NationStates Jolt Archive

The inaugural ICC World Twenty20 Championship is under way, with the West Indies having hit a whopping 205/6 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/other_international/south_africa/latest_scorecard/default.stm) (the fifth highest total in international Twenty20 cricket) in their innings of the opening match, helped along by Chris Gayle scoring the highest individual score in international Twenty20 cricket.

South Africa are currently struggling to match the Windies, having only(!) reached 26 from the first 19 balls.

I somehow think Gayle's record won't last beyond the end of the championship, and nor will Australia's record innings total of 221/5.

And a poll! Who's going to win the championship? On this form, the Windies stand far more of a chance than they did at the World Cup...but it'll probably be Australia. *yawn*

As per usual, I'll be cheering for England and Sri Lanka.

Outer Mongolia!

I wish to register my objections against joke cricket. Give me a test match instead:)

That said, I'm backing Australia to win; much as I'd like to see England do so, I fear that our "Twenty20 specialists" will be fodder for international players.

I wish to register my objections against joke cricket. Give me a test match instead:)

That said, I'm backing Australia to win; much as I'd like to see England do so, I fear that our "Twenty20 specialists" will be fodder for international players.
Register your objections all you like, but "joke cricket", judging from how successful it's been at pulling the crowds in, is not only here to stay, but is also the main, if not sole, reason that cricket is still going to be around as a major international sport in 25 years time.

And I reckon our Twenty20 specialists that you so deride may be the reason we do well - after all, they're possibly the most experienced Twenty20 players in the world.

India and Pakistan I'm rooting for, since I'm 1/4th each. My grandpa born and raised in India, and my grandma in a part of India that then became Pakistan.

Go India! Screw England!

Register your objections all you like, but "joke cricket", judging from how successful it's been at pulling the crowds in, is not only here to stay, but is also the main, if not sole, reason that cricket is still going to be around as a major international sport in 25 years time.

And I reckon our Twenty20 specialists that you so deride may be the reason we do well - after all, they're possibly the most experienced Twenty20 players in the world.

Yep. However, Jeremy Snapes much vaunted "moon balls" and the like are all well and good against English batsmen educated to stay in the crease and wait for the drive or short ball, but facing mobile batsmen such as Sehwag, Afridi, Ponting and company might just see him disappear over the boundary.

Equally, Maddy's unorthodoxy stands alone against the more orthodox technique of other batsmen to have enjoyed Twenty20 success. Ramprakash, Law, Wright and others are all orthodox players who simply play aggressive shots with greater regularity.

As for cricket pulling in the crowds, who cares? Cricket functioned bloody well before the necessity to pull in every lager swilling football fan who might pass by Lords. It can only benefit the game by rendering it more palatable to audiances unable to appreciate the subtleties of Test Cricket, and ushering in an age of American style commercialism. Moreover, it threatens the inherent principles of cricket, favouring inconsistency and the batsman to an unprecedented, and outrightly dangerous, extent. This article (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/310252.html) addresses Twenty20 excellently; decent entertainment, but a dangerous deviation from traditional cricket.

Probably Australia, but it's much less certain with Twenty20 than with, say, the World Cup. I'm looking forward to it, Twenty20 is enjoyable enough at the county level, so seeing it played internationally will be interesting at least.

Well I went for Sri Lanka...maybe not a total underdog but I don't think they are favorites either. I did enjoy watching them in the WC...

As for cricket pulling in the crowds, who cares? Cricket functioned bloody well before the necessity to pull in every lager swilling football fan who might pass by Lords. It can only benefit the game by rendering it more palatable to audiances unable to appreciate the subtleties of Test Cricket, and ushering in an age of American style commercialism. Moreover, it threatens the inherent principles of cricket, favouring inconsistency and the batsman to an unprecedented, and outrightly dangerous, extent. This article (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/310252.html) addresses Twenty20 excellently; decent entertainment, but a dangerous deviation from traditional cricket.
Anyone who wants to see English cricket survive. Unless Cricket can appeal beyond the bacon and egg tie wearing MCC members, the sport will simply become irrelevant. Cricket needs to fill seats in County grounds, glue people to their TVs and Radio 4 simply in order to function, just as any support. Nobody is suggesting the abolition of test cricket - if more people get interested into Cricket through Twenty20, then chances are that more people will get into playing and supporting 'real' cricket too. And getting that broad, popular support for playing Cricket - regardless of what kind or level - is the only way we will be able to win at an international level.

