Australia's post Twenty20 sour grapes
Ricky Ponting has listed the many reasons why Australia failed at the Twenty20 World Cup (thanks to stumps for the link). After a cursory mention of Yuvraj Singh's batting, he goes on to lament lack of middle-order match practice, injury, lack of recovery time and too much travelling. I guess its better than the 2005 Ashes where he laid the blame, well, pretty much on Jason Gillespie.
Even worse is a piece in The Australian, ominously titled Cricket will rue dawn of Twenty20. I'm ordinarily a fan of Gideon Haigh's work but the sour grapes he and the Australian cricketers display are palpable. You get the feeling the ICC won't be adopting Gilchrist as the spokesman for Twenty20 after his ringing endorsement of the new format:
"Er, yeah, yeah. It's um ... well. The more I play it, I am starting to, not so much like it as a player, but love watching it."This is what you would expect from a vice-captain whose captain Ricky Ponting was quoted as saying:
"I don't think I really like playing Twenty20 international cricket."But the truly enlightening quote comes from Andrew Symonds who cuts right to the heart of the Australian attitude, describing Twenty20 as...
"a frustrating game because you can be beaten by the lesser sides"There you have it. Australia dislike Twenty20, not because it's frivolent, sells out the game or corrupts the classic traditions of an ancient art. They dislike Twenty20 because they might get beaten.
I came out of Gideon Haigh's article with a greater appreciation for Twenty20. The most disturbing feature of modern Australian cricket is the all-too-often predictability. The prospect of going into a game not having a clue how it'll end up is a pretty strong selling point for the Twenty20 format. When it comes down to it, the Australian cricketers don't like Twenty20 not because it's bad for cricket but because it's bad for their egos. Speaking as a passionate and patriotic Aussie fan, I say a little enforced humility can only do them the world of good.
| Posted by JC on Thu 27 Sep |  34 comments |
I think Symonds' quote was from before the tournament started - well before the loss to Zimbabwe! Ponting's quote was definitely from earlier this year, maybe even last year - I don't think he's alluding to the fact that Australia may be beaten, I think as a batsman, he likes to have a few balls to get his eye in, instead of having to hit out from ball one in T20.
I read Gideon Haigh's article with interest, because I enjoy his writing. I think he's right to a point, T20 is definitely made for television and there were a few instances where I felt sorry for some of the players, like Stuart Broad and Misbah ul Haq. But then I think cruelty exists in all forms of the game.
I think the beauty of T20 is that players can play or viewers can watch it and not really care about the result too much. I enjoyed the matches so much that I didn't care who ended up winning/losing.
JC did you happen to watch the final? That was an excellent game.
Posted by stumps on 2007-09-27 22:54:37
I read Gideon Haigh's article with interest, because I enjoy his writing. I think he's right to a point, T20 is definitely made for television and there were a few instances where I felt sorry for some of the players, like Stuart Broad and Misbah ul Haq. But then I think cruelty exists in all forms of the game.
I think the beauty of T20 is that players can play or viewers can watch it and not really care about the result too much. I enjoyed the matches so much that I didn't care who ended up winning/losing.
JC did you happen to watch the final? That was an excellent game.
Posted by stumps on 2007-09-27 22:54:37
20 20 is a hybrid game of cricket. Its hard to hate it, but its probably much harder to love it.
It reminds of of an easy girl i used to see. It always seemed like a good idea to see her, until i was laying in bed with her afterwards.
Posted by Uncle J Rod on 2007-09-27 23:56:30
It reminds of of an easy girl i used to see. It always seemed like a good idea to see her, until i was laying in bed with her afterwards.
Posted by Uncle J Rod on 2007-09-27 23:56:30
JC
If you think that
a) 20/20 is good for the game of cricket and for the development of its traditional skills and
b) Appreciate a format of the game where skill regularly does not determine an outcome
then I have misunderstood your so-called passion for a sport which relies on its tradition and heritage far more than most.
The truest and fairest form of the game is the Test Match, one day internationals a compromise in a faster-paced, less patient world.
20/20 should be abhorrent to all who appreciate the game at its highest level.
If I was a gifted bowler, I'd refuse to play 20/20. Might just as well use a bowling machine from either end.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-28 00:03:55
If you think that
a) 20/20 is good for the game of cricket and for the development of its traditional skills and
b) Appreciate a format of the game where skill regularly does not determine an outcome
then I have misunderstood your so-called passion for a sport which relies on its tradition and heritage far more than most.
The truest and fairest form of the game is the Test Match, one day internationals a compromise in a faster-paced, less patient world.
