. Fact of the matter is that she's a dire commentator, if they had to have a woman then Cass Naido would've been much better.

[Josh]

Hayden > entire English team.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Josh

Hayden > entire English team.

Nah, KP>Hayden>rest of the English team.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Perm

It's pretty obvious the only reason she is there is because she is a woman, to think she's made the cut based purely on commentary is idiotic. Fact of the matter is that she's a dire commentator, if they had to have a woman then Cass Naido would've been much better.

Missed the point though as evident in saying 'to think she's made the cut based purely on commentary is idiotic'. She's there to make Twenty20 more accessible to people, including women. People can't harp on about how Twenty20 will bring cricket to the masses and then go cry foul when a commentator is brought in for that very reason. It makes no sense to me.

And her commentary wasn't that poor either, I think people might be jumping on it because she's a woman and not giving her a chance. She wasn't great but nowhere near as bad as people are making out. And furthermore, the target audience of people new to cricket would have no idea she's not brilliant, so I can't really see the problem and as I said, I find certain people's objections a bit strange in this case.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by pasag

Missed the point though as evident in saying 'to think she's made the cut based purely on commentary is idiotic'. She's there to make Twenty20 more accessible to people, including women. People can't harp on about how Twenty20 will bring cricket to the masses and then go cry foul when a commentator is brought in for that very reason. It makes no sense to me.

And her commentary wasn't that poor either, I think people might be jumping on it because she's a woman and not giving her a chance. She wasn't great but nowhere near as bad as people are making out. And furthermore, the target audience of people new to cricket would have no idea she's not brilliant, so I can't really see the problem and as I said, I find certain people's objections a bit strange in this case.

Are you seriously suggesting that having a woman commentator will help to lift the popularity of Twenty20? Ludicrous statement to make IMO, people will watch for the entertainment factor, and I fail to see how Donna Williams adds to that in any way. Her commentary was very poor, she seemed to talk constantly and never left the viewer a chance to actually think for themselves as she seemed to be making comments the whole time. That's what annoyed me the most.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Perm

Are you seriously suggesting that having a woman commentator will help to lift the popularity of Twenty20? Ludicrous statement to make IMO, people will watch for the entertainment factor, and I fail to see how Donna Williams adds to that in any way. Her commentary was very poor, she seemed to talk constantly and never left the viewer a chance to actually think for themselves as she seemed to be making comments the whole time. That's what annoyed me the most.

How is it a 'Ludicrous statement to make'? You're showing a basic lack of understanding here and I'm not sure how I can explain it any better. She is there to make the new format more accessible to a new set of fans, it's not complicated. She's part and parcel of the whole package and if you don't get that then I have to wonder if you even realise what is going on here in the first place.

She might be dire by a 'cricket tragics' standards like you and I, but she was fine for the target audince, which you and I are not part of. Therefore as I've said, the indignation at her by Twenty20 supporters here is rather silly. I don't think I can explain it any better than that.

[Athlai]

She might be the perfect thing for cricket 'virgins' you could say.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by pasag

How is it a 'Ludicrous statement to make'? You're showing a basic lack of understanding here and I'm not sure how I can explain it any better. She is there to make the new format more accessible to a new set of fans, it's not complicated. She's part and parcel of the whole package and if you don't get that then I have to wonder if you even realise what is going on here in the first place.

She might be dire by a 'cricket tragics' standards like you and I, but she was fine for the target audince, which you and I are not part of. Therefore as I've said, the indignation at her by Twenty20 supporters here is rather silly. I don't think I can explain it any better than that.

So because she has breasts and vagina it will attract more people to watch the cricket? I think not. How is she making it more accessible? Be re-iterating her point several times, going around in circles and then not even making a point? I realise that the ICC are trying to 'dumb down' cricket, so it appeals to the masses, but I can't see how Donna Williams is helping that, just because she's a female. Woman aren't going to start watching the game because there is a female commentating, they'll watch because they may enjoy the entertainment of Twenty20 cricket.

[Athlai]

Its giving a fresh voice to cricket, or thats the intention at least. Not ex players or lifelong fans but someone who may appeal to the T20 masses.

Whether or not it DOES appeal to the T20 masses is debatable and IMO their are many proper commentators who would be much 'hipper' substitutes. But thats all they are trying to do.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Perm

So because she has breasts and vagina it will attract more people to watch the cricket? I think not. How is she making it more accessible? Be re-iterating her point several times, going around in circles and then not even making a point? I realise that the ICC are trying to 'dumb down' cricket, so it appeals to the masses, but I can't see how Donna Williams is helping that, just because she's a female. Woman aren't going to start watching the game because there is a female commentating, they'll watch because they may enjoy the entertainment of Twenty20 cricket.

Simply put, for the last time, a bunch of old men are not going to appeal to a new crowd and it's not going to help lift the 'boring' tag off cricket. A women in the box might, it's that simple. Commentary acts as a huge intermediary between the sport and the people. If you want to make cricket accessible to the masses you have to start there. It's simple marketing. Saying people will watch just for the 'entertainment of Twenty20 cricket' is pretty naive, it's a whole package as I said and she's a part of that.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Its giving a fresh voice to cricket, or thats the intention at least. Not ex players or lifelong fans but someone who may appeal to the T20 masses.

Spot on.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by pasag

Simply put, for the last time, a bunch of old men are not going to appeal to a new crowd and it's not going to help lift the 'boring' tag off cricket. A women in the box might, it's that simple. Commentary acts as a huge intermediary between the sport and the people. If you want to make cricket accessible to the masses you have to start there. It's simple marketing. Saying people will watch just for the 'entertainment of Twenty20 cricket' is pretty naive, it's a whole package as I said and she's a part of that.

I seriously don't buy into the whole, "she's a woman, so she'll get people watching" because I can't comprehend why they would watch, because she's such a poor commentator. I mean, the concept of having a woman in the box is a decent one, but I just don't think Donna Williams does the job.

[pasag]

Yeah it might not work but that's what they are trying to do here, as Athlai said. I personally think it has a greater chance of success than the opposite and I must say I've being extremely impressed by the marketing and planning of the tournament, especially compared to the Caribbean effort.

[Athlai]

This tournament has a refreshing feel to it compared to the poor one in the Caribbean, Donna has been the only real blemish for me but then again I enjoyed cricket before T20 so I don't know how someone new to the concept would like it. Maybe they think she's fantastic.