What's the difference between this Twenty20 Cricket and regular Cricket?

Anyone who wants to see English cricket survive. Unless Cricket can appeal beyond the bacon and egg tie wearing MCC members, the sport will simply become irrelevant. Cricket needs to fill seats in County grounds, glue people to their TVs and Radio 4 simply in order to function, just as any support. Nobody is suggesting the abolition of test cricket - if more people get interested into Cricket through Twenty20, then chances are that more people will get into playing and supporting 'real' cricket too. And getting that broad, popular support for playing Cricket - regardless of what kind or level - is the only way we will be able to win at an international level.

Did you read the article I linked?

It quite succintly outlines several reasons why Twenty20 is to the detriment of cricket, most notably the test game. What would even in a 50 over match, be considered a streaky edge to the third man boundary, lacking in technique, is hailed as due adventure in Twenty20, whilst bowlers are discouraged from bowling the consistent lines and lengths inherent to the appeal of test cricket; a protracted contest in which the batsmen's technique is examined over hours, not minutes.

If you still cannot pay me the courtesy of reading the cricinfo article, I paraphrase perhaps the most telling postulation; what merits can twenty20 have when it sees Chris Schofield be of equal value to Anil Kumble, Shane Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and Danish Kaneria?

West Indies, of course. :)

What's the difference between this Twenty20 Cricket and regular Cricket?

How familiar are you with cricket?

How familiar are you with cricket?

Not as much as we would like to be. *curses off American "sports"*

Did you read the article I linked?
Yes. I think it's bollocks.

It quite succintly outlines several reasons why Twenty20 is to the detriment of cricket, most notably the test game. What would even in a 50 over match, be considered a streaky edge to the third man boundary, lacking in technique, is hailed as due adventure in Twenty20, whilst bowlers are discouraged from bowling the consistent lines and lengths inherent to the appeal of test cricket; a protracted contest in which the batsmen's technique is examined over hours, not minutes.
Nobody has ever claimed that it is as technically pure as test cricket, but that doesn't make it unworthy of the attention of cricket fans. As I said previously, if you want England to be able to continue to be able to field a decent international test team, let alone a winning test team, Cricket needs to be able to inspire a new generation of professional cricketers. If Twenty20 is getting more people into Cricket grounds - people who aren't normally interested in cricket - it is doing this, and should be applauded for doing what county test cricket especially isn't. The more people interested in the sport, in my view, the better for both the development of the sport and the team.

If you still cannot pay me the courtesy of reading the cricinfo article, I paraphrase perhaps the most telling postulation; what merits can twenty20 have when it sees Chris Schofield be of equal value to Anil Kumble, Shane Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and Danish Kaneria?
It is drawing crowds back into the county cricket ground where before they weren't. Telling enough, I think. Whether you like it or not, people are voting with their feet, in support of Twenty20.

How familiar are you with cricket?

I watched India and England play when I was in London over the summer. I'm familiar with most of the rules and the basic premise. Some things still make me go :confused:, but those are relatively rare.

My favorite player is that Sikh that plays for England (cant remember his name for the life of me), the one the sportscaster said was a really good bowler and batsman, but was a poor fielder.

I can tell you which team will NOT win. India.

Poor in all departments including athleticism. England should have walloped India instead of making the Natwest a close series. I can't see them performing in this series where they don't even have any experience playing such kind of matches.

Australia will win, as usual. *grumbles*

India and Pakistan I'm rooting for, since I'm 1/4th each. My grandpa born and raised in India, and my grandma in a part of India that then became Pakistan.

Go India! Screw England!

You can support one or the other as far as cricket is concerned. Trying to support tham both is a sure fire way of getting yourself lynched in any part of the subcontinent.

As for the row about whether twenty20 is good for cricket or not, it is irrelevant. It makes money, so it will keep on going. Whether it will seperate and become an independant sport, or whether all forms of cricket will remain under a unified administration is another question.

Twenty20's great to watch and it's a smart move in trying to keep the game alive. My only complaint is that you can't get nearly drunk enough whilst watching it. :p

SA beat Windies, by 8 wickets. Gibbs belted 90 from 55.

I can tell you which team will NOT win. India.