20/20 should be abhorrent to all who appreciate the game at its highest level.
If I was a gifted bowler, I'd refuse to play 20/20. Might just as well use a bowling machine from either end.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-28 00:03:55
I agree with Dan on this.
20/20 is bit too much pot luck. One of the reason I like cricket is the fact that a good team/individual can pull off a match winning performance, even down and out can pull off a miracle and nothing is certain.
The Adelaide Test Ashes match is a perfect example, I can't think of a single ODI that sticks in my mind like that game. (or the fighting innings by Ponting to draw the test match in 2005).
ODI and 20.20 are pretty ordinary in comparison.
6s/4s and wickets lose their meaning in a 20/20, for example in a test match a wicket is priceless so onslaught of sixes in a test match is truely a batsman who is hitting well, in 20/20 its just slog hitting and praying.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-09-28 01:00:42
20/20 is bit too much pot luck. One of the reason I like cricket is the fact that a good team/individual can pull off a match winning performance, even down and out can pull off a miracle and nothing is certain.
The Adelaide Test Ashes match is a perfect example, I can't think of a single ODI that sticks in my mind like that game. (or the fighting innings by Ponting to draw the test match in 2005).
ODI and 20.20 are pretty ordinary in comparison.
6s/4s and wickets lose their meaning in a 20/20, for example in a test match a wicket is priceless so onslaught of sixes in a test match is truely a batsman who is hitting well, in 20/20 its just slog hitting and praying.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-09-28 01:00:42
stumps, no, I didn't watch the final. I saw the first few overs but TV time is precious currency in our household so I preserve sporting viewing for must watch TV - matches featuring my two teams (the Brisbane Broncos or the Australian cricket team).
Dan, the jury is still out on Twenty20 but at this stage, I don't share some of the negative attitudes expressed here. But the main point of my post here is not so much to critique Twenty20 (that's a subject for a future post) but to critique Australia's attitude towards it which seems to be motivated more by self-interest than interest in the game.
Test cricket will always be the highest form of the game (when it's done right). There is no finer spectacle than the subtleties of Warnie imposing his will upon a batsmen, setting up his wicket over a number of overs. But I'm not prepared to write off Twenty20 just yet.
Posted by JC on 2007-09-28 01:00:57
Dan, the jury is still out on Twenty20 but at this stage, I don't share some of the negative attitudes expressed here. But the main point of my post here is not so much to critique Twenty20 (that's a subject for a future post) but to critique Australia's attitude towards it which seems to be motivated more by self-interest than interest in the game.
Test cricket will always be the highest form of the game (when it's done right). There is no finer spectacle than the subtleties of Warnie imposing his will upon a batsmen, setting up his wicket over a number of overs. But I'm not prepared to write off Twenty20 just yet.
Posted by JC on 2007-09-28 01:00:57
Uncle J Rod's analogy is simply brilliant. But the easy girl would at least stimulate a bit of excitement. Why not compare it to masturbation; hardly comparable to the real thing.
Yeah, 20/20 is nothing more than a money-making wank.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-28 10:51:56
Yeah, 20/20 is nothing more than a money-making wank.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-28 10:51:56
Those quotes from Ponting, Gilchrist and Symonds are hilarious!
...but I think its only partly about ego. I'm sure those guys appreciate the 'classic traditions of an ancient art' more than anyone. Their commitment to the game would have been tested every day on their individual and team journey to the top so its way harsh to say its all about ego. I'm glad they had the guts to be truthful about their feelings towards 20/20.
I agree with Dan and Andrew. Test matches are the best. No doubt about it. I remember seeing one 20/20 match last year in which Gilchrist hit 3 sixes in a row, the third on demand! (the commentator actually rev'd him up and told him to do it). I'm not going to lie, that game was very entertaining at the same level as Rove is entertaining. But it was enough. One 20/20 match a year was enough for me!
Posted by Chris on 2007-09-28 14:34:54
...but I think its only partly about ego. I'm sure those guys appreciate the 'classic traditions of an ancient art' more than anyone. Their commitment to the game would have been tested every day on their individual and team journey to the top so its way harsh to say its all about ego. I'm glad they had the guts to be truthful about their feelings towards 20/20.
I agree with Dan and Andrew. Test matches are the best. No doubt about it. I remember seeing one 20/20 match last year in which Gilchrist hit 3 sixes in a row, the third on demand! (the commentator actually rev'd him up and told him to do it). I'm not going to lie, that game was very entertaining at the same level as Rove is entertaining. But it was enough. One 20/20 match a year was enough for me!
