Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[brackenNY]

Aye, not sure what the shame in losing to two legitimate LOI teams is. They picked a shoking lineup, star players didn't turn up and were soundly beaten. Losing to Holland is a completely different level of embarrasing.

And yet England can still win this thing. I'll take more of that embarrassment, please.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Watch Australia have a cry and whinge and they will change the ranking format. Though by the time the next Twenty20 WC comes around most of sides should have played enough matches to have a proper ranking system.

Why are you presuming they'll actually care? They didn't show any great concern for the tournament itself.

 

[brackenNY]

Why are you presuming they'll actually care? They didn't show any great concern for the tournament itself.

Because they suck at it.

 

[social]

How many mistakes can Hilditch and the selection panel make before they are sacked? And to add salt to the wound, they are not even full time selectors, just as our Test and ODI players are not taking T20s seriously.

Unfortunately, there's every likelihood that Oz will win the Ashes quite easily and this debacle will be all but forgotten

 

[chaminda_00]

Why are you presuming they'll actually care? They didn't show any great concern for the tournament itself.

The players might not care. But pretty CA would, due to $$ they can get from this tournment.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If it means Aussies go home first round, it's how it should work

Wow, another.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because they suck at it.

Putting the cart before the horse I think. Which one are you by the way?

 

[Cruxdude]

Well they do care. Watching Ponting at the presentation showed how much they cared. Seemed close to tears. But I don't believe they will whinge and cry. They will look at the mirror accept they were crap and get ready for the next one. Wonder what consequences a lost Ashes would have.

 

[shivfan]

I don't think you can compare prowess at the 50 over format to that of the 20 over format.. 50 overs being long enough for a better side to establish themselves and you can build a valid judgement of a side on form in said format.. 20 overs to me is just too short to build a game, a couple of wayward overs and you're on the plane home, I don't think thats the way it should work..

It's a totally different game, and one that appeals to fans who like to see the possibility of an upset....

That's why the 50-overs competition can be so boring at times. An upset is very rare.

Let's face it - the 20/20 game is attracting a younger, new audience, that doesn't have the time to sit down and watch a game that lasts all day - or five days, for that matter!

 

[brackenNY]

Putting the cart before the horse I think. Which one are you by the way?

I don't get it?

 

[Smith]

Why are you presuming they'll actually care? They didn't show any great concern for the tournament itself.

Would be a poor excuse. And nothing that Ponting & Men did in the last 2 weeks suggested that they were in England for an early acclimatisation than participating in the T20. As four-or-six observed, Australia did consider this tournament seriously and did give their best, but the ones who gave were not the best really.

 

[Redbacks]

Possibly even Clarke would have gone if he'd been available for the full season. This would have proven extremely valuable imo.

Nah, he was on the campaign trail

 

[Smith]

It's a totally different game, and one that appeals to fans who like to see the possibility of an upset....

That's why the 50-overs competition can be so boring at times. An upset is very rare.

Let's face it - the 20/20 game is attracting a younger, new audience, that doesn't have the time to sit down and watch a game that lasts all day - or five days, for that matter!

I'd say ODIs have become boring and irrelevant and should be scrapped asap. This would solve the problems of player burnout while giving test cricket the window it needs.

 

[duffer]

Yeah but Cricket is a REALLY big sport in Australia. Rugby however for all the success we may have had, is only a really a minor sport (probably not much bigger than cricket is in Ireland or the Netherlands).

For this reason, we Aussies care alot more about the fortunes of our Cricket team in all competitions, wheras most couldn't give a stuff about the Rugby Sevens.

cheers

Maybe in Melbourne. Definitely not the case in Sydney and Brisbane.

 

[brackenNY]

It's a totally different game, and one that appeals to fans who like to see the possibility of an upset....

That's why the 50-overs competition can be so boring at times. An upset is very rare.

Let's face it - the 20/20 game is attracting a younger, new audience, that doesn't have the time to sit down and watch a game that lasts all day - or five days, for that matter!

This.

I just fear they will overdo Twenty20 like they did ODIs and make them lose their luster.

 

[social]

Would be a poor excuse. And nothing that Ponting & Men did in the last 2 weeks suggested that they were in England for an early acclimatisation than participating in the T20. As four-or-six observed, Australia did consider this tournament seriously and did give their best, but the ones who gave were not the best really.

Whilst there was definitely an argument to be made in 2007, saying Oz didnt care about this tournament is nothing more than a poor attempt at an excuse for losing and doesnt give credit where it's due - to WI and SL

Fact is that Oz picked the wrong team and were'nt good enough - END OF STORY

 

[Son Of Coco]

Would be a poor excuse. And nothing that Ponting & Men did in the last 2 weeks suggested that they were in England for an early acclimatisation than participating in the T20. As four-or-six observed, Australia did consider this tournament seriously and did give their best, but the ones who gave were not the best really.

That's true, but you have to wonder what their real purpose was when Ponting made the comments he did. If CA and the selectors were serious about this they would have sent the best Twenty20 team over. I don't know how they have been training in the lead up, so wouldn't know whether they've been using it as a chance at early acclimatisation or a serious build-up for the 20/20 WC.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Whilst there was definitely an argument to be made in 2007, saying Oz didnt care about this tournament is nothing more than a poor attempt at an excuse for losing and doesnt give credit where it's due - to WI and SL

Fact is that Oz picked the wrong team and were'nt good enough - END OF STORY

They were also beaten by two better teams. They took a strange approach to it though, not so much the players as the selectors.

 

[Smith]

Whilst there was definitely an argument to be made in 2007, saying Oz didnt care about this tournament is nothing more than a poor attempt at an excuse for losing and doesnt give credit where it's due - to WI and SL

Fact is that Oz picked the wrong team and were'nt good enough - END OF STORY

I don't think there is any disagreement between you and me on that, perhaps quoted the wrong post?

 

[Smith]

That's true, but you have to wonder what their real purpose was when Ponting made the comments he did. If CA and the selectors were serious about this they would have sent the best Twenty20 team over. I don't know how they have been training in the lead up, so wouldn't know whether they've been using it as a chance at early acclimatisation or a serious build-up for the 20/20 WC.

CA simply did not have a clue which was their best team. They sent in a team which they thought was Australia's best T20 team.