Poor in all departments including athleticism. England should have walloped India instead of making the Natwest a close series. I can't see them performing in this series where they don't even have any experience playing such kind of matches.

Australia will win, as usual. *grumbles*

Could you tell me why Sehwag and Harbajhan did not travel to England? I'm aware they haven't been in the best of form, but surely they weren't droppoed solely because of poor form?:confused:

And I disagree regarding the Natwest series; India batted bloody well for the most part, bowled well enough considering they lacked a genuine third seamer, however, they were awful in the field.

Yes. I think it's bollocks.

Care to elaborate?


Nobody has ever claimed that it is as technically pure as test cricket, but that doesn't make it unworthy of the attention of cricket fans. As I said previously, if you want England to be able to continue to be able to field a decent international test team, let alone a winning test team, Cricket needs to be able to inspire a new generation of professional cricketers. If Twenty20 is getting more people into Cricket grounds - people who aren't normally interested in cricket - it is doing this, and should be applauded for doing what county test cricket especially isn't. The more people interested in the sport, in my view, the better for both the development of the sport and the team.

Given that cricket was held to be at its nadir in the past decade, the England team appears to be in rude health. We have a tranche of young fast bowlers emerging, namely, Tremlett, Broad, Bresnan, Shreck, Onions, Plunkett and others, a number of potentially invaluable spinners, pre-eminent of whom is Rashid, and any number of young batsmen seemingly capable of replacing retirements when necessary (Denly, Benning etc).

Moreover, how do you suppose a player educated and trained on a diet of Twenty20 sensibilities, techniques and considerations is to fare in a test match? 20:20 specialists such as Snape, Maddy and company tend not to play four day cricket, lacking the orthodoxy of technique requisite to the longer form of the game. Hell, perhaps the finest South African batsman since Graeme Pollock, and for my money amongst the five best playing on present form; Jacques Kallis, is deemed unsuited to 20:20 cricket. A player with a test average of 55 is not selected for 20:20 because he is too correct of technique and circumspect of approach; in light of this example, and the wider issue of limited overs techniques supplanting those of test cricket, the notion that cricket requires a generation of players educated in 20:20 cricket is ridiculous.

It is drawing crowds back into the county cricket ground where before they weren't. Telling enough, I think. Whether you like it or not, people are voting with their feet, in support of Twenty20.

Indeed. They are then drinking themselves sodden at grounds, abusing fielders and generally turning the game into nothing more than a football match, and far worse than the Aussie crowds we malign. Quite why cricket needs a proletarian influence is beyond me; most of those attracted to Twenty20 haven't got the slightest interest in cricket other than watching the ball go zoom.

A far better route to ensure greater popularity would be to reinstate cricket in its rightful place in the school sporting curriculum.

I like my test cricket, but I figure I may as well get into this if twenty20 is here to stay. It gives me some entertainment during the week between world cup rugby games, and New Zealand has a reasonably good chance of making the semi finals. Our bowling is pretty damn good, and our batting is reasonable if Scott Styris is fit.

Indeed. They are then drinking themselves sodden at grounds, abusing fielders and generally turning the game into nothing more than a football match, and far worse than the Aussie crowds we malign. Quite why cricket needs a proletarian influence is beyond me; most of those attracted to Twenty20 haven't got the slightest interest in cricket other than watching the ball go zoom.

A far better route to ensure greater popularity would be to reinstate cricket in its rightful place in the school sporting curriculum.
Ah, of course. You're annoyed because the great unwashed are now becoming interested in "your" sport.

Chris, a word to the wise. Not everything is about class.

Ah, of course. You're annoyed because the great unwashed are now becoming interested in "your" sport.

Chris, a word to the wise. Not everything is about class.

Bring back Gentleman vs Players!

As for cricket pulling in the crowds, who cares? Cricket functioned bloody well before the necessity to pull in every lager swilling football fan who might pass by Lords. It can only benefit the game by rendering it more palatable to audiances unable to appreciate the subtleties of Test Cricket, and ushering in an age of American style commercialism. Moreover, it threatens the inherent principles of cricket, favouring inconsistency and the batsman to an unprecedented, and outrightly dangerous, extent. This article (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/310252.html) addresses Twenty20 excellently; decent entertainment, but a dangerous deviation from traditional cricket.

The question is, how much do you really know about 'traditional' cricket, beyond the big international games of the summer? The county game is in dire need of all the money it can get its hands on, and many clubs, including that of my own team, are starting to sell off parts of their grounds in a desperate effort to break even.