Posted by Chris on 2007-09-28 14:34:54
Didn't India learn from the English? Don't celebrate your victories on a double decker bus. (Especially a 5 hour tour, I hope that bus had toilets), apparently it has fired Symonds up, of course thats not quite as dangerous as firing Ponting up.
You got to say Australian celebrations are pretty basic in comparison, but I guess India has to celebrate what they can.
It will be interesting to see if India's success will translate to some real cricket in the Test matches later this year.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-09-28 15:33:05
You got to say Australian celebrations are pretty basic in comparison, but I guess India has to celebrate what they can.
It will be interesting to see if India's success will translate to some real cricket in the Test matches later this year.
Posted by Andrew on 2007-09-28 15:33:05
Love Uncle J Rod and Dan Tas's call in this thread, simply marvellous - much more entertaining than a 20-20 itself.
As for members of the Aussie Team speaking out in disgust of this ludicous version of our beloved game, good on 'em - for a change the drab cliche-ridden post-match BS is conspicuous by its absence!
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-09-28 20:05:49
As for members of the Aussie Team speaking out in disgust of this ludicous version of our beloved game, good on 'em - for a change the drab cliche-ridden post-match BS is conspicuous by its absence!
Posted by virtualgaz on 2007-09-28 20:05:49
Well, I reckon that some of the Aussies are just saying that because we lost in the Twenty20 Championship.
If we had of won it then probably the whole Australian side would be honouring Twenty20 cricket. Whatcha reckon??
Posted by Aussie on 2007-09-28 22:01:43
If we had of won it then probably the whole Australian side would be honouring Twenty20 cricket. Whatcha reckon??
Posted by Aussie on 2007-09-28 22:01:43
I quite like the idea of T20 taking over from the 50 over garbage. ODI's have long been growing stale and the recent attempt at reviving them with ridiculous rule changes worsened the trend. The Supersub was a joke and the Powerplay's not much better.
There were many new innovations in this T20 tournament that really should have been bought into ODI's long ago, but haven't been due to the beaurocracy that is the ICC. The free hit is great and the distance measurement for biggest six makes interesting viewing and provides nice highlights packages throughout the tournament, regardless of how dubious the actual measurement is..
I'd be quite happy to scrap these pointless ODI tournaments in favour of T20 comps. Does anyone actually remember the results of last years three way series with the Poms and Kiwi's?
2.5 hours is a good after work weeknight event with time for a few cleansing ales, and you never know, they might serve full strength beer ;)
I also like the fact that unlike ODI's and Test cricket, Baggy Green victories are not guaranteed in T20 ; in fact other countries are even competitive and I might get some decent odds betting on the Aussie juggernaut!
Of course test cricket is still the number one thing, but in terms of growing the game into new markets as well as getting more female supporters, T20 can only be a good thing.
Beer and Sport Blog
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-28 23:17:11
There were many new innovations in this T20 tournament that really should have been bought into ODI's long ago, but haven't been due to the beaurocracy that is the ICC. The free hit is great and the distance measurement for biggest six makes interesting viewing and provides nice highlights packages throughout the tournament, regardless of how dubious the actual measurement is..
I'd be quite happy to scrap these pointless ODI tournaments in favour of T20 comps. Does anyone actually remember the results of last years three way series with the Poms and Kiwi's?
2.5 hours is a good after work weeknight event with time for a few cleansing ales, and you never know, they might serve full strength beer ;)
I also like the fact that unlike ODI's and Test cricket, Baggy Green victories are not guaranteed in T20 ; in fact other countries are even competitive and I might get some decent odds betting on the Aussie juggernaut!
Of course test cricket is still the number one thing, but in terms of growing the game into new markets as well as getting more female supporters, T20 can only be a good thing.
Beer and Sport Blog
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-28 23:17:11
20-20 is a fantastic form of cricket.If australia had won it, Ponting would have been all praise for the format.
http://blogforcricketandsports.blogspot.com/
Posted by Rahul on 2007-09-29 01:59:16
http://blogforcricketandsports.blogspot.com/
Posted by Rahul on 2007-09-29 01:59:16
For some reason, I doubt it, Rahul. If you look back at what Ponting has said after every game of T20 before the World Chamionship, you'll find that he actually doesn't like to play it - even if Australia wins.
"I think it is difficult to play seriously." - after the first T20 international in which he made 98*.
"I don't really like playing Twenty20 international cricket. I know it is cracking entertainment for the fans. I can see it would be good fun, and how it might attract new spectators." - in January this year. "Maybe with the odd international game and by having state teams playing a short competition in the way Twenty20 cricket is played in England, I think it has value. My problem is that I can't play a game in which I'm wearing my national team's colours, and my opponents are wearing theirs, and treat it as just being fun."
