Not an accurate analogy IMO. Would you downplay one that finished 8-7 because of such a thing?I'm quite astonished at the lack of support for the Johannesburg Miracle in here, TBH. IMO that beats any other game into the ground.
You wouldn't downplay a football match that finishes 4-3 because it was an uneven battle between attack and defence, so why downplay a cricket match like that because it features high scores?
.Where did you hear this tripe? Hadlee was a great ODI player.
5th all-time best economy rate
12th all-time best average
Oh and Dean Jones was Hadlee's little pet bunny rabbit![]()
Welcome back.Well you're always gonna be slightly better at one form than the other...he was still great in both forms
1997\98.Can't really remember, but I'll describe it anyway.
Tri series in AUstralia in 98-99 I think: Aus, RSA and NZ.
On the other hand, if you didn't watch it live and/or are not a fan of either side, no way can you judge the intensity and tension of the match.the 400+ odi i wouldnt rank in the top 5 at all
sure it was great and all that cos it had loads of runs but no way can it match the intensity and tension of some other great matches
Thanks Rich. AgreedWelcome back.
Don't indeed know how anyone could suggest Hadlee wasn't one of the best bowlers of the reticent ODI age.
Yeah, fair point. 4-3 is a far more common scoreline than 438-434.Not an accurate analogy IMO. Would you downplay one that finished 8-7 because of such a thing?
I would, personally.
Surely the 1999 final was shown too? I remember watching it, anyway.I still find that WC99 semi to have been a better game, even though the more recent one had the right result and that semi had the wrong one.
But there have been many awesome ODIs. Nonetheless, I don't really think it's surprising that in this country there is far, far more memorable stuff in Test cricket. It says a fair bit - not least that there hasn't been a live ODI on terrestrial TV over here for 8 years. The last, you may be surprised to hear, was in fact that very WC99 semi-final.
theres biasm there,On the other hand, if you didn't watch it live and/or are not a fan of either side, no way can you judge the intensity and tension of the match.
I did and I am. It was truly mind-blowing.![]()
May have been now I think about it.Surely the 1999 final was shown too? I remember watching it, anyway.
Incedible to think that none of the subsequent games have been shown on terrestrial TV though.
Dire, wasn't it, and easily forgotten.May have been now I think about it.
What a shame if so! Wouldn't that semi just have been a better way to finish than that letdown.
Sorry, there is no way you know what I feel inclined to do. I did not say it was the best match.theres biasm there,
cos south africa won and a world record total was chased you feel inclined to point to that match
It was a good game, but since it had no effect on the semi-finals I don't think it will be rated that highly.
The Lanka game was pretty dull for a lot of it though. It was a more exciting finish, for the simple reason that it mattered whether we won or lost. If the Windies game had been live, it would be remembered as one of the great WC matches. As it is, it was just an exciting ODI.Indeed, I thought our Lanka game was far more of a thriller. Might have had a bit to do with the fact I was semi-delirious watching the WIndies game, and fully fit when watching the other.
Wonder whether Jamee would rate the Lanka game better if Ravi had connected with the last ball...