Twenty20 brings in much needed money for them. And if they go bankrupt and disappear, who is going to provide the players for 'proper' cricket?

As for the World Cup, Australia will obviously win. Hopefully that will prove as much of the kiss of death as most of my predictions. :p

Care to elaborate?
I have. Twice. I don't think I need to a third time.

Given that cricket was held to be at its nadir in the past decade, the England team appears to be in rude health. We have a tranche of young fast bowlers emerging, namely, Tremlett, Broad, Bresnan, Shreck, Onions, Plunkett and others, a number of potentially invaluable spinners, pre-eminent of whom is Rashid, and any number of young batsmen seemingly capable of replacing retirements when necessary (Denly, Benning etc).

Moreover, how do you suppose a player educated and trained on a diet of Twenty20 sensibilities, techniques and considerations is to fare in a test match? 20:20 specialists such as Snape, Maddy and company tend not to play four day cricket, lacking the orthodoxy of technique requisite to the longer form of the game. Hell, perhaps the finest South African batsman since Graeme Pollock, and for my money amongst the five best playing on present form; Jacques Kallis, is deemed unsuited to 20:20 cricket. A player with a test average of 55 is not selected for 20:20 because he is too correct of technique and circumspect of approach; in light of this example, and the wider issue of limited overs techniques supplanting those of test cricket, the notion that cricket requires a generation of players educated in 20:20 cricket is ridiculous.
I'm not talking about players being being educated in Twenty20. I'm not talking about Twenty20 as being a replacement for test Cricket or as some springboard for Cricketers to get into test cricket. You seem to be missing the point: I don't give two hoots whether it is deemed 'correct' by stubborn purists like yourself. I do care about filling our county grounds, most of which can't fill themselves for 'pure' county cricket; and I do care about ensuring that Cricket - including test cricket - can still be a thriving, popular sport in the next generation. If you can get people interested in the game through Twenty20, and considering its popularity relative to 'pure' cricket - it is, then it is only a good thing, regardless of whether you think it as requiring less talent than a test match.

Indeed. They are then drinking themselves sodden at grounds, abusing fielders and generally turning the game into nothing more than a football match, and far worse than the Aussie crowds we malign. Quite why cricket needs a proletarian influence is beyond me; most of those attracted to Twenty20 haven't got the slightest interest in cricket other than watching the ball go zoom.

A far better route to ensure greater popularity would be to reinstate cricket in its rightful place in the school sporting curriculum.
I should have guessed. It's not about Cricket, it's another excuse for your effing snobbery, and cutting your nose to spite your face while at it. If you don't want 99.9% of this country interested in Cricket, then don't complain when your county ground closes, when Cricket comes off the TV and Radio, and when England lose test status.

As for the World Cup, Australia will obviously win. Hopefully that will prove as much of the kiss of death as most of my predictions. :p
Nice one, Phil! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6989321.stm) :D

Nice one, Phil! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6989321.stm) :D
I'm liking Twenty20 more than ever.

Nice one, Phil! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/6989321.stm) :D

:eek:

I'm going to have to come up with a way of putting this new found talent to good use.

I hate to admit it, but that was really, really poor form from Australia....

Still, we're likely to go well in the Rugby World Cup... :p

:eek:

I'm going to have to come up with a way of putting this new found talent to good use.
Well, you can start by writing England off...

I just assumed that went without saying. But, for the record, England will definately lose, showing simply appalling form.

If this works, I'm ringing up the ECB and demanding a cushty position.
I heart our national enthusiasm.

And it's "cushdie", for pedantic's sake.

Well, you can start by writing England off...

I just assumed that went without saying. But, for the record, England will definately lose, showing simply appalling form.

If this works, I'm ringing up the ECB and demanding a cushty position.

I heart our national enthusiasm.

And it's "cushdie", for pedantic's sake.

Wiki found it, so nah.:p

Wiki found it, so nah.:p
Alternate spelling. Phear my wiki skillz for I am undergraduate student, master of the online encyclopaedia and keeper of the 5 steps to Maggie Thatcher!

I can tell you which team will NOT win. India.

Poor in all departments including athleticism. England should have walloped India instead of making the Natwest a close series. I can't see them performing in this series where they don't even have any experience playing such kind of matches.
How dare you! England sucks. They have the worst team colors!