"I think the game would get stale very quickly if it was played a lot. You just get used to seeing all the boundaries and all the sixes and that sort of thing." - January 2006
Posted by stumps on 2007-09-29 09:20:13
"I think it is difficult to play seriously." - after the first T20 international in which he made 98*.
"I don't really like playing Twenty20 international cricket. I know it is cracking entertainment for the fans. I can see it would be good fun, and how it might attract new spectators." - in January this year. "Maybe with the odd international game and by having state teams playing a short competition in the way Twenty20 cricket is played in England, I think it has value. My problem is that I can't play a game in which I'm wearing my national team's colours, and my opponents are wearing theirs, and treat it as just being fun."
"I think the game would get stale very quickly if it was played a lot. You just get used to seeing all the boundaries and all the sixes and that sort of thing." - January 2006
Posted by stumps on 2007-09-29 09:20:13
To all the 20-20 haters here, esp J Rod:
Why blame the 20-20 version just because the Aussies lost? You call it an easy girl, easy meat for batsmen, not a bowlers game and all other diarrheal crap...
India won 5 matches out of 6 in the 20-20. And, only one amongst them was because of its batsmen, the one against the Pommies where India outbatted them to score 218 (The Poms reached 200 and lost).
All the other matches were won because of India's bowling. All were low scoring matches where India batted first and contained the opposition.
Will you call 141, 154, 143, 157 etc. good scores in 20-20?? Well, these were the scores India made batting first, and yet won.
The bowlers won the game for India.
Someone here (Dan Tas?) lamented he wouldnt want to bowl in this format even if he was gifted and that he'd use a bowling machine instead.
Umar Gul, RP Singh, Vettori, Stuart Clark and in the last match, Irfan Pathan are gifted bowlers in my book, since they made batsmen stutter and wilt in the version of the game meant for sixes and fours.
The semifinals and finals were played on smaller grounds... with very short boundaries square on both sides... how many sixes were hit? Very few, considering the fielding restrictions.
Most of the Aussies hate the bang-bang stuff mainly becos you lost, not only to India, but to Pakistan and a lowly Zimbabwe too.
Despite Ponting's anti-20-20 comments, cmon what would you think when you saw Symonds, Hayden, Gilchrist, Hussey, Hodge et al in a batting line up. You'd assume the'd thrash any side in this world. And, that's what they have been doing all these years (i've stopped counting how many)..
The simple truth is Aussies have not rehearsed the losing line to the press. They didnt have to use it for so loooong. And suddenly, they are forced to use it once too often in the slam-blam-thankyou-maam version of the game.
Today is another day, another version of the game... and even I would expect Aussies to come back with a vengeance and thrash India at home, in Bangalore. But....(will I be forced to complete this sentence tomorrow/late tonite????)
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 13:45:42
Why blame the 20-20 version just because the Aussies lost? You call it an easy girl, easy meat for batsmen, not a bowlers game and all other diarrheal crap...
India won 5 matches out of 6 in the 20-20. And, only one amongst them was because of its batsmen, the one against the Pommies where India outbatted them to score 218 (The Poms reached 200 and lost).
All the other matches were won because of India's bowling. All were low scoring matches where India batted first and contained the opposition.
Will you call 141, 154, 143, 157 etc. good scores in 20-20?? Well, these were the scores India made batting first, and yet won.
The bowlers won the game for India.
Someone here (Dan Tas?) lamented he wouldnt want to bowl in this format even if he was gifted and that he'd use a bowling machine instead.
Umar Gul, RP Singh, Vettori, Stuart Clark and in the last match, Irfan Pathan are gifted bowlers in my book, since they made batsmen stutter and wilt in the version of the game meant for sixes and fours.
The semifinals and finals were played on smaller grounds... with very short boundaries square on both sides... how many sixes were hit? Very few, considering the fielding restrictions.
Most of the Aussies hate the bang-bang stuff mainly becos you lost, not only to India, but to Pakistan and a lowly Zimbabwe too.
Despite Ponting's anti-20-20 comments, cmon what would you think when you saw Symonds, Hayden, Gilchrist, Hussey, Hodge et al in a batting line up. You'd assume the'd thrash any side in this world. And, that's what they have been doing all these years (i've stopped counting how many)..
The simple truth is Aussies have not rehearsed the losing line to the press. They didnt have to use it for so loooong. And suddenly, they are forced to use it once too often in the slam-blam-thankyou-maam version of the game.
