Best game of cricket ever?

[kevinlms]

22 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

To those of us who love real cricket, it isn't.

 

But this is one-day cricket which bears less and less resemblance to the real thing.

But still better than T20!

[Ohmisterporter]

I am waiting to see how this new 100 game will work. Personally i can't understand why, if T20 is so successful, do we need another short game format? 100 balls per side instead of 120. Wow, that's progress.

[lightengine]

Why are male batsman, batters?

Let females be batters. Or even better, battresses.

Let us keep batsman.

Edited July 16, 2019 by lightengine

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, Ohmisterporter said:

I am waiting to see how this new 100 game will work. Personally i can't understand why, if T20 is so successful, do we need another short game format? 100 balls per side instead of 120. Wow, that's progress.

 

We really don't need another short form game, but ever since the ECB decided that the money from satellite broadcasting was "worth" more than the exposure provided by terrestrial broadcasters, they have been casting about for a way to repair the irreparable, without seemingly realising that if more people can watch cricket, then more will get involved, as players or supporters. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that cricket needs to be more accessible, but unfortunately not by pursuing the obvious course of allowing more free-to-air games, but by reinventing the wheel as a hexagon.

 

Rant over.

Edited July 16, 2019 by melmoth
grammar

[melmoth]

50 minutes ago, lightengine said:

Why are male batsman, batters?

Let females be batters. Or even better, battresses.

Let us keep batsman.

 

They're all batters now, just as they are all fielders and bowlers and umpires. The only thing left to sort out is Third Man.

[PhilJ W]

The one day game (50 overs each side) seems to be the way the game is going. Very few people unless they are retired or of independant means have the time to watch a three day test match in its entirety.

Edited July 16, 2019 by PhilJ W

[lightengine]

10 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

They're all batters now, just as they are all fielders and bowlers and umpires. The only thing left to sort out is Third Man.

It was interesting to hear the commentators during the Womens football World Cup describing Phil Neville as "a great man manager."

I guess woman womager just aint right! (Primarily because both have m a n in them)

[melmoth]

12 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The one day game (50 overs each side) seems to be the way the game is going. Very few people unless they are retired or of independant means have the time to watch a three day test match in its entirety.

 

Agreed, but just to be pedantic most test matches are five days long, although we're playing a 4 day test against Ireland at Lord's next week.

[Worsdell forever]

Just out of interest, where does the term 'Test Match' come from? it's used in Rugby too and those games aren't 5 days long.

[t-b-g]

33 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

We really don't need another short form game, but ever since the ECB decided that the money from satellite broadcasting was "worth" more than the exposure provided by terrestrial broadcasters, they have been casting about for a way to repair the irreparable, without seemingly realising that if more people can watch cricket, then more will get involved, as players or supporters. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that cricket needs to be more accessible, but unfortunately not by pursuing the obvious course of allowing more free-to-air games, but by reinventing the wheel as a hexagon.

 

Rant over.

They are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they go back to free to view TV the cricket authorities will get more viewers but lose a big chunk of income. Lots more interest is not useful if you haven't got funds to back it up with facilities and opportunities.

 

I used to love watching cricket on the BBC but refuse to buy TV other then by my license fee so I have seen very little other than highlights on Ch 4. The powers that be decided that more money in the kitty and a smaller audience was the way forward.

 

Whatever they try to do will please some and upset others.

 

At least they are trying something but when sport becomes big business and the people running the sport chase the big money, it always changes things and not for the better in many cases.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

Just out of interest, where does the term 'Test Match' come from? it's used in Rugby too and those games aren't 5 days long.

Perhaps a long game against the top players from another country is the ultimate test of a player or team?

[melmoth]

"Test Match" was also used for the Football League play-offs to determine promotion and relegation during the 1890s

[melmoth]

16 minutes ago, Worsdell forever said:

Just out of interest, where does the term 'Test Match' come from? it's used in Rugby too and those games aren't 5 days long.

 

A quick google found this:

 

Quote

According to Bill Frindall, The phrase 'test match' was coined in 1861-62 during the very first cricket tour of Australia. The contests between HH Stephenson's English team and each of the Australian colonies were described as 'test matches'. 

Why 'test'? Probably because they provided the first opportunity to test the relative skills of English and Australian cricketers. They could easily have been described as 'trials'.
 