(I choose my favorite teams based on team colors, and whether I have any of their blood in me. If the U.S. had a good cricket team I'd be rooting for them. Meantime, India > England.

How dare you! England sucks. They have the worst team colors!

(I choose my favorite teams based on team colors, and whether I have any of their blood in me. If the U.S. had a good cricket team I'd be rooting for them. Meantime, India > England.

A better Twenty20 mside than India, easily, but I'm afraid for us against Australia now. Those damn Zimbabweans have poked a bear with sharp sticks and left us to deal with it:D

How brilliant would it be if England actually knocked the Aussies out tomorrow? No doubt they'd just claim that they don't care because it's not 'real' cricket, but still, it would be good fun. :p

How brilliant would it be if England actually knocked the Aussies out tomorrow? No doubt they'd just claim that they don't care because it's not 'real' cricket, but still, it would be good fun. :p

It would be pretty funny, but I get the feeling that england might just feel the Aussie backlash after that game the other day. Then again, the Australian top order has been useless in all their games (including warmups) in this comp that England might just take them down.

It would be pretty funny, but I get the feeling that england might just feel the Aussie backlash after that game the other day. Then again, the Australian top order has been useless in all their games (including warmups) in this comp that England might just take them down.

I do think there is a pretty high risk that the Aussie's will suddenly start to take the game a whole lot more seriously than before, now they're actually looking at being kicked out of a major competition at the first stage. I remember Ponting saying during the internationals against England last winter something along the lines that they just treated Twenty20 like a bit of a knockabout, nothing serious; he said again after losing to Zimbabwe that it was a 'lack of respect' that cost them.

England will have to hope that any sudden interest in the game on their part is simply too little, too late.

Sri Lanka: 260/6 in 20 overs.



Fucked.

Sri Lanka: 260/6 in 20 overs.



Fucked.
Who the fuck were they playing? England are lucky to make that in a 1 dayer :p

Speaking of which, England were 135 all out. Pathetic.

Who the fuck were they playing? England are lucky to make that in a 1 dayer :p

Speaking of which, England were 135 all out. Pathetic.

Kenya. Sri Lanka won by 172 runs.


England go down by 8 wickets with 5 overs remaining. Zimbabwe eliminated.


India vs Pakistan is just about to start...

Lol..India wins in bowl out. Trust Pakistan to screw up more than India.

Woo! Go India! Of course, I was rooting for both teams, but I like India a little more. (I like those light blue uniforms, and I don't like Musharraff.)

New Zealand look to be the first team to qualify for the semi finals, with england now out.

New Zealand look to be the first team to qualify for the semi finals, with england now out.
It's only a surprise it's taken this long.

Sri Lanka are mullering Bangladesh at the moment. Bangladesh 68/8 from 13 overs. Vaas took a double wicket maiden about 10 overs ago. Not bad bowling...

And England are made of phail yet again.

Next up is the rugby and then failing to reach the euro champs in the footy...

New Zealand look to be the first team to qualify for the semi finals, with england now out.
I've studied the table and you're not quite right...on either count.

If India beat South Africa and England, and South Africa beat New Zealand, then it's possible New Zealand would finish third on NRR.

Also, if India beat SA, and England crush India, then a heavy defeat for SA at the hands of NZ could result in England qualifying on NRR.

Unlikely, but it could happen.

I've studied the table and you're not quite right...on either count.

If India beat South Africa and England, and South Africa beat New Zealand, then it's possible New Zealand would finish third on NRR.

Also, if India beat SA, and England crush India, then a heavy defeat for SA at the hands of NZ could result in England qualifying on NRR.

Unlikely, but it could happen.

Yeah I did notice that, but decided NZ winning and England losing made for a better post.

Stupid Flintoff mouthing off to Yuvraj and poor Broad having to pay for it with Yuvraj hitting 6 sixes in his over.:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtUU6zE6SPM

Damn, NZ really might not make the semis now..

So the semi-finals are Pakistan vs New Zealand and Australia vs India. I'm hoping for a Pakistan - India final. Which, on form in this tournament, Pakistan would probably win.

So the semi-finals are Pakistan vs New Zealand and Australia vs India. I'm hoping for a Pakistan - India final. Which, on form in this tournament, Pakistan would probably win.

