Other Cricket
-
-
@rotated said in Other Cricket:
I like our All Time XIs chances against that side. Between Bond, Hadlee and Jamieson their top 6 are bunnies.
Historically our pace bowlers absolutely shit on theirs……the flipside of that is they have a top five all in KW’s league or thereabouts. You could argue Dhoni is better than Watling and of course Kumble and Ashwin are better than Dan the man…..but again…..an all time XI with two pace bowlers averaging over 30 ? Simon Doull and Dion Nash averaged better than that and those two are NO chance of a NZ equivalent.
-
Srinath is one of those nostalgia picks every cricket commentator is prone to. He WAS the Indian seam attack for what seemed like ages. And he had the look too, with the mo and shit.
But seriously, even after 20 tests, Jaspit Bumrah is already waaaaaaay better.
-
@mariner4life said in Other Cricket:
Srinath is one of those nostalgia picks every cricket commentator is prone to. He WAS the Indian seam attack for what seemed like ages. And he had the look too, with the mo and shit.
But seriously, even after 20 tests, Jaspit Bumrah is already waaaaaaay better.
I remember India touring here right after Pakistan one year and Srinath and whoever else opened looking so pedestrian and tame compared to Wasim and Waqar.
I agree, Bumrah in his much shorter career looks the goods and should be in the side.
-
@mn5 said in Other Cricket:
Historically our pace bowlers absolutely shit on theirs……the flipside of that is they have a top five all in KW’s league or thereabouts.
True but assuming these guys are at/around their peak Bond eviscerated Sehwag, Tendulkar and Dravid in the early 00s, especially the home test series before the 2003 CWC and a handful of one dayers on neutral soil including at that WC.
Meanwhile we are facing one of the guys who gave up 300 to McCullum (admittedly at the absolute end of his career).
We would struggle to win in India though with Vettori as a frontline spinner unless Paddles went legend mode.
-
@rotated said in Other Cricket:
@mn5 said in Other Cricket:
Historically our pace bowlers absolutely shit on theirs……the flipside of that is they have a top five all in KW’s league or thereabouts.
True but assuming these guys are at/around their peak Bond eviscerated Sehwag, Tendulkar and Dravid in the early 00s, especially the home test series before the 2003 CWC and a handful of one dayers on neutral soil including at that WC.
Meanwhile we are facing one of the guys who gave up 300 to McCullum (admittedly at the absolute end of his career).
We would struggle to win in India though with Vettori as a frontline spinner unless Paddles went legend mode.
Yep, as always these things are full of “what if’s?” But a guy as good as VVS Laxman ( who I’d rate possibly better than Ross Taylor ) doesn’t make their team, conversely our all time team wouldn’t have all of Southee, Boult or Wagner ( possibly all three miss out ) who are better than Khan and Srinath.
Paddles going legend mode is of course highly likely.
-
I'm increasingly of the view that a great bowler is always going to win against a great batsman since they only need one moment to win.
That said, a home and away series between our best XI and their best XI would probably be a narrow Indian win, with their advantage in their conditions being bigger than ours in our conditions. If you played 10 tests in each, it's probably 7 wins, 3 draws in India and 6 wins 4 draws in New Zealand. Maybe each team able to convert one of the away draws to an away win.
-
Postponed 2nd ODI is on now. Oz batting were 45 - 6 at one stage, now 97 - 7 after 27 overs.
-
Anyone watched the Hundred? The cricket is sort of exciting ‘cos it’s all balls out from the word go but I just can’t watch it. The fucking comms are just level 3 cheerleaders for “the product”, so much so that it makes my blood twist.
Just ugh.
-
@catogrande I've heard of it but not taken much interest.
What are the rules?
-
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
@catogrande I've heard of it but not taken much interest.
What are the rules?
Isn't that the ten overs of ten balls?
But - with different names for everything, so that the tweeter generation can understand it.
So - 10 ovrz ov 10 bllz? -
@catogrande said in Other Cricket:
Anyone watched the Hundred? The cricket is sort of exciting ‘cos it’s all balls out from the word go but I just can’t watch it. The fucking comms are just level 3 cheerleaders for “the product”, so much so that it makes my blood twist.
Just ugh.
Enjoying it a bit when I had expected to hate it, although I've been muting the "commentary". There have been some decent, entertaining, close games. Despite the jigling around in format, it is still the familiar battle of bat against ball and fielders. A run chase is still a run chase. The shortened format will reward most teams with a set of very tight, disciplined bowlers.
I don't have a team yet, leaning a bit towards Birmingham Phoenix but that sound like a run down cinema in Selly Oak.
It's been getting biggish TV ratings, but I suspect that is because there always was a good section of the UK who liked Cricket and wanted it back live on free-to-air TV rather this being a wonderful new format.
-
@booboo said in Other Cricket:
@catogrande I've heard of it but not taken much interest.
What are the rules?
Each team faces a hundred balls. Hence the name.
Bowlers can ball five or ten ball spells. Most are five.
Change of ends every ten balls.
Bowlers can bowl a maximum of 20 balls.
First 25 balls are a power play with only two fielders allowed outside 30 metre circle.
After a catch, the non-striker remains at the bowlers' end.
No balls worth two runs.
Each side gets one tactical timeout.
Apart from that, it is Cricket as normal. Some of the more radical suggested changes such a scrapping LBW or doubling scores for boundaries at the end of an innings, never materialised.
Three problems from the first round. The games are meant to be done and dusted inside two and half hours, but are taking a bit longer than that. Not obvious what penalties there are for slow bowling. The white card that umpires produce every five balls is just bizarre, has been widely ridiculed and should be ditched. Too much of the TV coverage has basically been propaganda saying how wonderful every aspect of The Hundred is.
That said, the organisers will be delighted so far. Lots of close games. A lot of media coverage despite it clashing with the start of the Olympics. Very respectable TV audience figures. More kids than normal in attendance, especially at the womens games.
-
-
@dogmeat said in Other Cricket:
Whats the fucking point?
They've changed a few words and some numbers so that dim people (sorry, children) understand.
Base 6 is too complicated for starters. I've said this before but decimalisation of cricket, in a country that still uses statute miles? I mean really? The whole thing is bloody idiotic. -
-
They've simplified it by making more synonyms, jargon, and slight rules variations because it was too complicated for youths and minorities coz of the jargon and rules.
TBH. A franchise cricket T20ish league was going to be a success of sorts, regardless. Just need to be on FTA TV and for the clubs/counties/franchises whatever to be a bit
less racistmore welcoming to Asians.I do like the experimentation with bowling 2 consecutive overs/set/fives (whatever the jargon is) from one end. Could help other cricket forms (in terms of over rates).
-
@dogmeat Yep. I assume the the ball is weighed in a standard number of hobbits?
The pitch length must also be in measured in short faggots. I believe that would actually be very close to what we use now (22).
Wonder why they changed the name?