Today is another day, another version of the game... and even I would expect Aussies to come back with a vengeance and thrash India at home, in Bangalore. But....(will I be forced to complete this sentence tomorrow/late tonite????)
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 13:45:42
Boring!!
Mahesh, you totally miss the point.
If you're a lover of all things Indian, you'd extol the virtues of any trophy that came your way!!
What next, effigy burning championships? Somewhere else on this blog I wrote facetiously of an upcoming 5/5 competition. Winning that inaugural event, now wouldn't that instil some pride in a cricket-loving nation.
Let's abandon this ludicrous 20/20 concept, revamp the rules of ODI's, and give Test Cricket its due priority.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-29 19:50:12
Mahesh, you totally miss the point.
If you're a lover of all things Indian, you'd extol the virtues of any trophy that came your way!!
What next, effigy burning championships? Somewhere else on this blog I wrote facetiously of an upcoming 5/5 competition. Winning that inaugural event, now wouldn't that instil some pride in a cricket-loving nation.
Let's abandon this ludicrous 20/20 concept, revamp the rules of ODI's, and give Test Cricket its due priority.
Posted by Dan Tas on 2007-09-29 19:50:12
Dan Tas: Looks like it's you who has missed the point (like how Hayden just missed Sreesanth's bowling and got clean bowled.. yet again.. Am watching the 1st ODI...match is not over yet...Aussies are 88-3 in 16 overs..)
Firstly, I am not a lover of anything Indian. I am extolling the virtues and values of good bowling, irrespective of the format.
In my previous post, I extolled the performance of not just Indians like RP Singh and Pathan, but also Vettori, Umar Gul and Stuart Clark, just in case, you indulged in selective reading.
Also, I am not an unconditional lover of 20-20... I prefer Vettori's 4-20 or Pathan's 3-16 to Yuvraj's 6 sixes. To bowl well in any format, you need discipline.
I prefer Tests, 50-50 ODIs and then 20-20... strictly in that order. Aussies are proven masters in the first two forms of the game. Not just Ponting, but Dhoni too said before the tournament that he does not prefer the format... he criticised the bowlout rule too. But when you get in the middle, you play by the rules whatever the format.
It was not a game of luck. The 2 best teams in the competition (simply by the yardstick of beating Australia enroute) reached the finals ..
Both teams that played in the finals, reached there because of their bowling, not mindless batting.
Mind you, the junk-food swashbucklers like Afridi, Sehwag, Symonds etc. all failed in batting in the 20-20 tournament.. Afridi won the player of the tournament for his bowling, not batting.
Ofcourse Tests test the best of a batsman, ...but to euologise Tests, you dont have to put down 20-20... particularly when Aussies didnt win the cup.
As I complete this, Sreesanth has bagged Symonds too... it is 91-4 in the 18th over..
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 20:34:12
Firstly, I am not a lover of anything Indian. I am extolling the virtues and values of good bowling, irrespective of the format.
In my previous post, I extolled the performance of not just Indians like RP Singh and Pathan, but also Vettori, Umar Gul and Stuart Clark, just in case, you indulged in selective reading.
Also, I am not an unconditional lover of 20-20... I prefer Vettori's 4-20 or Pathan's 3-16 to Yuvraj's 6 sixes. To bowl well in any format, you need discipline.
I prefer Tests, 50-50 ODIs and then 20-20... strictly in that order. Aussies are proven masters in the first two forms of the game. Not just Ponting, but Dhoni too said before the tournament that he does not prefer the format... he criticised the bowlout rule too. But when you get in the middle, you play by the rules whatever the format.
It was not a game of luck. The 2 best teams in the competition (simply by the yardstick of beating Australia enroute) reached the finals ..
Both teams that played in the finals, reached there because of their bowling, not mindless batting.
Mind you, the junk-food swashbucklers like Afridi, Sehwag, Symonds etc. all failed in batting in the 20-20 tournament.. Afridi won the player of the tournament for his bowling, not batting.
Ofcourse Tests test the best of a batsman, ...but to euologise Tests, you dont have to put down 20-20... particularly when Aussies didnt win the cup.
As I complete this, Sreesanth has bagged Symonds too... it is 91-4 in the 18th over..
