Australia in India

Top Contributors
Re: Australia in India

What a load of crap, if you don't like one day cricket then dont watch it you idiot.

Tournaments are the only thing that matters - that surpising consider the poms have won fark all tournaments.

Fook off.
 
Re: Australia in India

Hey, don't get me wrong, ODI cricket is cricket so I'll take it. I'll watch it if it's on, and it beats T20. I just don't buy into this idea of yours that series wins are hugely memorable and will go down in cricket legend. When you play 5 or 6 series a year with 5-7 matches in each, it all gets a bit samey. I'll always remember the great matches, but who beat who for which cardboard sponsor's trophy will never mean much to me.

I have no idea where you got the idea I'm some sort of bitter English fan. It's kind of funny though.

I'd like ODI cricket a lot more if they drastically cut the number of series, eliminated these stupid 7 match blocks that go on forever, and introduced more perpetual trophies to give some meaning to the overall outcome.
 
Re: Australia in India

Id argue that traditionally Indian - Australian series mean a lot more then any other ODI bilateral series.

I for one can still remember watching games as far as 2003 between these two sides, the 2003 TVS cup final was a memorable match played to 100 000 people at Kolkate, some of the games in the following VB series in 03/04 were equally as good.

As they were in 2007 and in this series just gone, all keenly contested with some great individual performances, some close contests with two of the best batsmen in the world on either side.

What more do you want?
 
Re: Australia in India

Ljp86;374286 said:
Marsh's innings was no different to any other player who has spent half the year on the sidelines with an injury. His innings was scratchy at first, but Marsh didn't have to do anything spectacular with Watson scoring at better than a run-a-ball anyway. After managing to get into some rythym, Marsh converted his start and reached 100, setting up a huge platform for a big score which was later finished off by White and Hussey. Can't ask for much more than that.



Really? Cause an average of 42.35 with a strike rate of almost 78 is pretty damn good for an opener I reckon.



No, it's not. Not even close to being easy. A good pitch may make it easier for the batters to get a score but a pitch suited to the bowlers makes it a lot harder to make runs. The comparison in regards to averages is no different to test cricket, the only diference is the thresholds are varied.



ODI cricket 20 years ago is a lot different to what it is now. The game is faster, quicker has much better scoring and the players are have more tricks, tactics, strategies than what they did in the 80's. A score of 230 in the 80's was like scoring 300 in today's 50-over games.

In saying that, players who accumulate their runs rather than go for an all-out attack approach still have a place in the one-day game and will continue to do so for a long time.
Click to expand...

Alright, he got a hundred and proved he's got something to offer. Good on him. I'd like to see a bit more before I'm convinced though. Coming back from injuries is no excuse: either you're ready to perform at that level again or you have to wait a bit longer. There's no room for anyone to carry old injuries into top level cricket.

Marsh's average is quite good (even if you've inflated it slightly). If everyone made that each time, we'd be good for over 400 each game. Problem is, at his strike rate, we'd run out of time and only get around 230 in our 50 overs!

History will show openers have far and away the best opportunity to amass large scores in one-day cricket. The pitches are generally conducive to good scoring, and if they're not, it's usually the lower-order blokes who suffer most trying to up the temp when the older ball is not coming on.

As for Marsh snr, it's all relative. It was only in the mid-90's with Sri Lanka's success that openers began forcing the pace from the outset. Before that, most totals and strike-rates were significantly lower than what we're now used to. Any way you look at it, Geoff frequently held Australia back from bigger totals, and eventually dawdled himself out of limited overs contention.

The greatest problem the 50-over game has at the moment is the predictable run "accumulation" periods during an innings. The public don't want it, therefore that "long time" you speak of may be shrinking.
 
Re: Australia in India

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374702 said:
Id argue that traditionally Indian - Australian series mean a lot more then any other ODI bilateral series.

I for one can still remember watching games as far as 2003 between these two sides, the 2003 TVS cup final was a memorable match played to 100 000 people at Kolkate, some of the games in the following VB series in 03/04 were equally as good.

As they were in 2007 and in this series just gone, all keenly contested with some great individual performances, some close contests with two of the best batsmen in the world on either side.

What more do you want?
Click to expand...

You are obviously an avid ODI follower, Lions, and that's okay. What the others are saying is that despite taking an interest, following the progress and judging each game on its merits, some of us after a while cannot differentiate between one one-day series or another. There are so many of them played - often meaninglessly - that they blend into one another and develop a kind of sameness.

I've watched them intently for years, but would it insult anyone if I said I had to go to cricinfo.com just now to be reminded of what happened in the recent Champions Trophy?

Every now & then a single game might stand out for some reason, but hardly a series (unless you pay particular attention to them - like yourself - at the expense of Test cricket.) I will try to remember this one, because it was a truly commendable performance from a makeshift Australian team ... but you might have to prod my memory in a year or two!!!
 
Re: Australia in India

Sober Symonds;374724 said:
Alright, he got a hundred and proved he's got something to offer. Good on him. I'd like to see a bit more before I'm convinced though. Coming back from injuries is no excuse: either you're ready to perform at that level again or you have to wait a bit longer. There's no room for anyone to carry old injuries into top level cricket.

Marsh's average is quite good (even if you've inflated it slightly). If everyone made that each time, we'd be good for over 400 each game. Problem is, at his strike rate, we'd run out of time and only get around 230 in our 50 overs!
Click to expand...

You took so long to reply, they played another game. ;)

I don't think his strike rate is that bad. 80 would be ideal but 77 isn't too shabby. Of course with Twenty20, everyone is raising the bar with reagrds to scoring runs so a rate below 80 or even 85 seems slow.