 

[Tim Hall]

 Very tense listening to the last hour in the car on the way back from a family do in Whitstable back to Cardiff. As some inconsiderate person had closed the M2 for repairs, we were twisting our way through lanes and A roads, losing signal on the digital radio in the car. Whilst I drove, my wife was trying to use my phone as a sat nav and her phone for Radio 5. The winning moment occurred whilst we were stuck on a large roundabout trying to get on to the M20. 

Best finish to an ODI, probably.

Best game ever, almost certainly not. Many Tests, County Championship matches etc will have had higher quality cricket for far longer (Ashes 2005 for example, England's high-quality reverse swing bowling was impressive time after time.)

 

Excellent achievement though this undoubtedly was, the summer will not be a success if England don't regain the Ashes.

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

We really don't need another short form game, but ever since the ECB decided that the money from satellite broadcasting was "worth" more than the exposure provided by terrestrial broadcasters, they have been casting about for a way to repair the irreparable, without seemingly realising that if more people can watch cricket, then more will get involved, as players or supporters. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that cricket needs to be more accessible, but unfortunately not by pursuing the obvious course of allowing more free-to-air games, but by reinventing the wheel as a hexagon.

 

Rant over.

 

Matthew Engel, who, as a former editor of Wisden, ought to know what he's talking about, expresses this far better in today's Guardian:

 

Benefits of victory will disappear once England go back behind paywall 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

The one day game (50 overs each side) seems to be the way the game is going. Very few people unless they are retired or of independant means have the time to watch a three day test match in its entirety.

 

More have time to listen to it though.

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, Tim Hall said:

Best finish to an ODI, probably.

Best game ever, almost certainly not. Many Tests, County Championship matches etc will have had higher quality cricket for far longer

I felt the same. I only saw the NZ innings due to the time difference here but I thought that both sides were a bit tentative, perhaps due to being nervous about the prospect of missing the opportunity to win the trophy for the first time. Tense and exciting yes. High quality cricket yes, in parts, but not consistently so.

 

Perhaps the two semi-finals had been more draining psychologically, for different reasons, than the teams had expected.

Edited July 16, 2019 by St Enodoc

[Steamport Southport]

Most people just go for the one day though. Whether it's a five day test or a Twenty20 game.

 

 

 

Jason

[luckymucklebackit]

Once more England win a World Cup due to an error by the officials!   Back in 66,  Tofiq (should have gone to Specsavers) Bahramov gifts England a goal to help them to a dodgy win over the poor Germans, then at Lords some weird misinterpretation of the rules gifts England the one vital extra run that in the end makes all the difference.  Wouldn't be an England Victory without a bit of controversy!

[south_tyne]

3 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

We really don't need another short form game, but ever since the ECB decided that the money from satellite broadcasting was "worth" more than the exposure provided by terrestrial broadcasters, they have been casting about for a way to repair the irreparable, without seemingly realising that if more people can watch cricket, then more will get involved, as players or supporters. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that cricket needs to be more accessible, but unfortunately not by pursuing the obvious course of allowing more free-to-air games, but by reinventing the wheel as a hexagon.

 

Rant over.

 

Rant away......

 

My turn......

 

I agree with this. The balance is good at the moment with T20, 50-over and the 4-/5-day game. I cannot see how anyone who isn't already interested in cricket will suddenly be so through this competition. Those who think it is too long, boring, complicated are not going to change their minds with this gimmick. As an example, what's hard with counting to 6 for the number of balls in an over? T20 has done wonders for the game around the world, how 20 less balls in an innings will be beneficial I just haven't a clue. Is it meant to be a stepping stone to T20? Then one-day etc? 

 

The ONLY good thing I reckon there is about it is that it is going to be shown on terrestrial TV. That is a real positive (see the weekend for the evidence). 

 

I am also not adverse to a stand-alone 'franchise' model for a one-off competition. However it could have been done as a separate T20 tournament away from the counties. We (Durham) don't have a team. But, as I understand, we evidently have a share in the Leeds one though - at least financially? The announcement of the whole idea was a shambles by the ECB and there seems to be very little information out there about what the games will entail.