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 20:34:12
Well I'm just so fed up of all this Aussie whining. You guys sound like the Poms.....next you'll be bleating about prawns or smog putting you off your game. You got beaten fair and square by an inspired, talented and young side. The Aussie greats are aging and on their way out and the next generation of Australian cricketer is frankly just not talented enough. No one rates Clarke, Haddin, Hodge etc., and it wansn't so long ago that you lost a home ODI series to the Poms, remember. So you guys will have to start getting used to losing more and more often I'm afraid. India's side is vigorous and YOUNG so you should consign the "world champions" label that you keep trotting out lamely to the new kings of cricket.
Regarding twenty20 as a game, Ponting, Gilchrist and co. are just incredibly bad losers so would belittle it. Fact is that the shortened version puts player's skills under the microscope. There is no margin for error and pure talent shines through. If anything it is more of a test of mettle than ODIs or tests. So just take your spaking by India like men, and prepare to bend over and get some more in the very near future! Chak de India!
Posted by Aussie realist on 2007-09-29 21:07:04
Regarding twenty20 as a game, Ponting, Gilchrist and co. are just incredibly bad losers so would belittle it. Fact is that the shortened version puts player's skills under the microscope. There is no margin for error and pure talent shines through. If anything it is more of a test of mettle than ODIs or tests. So just take your spaking by India like men, and prepare to bend over and get some more in the very near future! Chak de India!
Posted by Aussie realist on 2007-09-29 21:07:04
Aussie realist: I wouldn't dismiss away the Aussies. They remain the team to beat in all forms of the game.
Whilst it is true that many are ageing, the young brigade are as good as you can get. That Clarke, Hodge, Haddin, Tait, Bracken etc. will ensure Aussie continue their winning run for some time to come, is my thinking.
Having said that, complacency can bring down anybody, and that includes the mighty Aussies.
The point of contention and discussion here is not about cricketing skill but gracious acceptance of defeat when you dont win. Ponting lamented ignonimously like a cry baby.... and that alone is the reason why we are still in debate about the Aussie defeat in 20-20.
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 21:36:49
Whilst it is true that many are ageing, the young brigade are as good as you can get. That Clarke, Hodge, Haddin, Tait, Bracken etc. will ensure Aussie continue their winning run for some time to come, is my thinking.
Having said that, complacency can bring down anybody, and that includes the mighty Aussies.
The point of contention and discussion here is not about cricketing skill but gracious acceptance of defeat when you dont win. Ponting lamented ignonimously like a cry baby.... and that alone is the reason why we are still in debate about the Aussie defeat in 20-20.
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 21:36:49
You make some fair points Mahesh, but I would take issue with the comment that the young Aussie brigade can leave off where McGrath, Warne, Waugh, Langer and (in the not too distant future) Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting leave off. They formed a truly great team, and the youngsters whilst good are not in their league. So the Aussies need to stop crowing about the past and start learning to taste defeat since their domination has already shown signs of cracks in the recent past, Twenty20 notwithstanding. Remember the recent ODIs in New Zealand and Australia? The point for discussion sureli is keeping it real, as well as acknowledging others such as India when they beat you fair and square in a World Cup.
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 23:22:14
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-29 23:22:14
Sorry, last post was by yours truly. Chak de india!
Posted by Aussie realist on 2007-09-29 23:24:01
Posted by Aussie realist on 2007-09-29 23:24:01
Aussie Realist: You spoke too son. Today, Minus the injured Ponting & Hussey, and with the rest of the veterans getting out early (Gilly & Hayden) and even Symonds... and the Aussies were tottering at 90+ for 4. Young Clarke scored a timely century in the company of Haddin...and still posted a massive 307.
Got it? Dont write them off. Especially when they have been recently wounded.
The Aussies only have to learn to be graceful on the rare occasions when they lose. Nothing's gone wrong yet in their game n skill.
And, another youngster Johnson has already accounted for Sachin, before rain set in and has stopped play for the moment, as I write..
With all the money BCCI has made over the years, they could if they want to, spend some of the millions building some effective drainage at their grounds. Though the rain has stopped, huge puddles remain on the ground..... The groundsmen, BCCI and the thousands of spectators are waiting for the water to evaporate !!! WHat a travesty!!!
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-30 01:19:04
Got it? Dont write them off. Especially when they have been recently wounded.
The Aussies only have to learn to be graceful on the rare occasions when they lose. Nothing's gone wrong yet in their game n skill.
And, another youngster Johnson has already accounted for Sachin, before rain set in and has stopped play for the moment, as I write..
With all the money BCCI has made over the years, they could if they want to, spend some of the millions building some effective drainage at their grounds. Though the rain has stopped, huge puddles remain on the ground..... The groundsmen, BCCI and the thousands of spectators are waiting for the water to evaporate !!! WHat a travesty!!!