Sober Symonds said:
History will show openers have far and away the best opportunity to amass large scores in one-day cricket. The pitches are generally conducive to good scoring, and if they're not, it's usually the lower-order blokes who suffer most trying to up the temp when the older ball is not coming on.

As for Marsh snr, it's all relative. It was only in the mid-90's with Sri Lanka's success that openers began forcing the pace from the outset. Before that, most totals and strike-rates were significantly lower than what we're now used to. Any way you look at it, Geoff frequently held Australia back from bigger totals, and eventually dawdled himself out of limited overs contention.

The greatest problem the 50-over game has at the moment is the predictable run "accumulation" periods during an innings. The public don't want it, therefore that "long time" you speak of may be shrinking.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's always going to be like that. The game has become predictable, teams and captains have worked it out. As soon as the 15 overs have passed, the field goes back and we watch the batters knocking around singles, two's and the occasional boundary.

Having said that, I'd rather watch 50-over cricket than Twenty20's which don't seem to have much skill at all.
 
Re: Australia in India

You'll have to excuse my "fits & starts" contributions ... blame my work hours!

I'll take any cricket format on merit (except maybe indoor!!!). The 50-over game is healthy enough for now, but they might have to schedule a little less of it. Especially if the T/20 stuff and other factors mean less people turn up. The secret is to keep the public craving more.
 
Re: Australia in India

Sober Symonds;374732 said:
You'll have to excuse my "fits & starts" contributions ... blame my work hours!

I'll take any cricket format on merit (except maybe indoor!!!).
Click to expand...

Indoor's awesome. Australia won the World Cup in all five divisions last month. @|

Sober Symonds said:
The 50-over game is healthy enough for now, but they might have to schedule a little less of it. Especially if the T/20 stuff and other factors mean less people turn up. The secret is to keep the public craving more.
Click to expand...

I agree, ODI's need to be played a lot less. But money talks and where there's plenty of cash, there will be plenty of games.

Moving onto the final game of the series (which is a dead rubber), is there a chance that Australia may give Jon Holland and Burt Cockley their debut games? It looks like Johnson will be rested at this point so that leaves one spot up for grabs. Will India do the same? Anyone with some thoughts on game seven?
 
Re: Australia in India

Surely they would give these blokes a game. It has been a disrupted series due to ins & outs, and Holland has been there throughout. With all that have jumped off planes and into the XI, what would they be saying to him if they didn't give him even one opportunity to roll the arm over in a match?
Cockley (whoever he is), and anyone else who has been sent over with little to do should also be able to strut his stuff. It is a dead rubber, and to develop these guys and rest others is the most we can get out of it.
 
Re: Australia in India

Sober Symonds;374726 said:
You are obviously an avid ODI follower, Lions, and that's okay. What the others are saying is that despite taking an interest, following the progress and judging each game on its merits, some of us after a while cannot differentiate between one one-day series or another. There are so many of them played - often meaninglessly - that they blend into one another and develop a kind of sameness.

I've watched them intently for years, but would it insult anyone if I said I had to go to cricinfo.com just now to be reminded of what happened in the recent Champions Trophy?

Every now & then a single game might stand out for some reason, but hardly a series (unless you pay particular attention to them - like yourself - at the expense of Test cricket.) I will try to remember this one, because it was a truly commendable performance from a makeshift Australian team ... but you might have to prod my memory in a year or two!!!
Click to expand...

I don't pay particular attention to ODI's, its just I love watching cricket. test cricket as much as ODI cricket. I can remember a lot of things about past series going back to the start of 2003.

I remember distinctly about the TVS Cup in Oct/Nov 2003 that the final was a great match, I remember Brad Williams getting hit for 3 fours in a row and then uprooting Laxman's off peg.

What ever happened to that guy.
 
Re: Australia in India

He got dropped from the Warriors side a few years ago, cracked the shits and walked out, never to play first-class cricket again
 
Re: Australia in India

Marsh, Ponting, Hussey, White, Voges, McDonald, Manou, McKay, Holland, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus

But they will play the NSW hack who no one has ever heard of instead of Hilfy
 
Re: Australia in India

a for effort;374799 said:
He got dropped from the Warriors side a few years ago, cracked the shits and walked out, never to play first-class cricket again
Click to expand...

He was very quick and effective once upon a time. I recall watching a Shield match at the MCG where he bowled at then-current Test openers Mark Taylor and Michael Slater, and he was very hostile. They couldn't play him, he hit them in the body as they tried to get out of the way, etc. But rather than pick him then when he was firing on all cylinders, the national selectors dragged their feet as they do and waited till he was nearly spent. Even then he had to move states to get their attention.
 
Re: Australia in India

Looks like there be numerous changes to both teams. India are likely to play Amit Mishra and Ishant Sharma in place of Munaf Patel and Ravindra Jadeja.

With the series won, Australia are almost certain to debut Andrew McDonald and Burt Cockley with Jon Holland also a good chance to make his debut. Johnson and Hauritz will be rested with Ben Hilfenhaus missing out.

India look to salvage pride | Cricket News | India v Australia 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com

Also, this game may not even get underway with a cyclone close by. It was expected that the storm would cross the coast early tomorrow morning bringing with it heavy rain and strong winds.

Cyclone alert could affect Mumbai's cricket schedule | India Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
 
Re: Australia in India

Although the series is decided, it's quite a shame this last match couldn't be played. The Mumbai public have waited their turn for a match, and some of those Aussies deserved a game for their trouble as well. That's cricket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top