I'd go for that. Whoever the fuck Misbah ul-Haq is, and he's not really as cool as Inzy, he seems to be pretty good.

Incidentally, Mr. Matusiak, to my horror when I went to return my books yesterday, is now sporting a Lenin beard, with a shaved head. Priceless. :D

What the heck happened to SA ... oh well.
It's weird we have Australia and NZ (right next to each other) - against Pakistan and India (used to be part of some country called India).

So the semi-finals are Pakistan vs New Zealand and Australia vs India. I'm hoping for a Pakistan - India final. Which, on form in this tournament, Pakistan would probably win.

The only thing predictable about Pakistan is that they are unpredictable. :p

Besides India did beat them in the group match. In T20, I have come to the conclusion that predicting it is even more hazardous that regular ODIs. Who would have thought that SA would not even make 125 in 20 overs ?

The only thing predictable about Pakistan is that they are unpredictable. :p
True...but they've beaten Australia and Sri Lanka, as well as a battling Bangladesh while not playing so well. I certainly fancy them against NZ, then they'll have the confidence to beat Aus in the final (as they've already beaten them once). They don't really need any extra motivation to beat India.

Pakistan made it to the finals really easy. They seem to have an edge over the NZ...can't remember the last time NZ had a good run over the Paks.

India has posted a good total of 180+. Good hitting by Yuvraj (70 in 30 balls :eek:) and Dhoni. Hope its good enough to beat the Aussies.

Fingers crossed.

You can catch bits and pieces of highlights here

http://www.ulinkx.com/video/6533976

Gilchrist gone.

If only they get Hayden....then Ponting....then Symonds...then Clarke...then Hussey...then maybe..:p

W00t W00t...Indian won !!!

The way Symonds and Hayden were going...I thought it was pretty much over..

Stage is set for a tempers frayed final between arch enemies India and Pakistan. :cool:

Stage is set for a tempers frayed final between arch enemies India and Pakistan. :cool:
We're going to have either a better fireworks display than Sydney at the millennium, or the biggest anti-climax ever as one team walks over the other.

New Zealand have another semi finals exit, and as has happened twice at the ODI world cup Pakistan are the eliminators. Daniel Vettori (along with of all people, Shahid Afridi) proved that spinners have a real role to play in this form of cricket, and gave a quick reminder to the english who the best left arm spinner in the world really is.

New Zealand have another semi finals exit, and as has happened twice at the ODI world cup Pakistan are the eliminators. Daniel Vettori (along with of all people, Shahid Afridi) proved that spinners have a real role to play in this form of cricket, and gave a quick reminder to the english who the best left arm spinner in the world really is.

It's still Panesar mate. Admittedly, Vettori puts him to shame either as a fieldsman of batsman, however Panesar's bowling record in Test Cricket, for a finger spinner yet to have played twenty tests, is impeccable. For that matter, he averages 4 less per wicket than Vettori, which, given that he has played India twice, Pakistan and Sri Lanka once, and Australia, in his nascent career, is quite remarkable.

It's still Panesar mate. Admittedly, Vettori puts him to shame either as a fieldsman of batsman, however Panesar's bowling record in Test Cricket, for a finger spinner yet to have played twenty tests, is impeccable. For that matter, he averages 4 less per wicket than Vettori, which, given that he has played India twice, Pakistan and Sri Lanka once, and Australia, in his nascent career, is quite remarkable.

He's not a well rounded enough bowler to handle any form of cricket where batsmen actually try and go after him. England don't even trust him enough to pick him every game.

He's not a well rounded enough bowler to handle any form of cricket where batsmen actually try and go after him. England don't even trust him enough to pick him every game.

Or rather; he lacks the experiance to be able to replicate his test form in inferior forms of the game.

I put this to you. Who, despite not being deemed capable to play twenty20 cricket, is the best allrounder in the modern game? Why, is it Jacques Kallis? He who averages 55 with the bat and 30 with the ball in the form of the game by which greatness is attained? It is.

Pakistan won!!

Or rather; he lacks the experiance to be able to replicate his test form in inferior forms of the game.

I put this to you. Who, despite not being deemed capable to play twenty20 cricket, is the best allrounder in the modern game? Why, is it Jacques Kallis? He who averages 55 with the bat and 30 with the ball in the form of the game by which greatness is attained? It is.