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-30 01:19:04
If we admit T20 is here to stay then we can start planning for Fantastic5 and Wonderful1. Only then can we start to comprehend the intense excitement of the CoinToss0, a tournament so revolutionary and brilliant that the Democratic Republic of Congo are even money to upset Australia.
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 01:56:17
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 01:56:17
Moses - You seem to be searching for excuses to explain the Aussies' loss in 20-20.
Nobody is taking anything away from Aussie supremacy in 50-50 and Tests. They are the better forms of the game, no doubt. But, you dont have to ridicule 20-20 just because you lost.
If there are many like you in Aus, can we call it a cultural trait that Aussies cannot take defeat graciously at all?
Would you still call 20-20 all the names you have, if Aus had won the tournament?
As JC has correctly put it, it is plain sour grapes and nothing else.
As I have repeated many times over, bowlers won matches in 20-20, though everybody thought it is gonna be a batsman's game what with shorter boundaries in most of the grounds. Only thrice did any team cross 200. That showed that disciplined bowling is still a challenge at any level, be it 20-20, 50-50 or Test cricket.
Plain and simple... no Aussie bowler supported Stuart Clark throughout the tournament. That's the only reason Aussies lost. It was possible to defend small scores like India proved. Aussie bowling was just not upto the mark. Ponting ought to have admitted that. Instead he blamed injuries to his batsmen and even went on record implying that Sreesanth's spell was a fluke.
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-30 02:16:34
Nobody is taking anything away from Aussie supremacy in 50-50 and Tests. They are the better forms of the game, no doubt. But, you dont have to ridicule 20-20 just because you lost.
If there are many like you in Aus, can we call it a cultural trait that Aussies cannot take defeat graciously at all?
Would you still call 20-20 all the names you have, if Aus had won the tournament?
As JC has correctly put it, it is plain sour grapes and nothing else.
As I have repeated many times over, bowlers won matches in 20-20, though everybody thought it is gonna be a batsman's game what with shorter boundaries in most of the grounds. Only thrice did any team cross 200. That showed that disciplined bowling is still a challenge at any level, be it 20-20, 50-50 or Test cricket.
Plain and simple... no Aussie bowler supported Stuart Clark throughout the tournament. That's the only reason Aussies lost. It was possible to defend small scores like India proved. Aussie bowling was just not upto the mark. Ponting ought to have admitted that. Instead he blamed injuries to his batsmen and even went on record implying that Sreesanth's spell was a fluke.
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-09-30 02:16:34
Mahesh,
The pitch was benign and its still 0-0 with all to play for. Heaven knows what the Indian young guns would have done on that batting paradise. The fact that they still managed to slip to 90 for 4 speaks volumes. Lets wait and see how the rest of the series plays out when we actually get a completed game.
CHAK DE INDIA!
Posted by Aussie Realist on 2007-09-30 02:37:23
The pitch was benign and its still 0-0 with all to play for. Heaven knows what the Indian young guns would have done on that batting paradise. The fact that they still managed to slip to 90 for 4 speaks volumes. Lets wait and see how the rest of the series plays out when we actually get a completed game.
CHAK DE INDIA!
Posted by Aussie Realist on 2007-09-30 02:37:23
AUSSIES = WHINGEING POMS
You guys have morphed into one.
Still both of you need to bend over and get ready to get some from India.
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 02:40:17
You guys have morphed into one.
Still both of you need to bend over and get ready to get some from India.
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 02:40:17
I think should settle things once and for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwBH1GZymas
Posted by poolboy3000 on 2007-09-30 02:44:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwBH1GZymas
Posted by poolboy3000 on 2007-09-30 02:44:57
Hey Mahesh,
I was taking the piss about the T20, but probably was a little more sarcastic than usual due to the fact that I've been on the beers all night watching Fiji upset the Welsh in the Rugby World Cup ;)
I actually really like the T20 and think it should replace the majority of ODI's. I've put up a comprehensive blog post here that details what is wrong with 50 over cricket and why T20 is the answer.
@Moses (imposter), we couldn't be further removed from the soap dodgers if we tried.
Posted by Moses (the real one) on 2007-09-30 03:03:33
I was taking the piss about the T20, but probably was a little more sarcastic than usual due to the fact that I've been on the beers all night watching Fiji upset the Welsh in the Rugby World Cup ;)
I actually really like the T20 and think it should replace the majority of ODI's. I've put up a comprehensive blog post here that details what is wrong with 50 over cricket and why T20 is the answer.
@Moses (imposter), we couldn't be further removed from the soap dodgers if we tried.
