Not like that ever applied to Twenty20...Gilchrist
"We're here, 50 overs, and that's what we've got to do. In 20 overs, there's so much good fortune that needs to go your way. If you play 10 Twenty20s in a row, you can't put money on who's going to win because it's so variable. But in 50-over cricket, the better side will win more often than not. That's what we're striving to be."
Source : cricinfo
stop trying to be a dick just for the sake of it.Sree Santh is gonna be the next man to come and he is probably borrowing Sachin's bat for that.
To be fair, I think the guys who actually play the sport at the highest level have a better idea than some dweeb sitting at his computer desk.Not like that ever applied to Twenty20...
Somewhat amusing how some players still have no idea concerning Twenty20.
Nah not necessarily. Some guys who played at the highest level neglect to include Hobbs in an all time England XI or rate Allan Donald worse than Tim May. If you think players' perception of ODI's have not changed from when they first came on to now, you're crazy. It took a while for players to warm up to ODIs too.To be fair, I think the guys who actually play the sport at the highest level have a better idea than some dweeb sitting at his computer desk.
How wrong you are.To be fair, I think the guys who actually play the sport at the highest level have a better idea than some dweeb sitting at his computer desk.
Indeed, and silentstriker brought up some good points about why sideshowtim was wrong, so I don't think we'll need to get into it again.Seen/Done this debate at least 20 times in the last week - not doing so again, certainly not in this thread.
AWTA. I know from interviews with a number of Aussies in the 70s that they really didn't think much of ODIs in the early days, even at/ shortly after the 1st WC, they thought it was a bit of a side show and not important at all.Nah not necessarily. Some guys who played at the highest level neglect to include Hobbs in an all time England XI or rate Allan Donald worse than Tim May. If you think players' perception of ODI's have not changed from when they first came on to now, you're crazy. It took a while for players to warm up to ODIs too.
Sigh, on this specific occasion I don't think Gilly was having a dig at 20:20 as a format so much as having a dig at the Indian team and probably the media as well. Since they've arrived in India they've fielded non-stop questions about whether they're concerned that India beat them at the 20:20, and that India is now a world champion team, "just like" Australia. Look at his comments, all he's saying is that they won the 20:20 and that's great, but this is a separate series and India have gone 1-0 down and were lucky the first game was rained out. Other than that, all he has said is to express his enthusiasm for the current series, which would only be good manners I'd have thought.
Back up some of his talk? In what way? When did he ever say he was going to take it to the Aussies with the bat? He is yet to back up his talk. He said he aimed to take a 5 for at his home ground and he failed miserably and fairly got carted, picking up 2 late wickets when Symo and Hopes were going the tonk.Anyway, superb stuff from Sreesanth to last 25 balls and see Dhoni through to his 50. Courageous knock, showing he can back up some of his talk. If only he started performing with the ball.
I believe he's right though. As indicated by the two teams who made the final. India and Pakistan aren't among the two best cricket sides in the world. Australia are. And they only won half their Twenty20 games. Yet they won all their World Cup 07 games. 50 over cricket is a truer test of cricketing ability, and therefore the winner will be the overall better team more often than 20/20 cricket.
If you play 10 Twenty20s in a row, you can't put money on who's going to win because it's so variable. But in 50-over cricket, the better side will win more often than not.
That's certainly having a go at the format, tbh.