Kallis's bowling obviously isn't good enough for the south african selectors to justify picking him for twenty20 on that alone. The reason he isn't there as a batsman is because he only bats at one speed, and when South Africa need quick runs in a test he refuses to go for them which makes him a liability in twenty20.

Vettori never gets a chance to build consistency in tests because NZ play so few of them. In the mean time, he is mastering the forms of the game he actually gets to play. It's pretty hard to compare the stats of a 73 test veteran against someone who has played 20 because Monty will most likely hit a form slump like most cricketers do at various points. Currently, Panesar isn't playing because he can't handle batsmen attacking him too much. If like you say he just needs experience, then he can be called the better bowler when he has it.

Vettori never gets a chance to build consistency in tests because NZ play so few of them. In the mean time, he is mastering the forms of the game he actually gets to play. It's pretty hard to compare the stats of a 73 test veteran against someone who has played 20 because Monty will most likely hit a form slump like most cricketers do at various points. Currently, Panesar isn't playing because he can't handle batsmen attacking him too much. If like you say he just needs experience, then he can be called the better bowler when he has it.
Also factor in Panesar's played alot of test cricket in a short time, hence his 20 tests already. It's just not really enough time for any team to fully guage his abilities.
Give him another year or two - or rather give the opposing teams' batsmen another year or two to figure him out (specifically his weaknesses) - and then we'll see just how good he is.

I think Pakistan will steamroll India or India will have an easy victory after Pakistan collapse in a heap.

the interstate commerce commission is having a championship for perfect eyesight? wot????

(scratches furry head!)

=^^=
.../\...

Kallis's bowling obviously isn't good enough for the south african selectors to justify picking him for twenty20 on that alone. The reason he isn't there as a batsman is because he only bats at one speed, and when South Africa need quick runs in a test he refuses to go for them which makes him a liability in twenty20.

Vettori never gets a chance to build consistency in tests because NZ play so few of them. In the mean time, he is mastering the forms of the game he actually gets to play. It's pretty hard to compare the stats of a 73 test veteran against someone who has played 20 because Monty will most likely hit a form slump like most cricketers do at various points. Currently, Panesar isn't playing because he can't handle batsmen attacking him too much. If like you say he just needs experience, then he can be called the better bowler when he has it.


However, to my mind it is in Test cricket, and by test averages, that the cricketing establishment, and, for that matter, Wisden, confers greatness upon players. If you seek a form of cricket where Kallis, Kumble and other genuinely "great" test players are supplanted by the likes of Misbah ul-Haq, Craig McMillan and Chirs Schofield, feel free to embrace Twenty20 as the greatest form of the game. I however, will remain, along with anybody with any taste, a fan of Test Cricket before anything else.

As for Vettori playing fewer tests than he ought to have due to New Zealand being a One day side before anything else, that is no fault of Panesars. No objective observer could contend that he turns the ball as viciously as either Panesar, or, for that matter, the inferior Boje. As cerebral as he undoubtedly is, I cannot help but feel he operates with too limited a potential range of deliveries to be an exceptional spinner.

India wins cup in thriller, Pakistan chased and the batting collapsed at the end.

I can tell you which team will NOT win. India.

Good thing I did not bet on my great predictions. :D

The match was great. Very thrilling to the last over and last wicket. One stupid shot by Misbah spoiled it for Pak. He was so good until that shot. It was a very pre-meditated shot that he could have avoided by playing straight. He had to make 6 runs out of 4 balls. That shot was not the shot you play when you have a guy up inside the circle.

What was even more bizarre was Shoab Malik's remarks after the game. He says something like "First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world". :rolleyes: Tabligi Jamaat's influence is still strong despite Inzamam's absence.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/80000/80085.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070924/i/r4041059878.jpg

What was even more bizarre was Shoab Malik's remarks after the game. He says something like "First of all I want to say something over here. I want to thank you back home Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world"

He actually did say that? I thought I was hearing things.

Good match, though.

He actually did say that? I thought I was hearing things.

Good match, though.

He did. Not the exact word, cuz I don't remember, but he did say sorry to muslims all over the world. That was bizarre even for a team that regularly says "inshallah, mashallah, bimillah etc" during after match speeches.

What's funny about India winning is that this team does not have a coach (a head coach, that is) and they won the cup. In the regular ODI world cup, they had the hotshot coach Greg Chappell and they did not make it past the first round. :p