Posted by Moses (the real one) on 2007-09-30 03:03:33
Uhhhh, that feels good getting my head out of my own arse!!!
Watch this, and maybe it'll help you too poolboy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P3dAz5Qgug
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 08:21:29
Watch this, and maybe it'll help you too poolboy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P3dAz5Qgug
Posted by Moses on 2007-09-30 08:21:29
I dunno - I watched the Australia-Sri Lanka match, and as a lifelong ra ra ra Aussie fan, who loves it when Australia murders other teams, I found it one of the most boring matches of any sport I'd ever seen.
Even though it was Australia's bowling which really won the match, most of the 'skills' that make you a a good bowler in 20-20 are negative, like in the early days of ODIs. I can't get my head around a format of cricket where 4-0-20-0 are fantastic figures for a front line bowler.
Posted by David on 2007-09-30 10:57:09
Even though it was Australia's bowling which really won the match, most of the 'skills' that make you a a good bowler in 20-20 are negative, like in the early days of ODIs. I can't get my head around a format of cricket where 4-0-20-0 are fantastic figures for a front line bowler.
Posted by David on 2007-09-30 10:57:09
David - However much a bowler tries to get negative in 20-20, it is not an easy. You have the stringent wide rule, and now with the free hit following a front foot no-ball, bowling isn't easy anymore. Try a yorker and fail, and you end up in the stands. That's how cruel bowling in the fast-food format is. Ask Pollock, he'll tell you. He was badly bruised in this tourney.
But Gul, Vettori, Clark and RP Singh (& Pathan in the finals) never bowled negatively at all. They kept the length tight, and bowled intelligently, varying the pace all the time. Do you call that negative? That's skill and brains for me!
I repeat: This 20-20 WC was won because of excellent bowling, rather than batting...
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-10-01 00:57:16
But Gul, Vettori, Clark and RP Singh (& Pathan in the finals) never bowled negatively at all. They kept the length tight, and bowled intelligently, varying the pace all the time. Do you call that negative? That's skill and brains for me!
I repeat: This 20-20 WC was won because of excellent bowling, rather than batting...
Cheers
Mahesh
Posted by Mahesh on 2007-10-01 00:57:16
"If we admit T20 is here to stay then we can start planning for Fantastic5 and Wonderful1. Only then can we start to comprehend the intense excitement of the CoinToss0, a tournament so revolutionary and brilliant that the Democratic Republic of Congo are even money to upset Australia"
ROFL......HE'S RIGHT this Australian guy called moses
As an Indian, I really feel we have neglected our other sports such as hockey, football and athletics EVER SINCE 1983 when we won that world cup! Don't you think guys these Indian cricketers are overpaid, overbloated, overfull and overrated. Sportsmen in other fields can barely make a decent living through their game alone.
Posted by Indian_crickethater on 2007-10-11 21:42:02
ROFL......HE'S RIGHT this Australian guy called moses
As an Indian, I really feel we have neglected our other sports such as hockey, football and athletics EVER SINCE 1983 when we won that world cup! Don't you think guys these Indian cricketers are overpaid, overbloated, overfull and overrated. Sportsmen in other fields can barely make a decent living through their game alone.
Posted by Indian_crickethater on 2007-10-11 21:42:02
Well Aussies cannot accept their defeat in semi in hands of India who bet them with a b-grade team. BTW still I feel t20 is not the right way to judge a team.
Posted by Rdx on 2008-01-02 21:52:22
Posted by Rdx on 2008-01-02 21:52:22
20/20 is good tht it increases television ratings and plus the game is very fast.
>>>>The positives of the game<<<<
-batters need to score quickly from the first ball of the over itself.
- bowler has to start taking wickets from the first ball.
-Its literally fast paced and gives alot of adrenaline to the players.
>>>>The negatives of the game>>>>
-The need to score high is decreased since its very limited to 20 overs.
-There is no time to plan and observe where the fielders are and hence where to hit the ball. The only way you can score w/o bothering abt all these stuff is to hit sixes as much as possible.
Posted by Marvin on 2008-01-04 10:06:12
>>>>The positives of the game<<<<
-batters need to score quickly from the first ball of the over itself.
- bowler has to start taking wickets from the first ball.
-Its literally fast paced and gives alot of adrenaline to the players.
>>>>The negatives of the game>>>>
-The need to score high is decreased since its very limited to 20 overs.
-There is no time to plan and observe where the fielders are and hence where to hit the ball. The only way you can score w/o bothering abt all these stuff is to hit sixes as much as possible.
Posted by Marvin on 2008-01-04 10:06:12
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
