2004, it's over.

[marc71178]

'Mind the windows'...

I nearly put that in myself, possibly more for Flintoff's reaction afterwards - so much giggling!

 

[Richard]

And people wonder why I'm against this being introduced!

Because you place more emphasis on this tiny number of inclusivenesses and less on the number of times it could make a difference.

 

[Richard]

I noticed all the Cricinfo staff have said their best and worst of 2004, so I thought it might be interesting to see what everyone here thinks about it.

Wost:
David Hookes' death was a terrible, terrible individual tragedy on the scale of JFK or David Kelly.
The continued ICC and multi-Board refusal to accept that EVERYONE has a moral and political responsibility to fight the Mugabe regime is much more on the scale of the quake-tsunami thing (though still the number of victims compared to Mugabe in Zim is dwarfed).
What is the greater tragedy? All goes down to perception, really. Personally I'd say the Zimbabwe thing, but nonetheless Hookes' death was created national and planar-sport mourning.
From an English POV the TV-rights thing hasn't had any negatives yet but I can't help feeling it might in 2009.
Best:
From an English point-of-view the two best achievements were the win in PE and at Lord's against New Zealand. Most of the rest came pretty easy (and I don't mean there were no uncomfortable moments, but that the ascendency and superiority was there before the start).
From a Global point-of-view, it almost has to be West Indies' Champions Trophy win. Never before has a unilateral event had such a dramatic conclusion, and never before has such a good ODI side (West Indies' current one) been built with so few noticing.
Always great to see a good side emerging from basically nowhere.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm going to add the loss of the TV rights - felt incredible betrayal at that.

Also, I saw the Lara "out" on 0 multiple times on the big screen at my local before Chester v Exeter. No matter how much I wanted to believe it was out, it was never conclusive. So not out.

 

[Richard]

I'm going to add the loss of the TV rights - felt incredible betrayal at that.

Soon to mention that.
To everyone but you, Andre, James, Rich, Liam and Corey it'll appear that I never omitted it.

 

[bryce]

Admittedly I only saw him in the series against us, but he was in prime form then. I'm pretty certain he was the series' leading run-maker from either side.

Think he def jumped too early, what is he, only 33 or something?

yeah he was in prime form then, somehow prime form turned into a very lean run and he couldn't get back up to score much in bangladesh and australia

 

[dinu23]

best- finding out 99% of bowlers chucked.
worst- SL losing the world cup semi-final

 

[marc71178]

Because you place more emphasis on this tiny number of inclusivenesses and less on the number of times it could make a difference.

But it's only necessary in the tight ones, and thoe are the ones where it's not proven to be very accurate.

 

[marc71178]

Soon to mention that.
To everyone but you, Andre, James, Rich, Liam and Corey it'll appear that I never omitted it.

We can all see that it's been editted though.

 

[The Baconator]

Best - Warwickshire winning the CC, Andrew Strauss, 7 tests in a row and the CT

Worst - David Hookes' death, the whole Zimbabwe situation and the loss of terrestrial coverage

 

[biased indian]

Best - winning test series in pakistan

worst - rain spoiling the last days play at chennai

 

[Richard]

We can all see that it's been editted though.

Oh, of course - it had been edited before I put that in.

 

[Richard]

But it's only necessary in the tight ones, and thoe are the ones where it's not proven to be very accurate.

There are plenty of cases where it's added something where without it there would be doubt.
There are virtually no instances where it's inconclusive. For this, two things have to impact in the same frame.
Almost never happens.

 

[Richard]

best- finding out 99% of bowlers chucked.

Some might feel uneasy about it but personally I too found it a great moment in the game's history - finally the false illusions were shattered.

 

[Jamee999]

Wost:
David Hookes' death was a terrible, terrible individual tragedy on the scale of JFK or David Kelly.
The continued ICC and multi-Board refusal to accept that EVERYONE has a moral and political responsibility to fight the Mugabe regime is much more on the scale of the quake-tsunami thing (though still the number of victims compared to Mugabe in Zim is dwarfed).
What is the greater tragedy? All goes down to perception, really. Personally I'd say the Zimbabwe thing, but nonetheless Hookes' death was created national and planar-sport mourning.
From an English POV the TV-rights thing hasn't had any negatives yet but I can't help feeling it might in 2009.
Best:
From an English point-of-view the two best achievements were the win in PE and at Lord's against New Zealand. Most of the rest came pretty easy (and I don't mean there were no uncomfortable moments, but that the ascendency and superiority was there before the start).
From a Global point-of-view, it almost has to be West Indies' Champions Trophy win. Never before has a unilateral event had such a dramatic conclusion, and never before has such a good ODI side (West Indies' current one) been built with so few noticing.
Always great to see a good side emerging from basically nowhere.

Now I will pick out one fundemntal difference between Richard's mindset coming to post and everyone else's on the forum.

He has put Worst first then best last, and this describes Richard, he looks for the bad things in cricket as opposed to the good things hence first-chance averages; it takes skill to come back from a chance although lucky.
This isn't an attack just something I noticed.

 

[Neil Pickup]

best- finding out 99% of bowlers chucked.
worst- SL losing the world cup semi-final

We're talking 2004 here...

 

[Richard]

Now I will pick out one fundemntal difference between Richard's mindset coming to post and everyone else's on the forum.

He has put Worst first then best last, and this describes Richard, he looks for the bad things in cricket as opposed to the good things hence first-chance averages; it takes skill to come back from a chance although lucky.
This isn't an attack just something I noticed.

It was quite deliberate - I was wondering whether anyone would react like so. If I was le I'd mention rods and worms...
It also occurs to me that the worst of the year is far easier to pick-out than the best - there was a far more agreement on the worst than the best.
Due - in tiny part - to laziness, getting the easy stuff done first.
But no - I am different from many in that I don't look for the best in everything, I've always said that, it's one of my favourite things about myself. A more accurate surmisation would be that, while for almost everyone else best comes first, worst last, for me it's equal - they're both worth the same amount of attention.
First-chance-scores, meanwhile, are simply a way of being neat - avoiding the loose ends that forever dog cricket.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think Jamee deserves a spotter's badge for observation skills, though. He's only little.

 

[Richard]

I think he deserves a bite on my line.

 

[steds]

best - All of it! I just love cricket

Worst(of the best) - All the ****ing about in Zimbabwe
All the ****ing about over Muralis action
Lancashire being relegated