 

I am definitely not a fuddy-duddy and can see the massive benefit that limited overs cricket - the music, colours, numbers, style of play and over 'show' - have brought to the game, but I just don't think it was necessary to be honest. I will happily be proved wrong if it brings huge numbers of new fans to the sport and massive amounts of investment but somehow I doubt it. 

 

PS - just a thought but is it worth renaming this thread as a general cricket one? Like the 'football focus' one it would allow discussion of all aspects of the sport and will keep the interest going, particularly with the Ashes coming up. 

[south_tyne]

1 hour ago, luckymucklebackit said:

Back in 66,  Tofiq (should have gone to Specsavers) Bahramov gifts England a goal to help them to a dodgy win over the poor Germans,

 

Not just that but dodgy decisions and home bias throughout, both on and off the pitch, helped England to triumph. There was also quite a bit of propaganda reporting in the media which swayed opinions on famous mattere when matters were not really so black and white. But it all meant that Stanley Rous got his day in the sun.........

 

Anyway, we won't get into that...... back to the cricket!! 

 

There's a wonderful article in The Guardian today written by Moeen Ali about the unity and multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity of the squad. Worth a read. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/15/diversity-strength-england-win-cricket-world-cup

Edited July 16, 2019 by south_tyne
Link added

[caradoc]

Living as I do in Scotland, interest in cricket among my colleagues is limited, although not non-existent. However the one-day game, whether 50 or 20  overs, is much more attractive to them than, as one said, 'a game that lasts five days and ends in a draw' !

 

And regarding 66, the score was evened at South Africa 2010, when Lampard's shot, which most definitely had crossed the line, was not given !

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, luckymucklebackit said:

Once more England win a World Cup due to an error by the officials!   Back in 66,  Tofiq (should have gone to Specsavers) Bahramov gifts England a goal to help them to a dodgy win over the poor Germans, then at Lords some weird misinterpretation of the rules gifts England the one vital extra run that in the end makes all the difference.  Wouldn't be an England Victory without a bit of controversy!

Doesn't always go England's way. While it wasn't a Final, think of Maradona's 'Hand of God'. Totally appalling that one was allowed to stand.

[geoffers]

"...They're all batters now, just as they are all fielders and bowlers and umpires. The only thing left to sort out is Third Man..."

Also midwicket (may have to think about that one) and maybe longleg and short leg.

 

Having run a village club from 1998 to 2011 it was noticeable the increase of interest and involvement after the last free-to-air Ashes series in 2005. Since then involvement has dried up considerably and many village teams have folded due to lack of volunteers and players. Including me as my interest in the game has waned, even after playing for forty years, as I cannot see the games (when I retired Sky was was one of the expenses that had to go). Certainly Sky has upped the financial input into the game but little village clubs such as ourselves saw very little of it. Many large clubs did gain but they had people who had the time and inclination to interrogate the funding system. I recall a TMS one summer a few years ago when an interval chat revealed that the ECB representative, who was chatting, was surprised at the low interest in the grants. A terse Yorkshiremen then phoned in and told him why "....In order to claim your grants...", he said,"...you have to fill in over seventy pages of your application form. Most of us have lives to lead..."  I laughed when I heard him say this as I too had battled with that form - in the end to no avail. You had to know what words and phrases the ECB were looking for. I am not sure that the 100-ball game will draw me back in, to be honest, even if it is on free-to-air. Test matches would and possibly ODIs. Incidentally the law that people have quoted which they feel should have given England five runs and not six is itself opaque. It mentions the throw and/or the act. Now the batters had not crossed when the throw was made but had when the act occurred (the deflection off the bat). It was doubly unfortunate for the New Zealanders in that normally the batters do not run for that sort of deflection (though some international sides have done so - no names mentioned) and Stokes and Rashid were not going to do so, but as it went to the boundary the four runs did count. 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by geoffers
Syntax and spelling.

[Ozexpatriate]

8 hours ago, south_tyne said:

If cricket wants to grow new markets, say the USA, then T20 is the only way to do it.

I agree. I have a colleague who was very happy to find Australian 20/20 matches on cable TV. He enjoys watching the format.

 

Most American NFL football games and MLB baseball games last about three hours. The NFL has a serious problem with the length of time for official replays. MLB is trying to speed up the game - particularly with delays caused by pitchers warming up on the mound. There are discussions about a pitch clock, much like the serve clock at many ATP tennis events.